**DRAFT**

**ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT**

**FOR THE**

**GILBERTON COAL-TO-CLEAN FUELS**

**AND POWER PROJECT**

**GILBERTON, PENNSYLVANIA**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.192361111111111in"
height="2.201388888888889in"}

**November 2005**

**U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY**

**COVER SHEET November 2005**

**RESPONSIBLE AGENCY**

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

**TITLE**

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Gilberton Coal-to-Clean
Fuels and Power Project

**LOCATION**

Gilberton, Pennsylvania

**CONTACTS**

Additional copies or information concerning this draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) can be obtained from Ms. Janice L. Bell, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, U.S. Department of
Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 626 Cochrans Mill Road,
P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940. Telephone: 412-386-4512.
E‑mail: janice.bell@netl.doe.gov.

For general information on DOE's NEPA process, 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, or leave a toll-free message at
1‑800‑472-2756.

**ABSTRACT**

This EIS assesses the potential environmental impacts that would result
from a proposed DOE action to provide cost-shared funding for
construction and operation of facilities near Gilberton, Pennsylvania,
which have been proposed by WMPI PTY, LLC, for producing electricity,
steam, and liquid fuels from anthracite coal waste (culm). The project
has been selected by DOE under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) to
demonstrate the integration of coal waste gasification and
Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis of liquid hydrocarbon fuels at
commercial scale. The proposed facilities would use a gasifier to
convert coal waste to synthesis gas, which would be conveyed to F-T
liquefaction facilities for production of liquid fuels and to a
combined-cycle power plant. The power plant would use the synthesis gas
to drive a gas combustion turbine and exhaust gas from the gas turbine
to generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Both turbines
would generate electricity.

The EIS evaluates potential impacts of the proposed facilities on land
use, aesthetics, air quality, geology, water resources, floodplains,
wetlands, ecological resources, socioeconomic resources, waste
management, human health, and noise. The EIS also evaluates potential
impacts on these resource areas for a scenario resulting from the
no-action alternative (DOE would not provide cost-shared funding) in
which the proposed facilities would not be built or operated.

**PUBLIC PARTICIPATION**

DOE encourages public participation in the NEPA process. Comments are
invited on this draft EIS and should be received no later than 45 days
after publication of the Notice of Availability in the *Federal
Register*. DOE will consider late comments to the extent practicable.
Comments should be addressed to Ms. Janice L. Bell at the address
provided above. DOE will conduct two formal public hearings to receive
comments on the draft EIS. These meetings will be held at the Shenandoah
Valley Junior/Senior High School and the D.H.H. Lengel Middle School. An
informal session will be held prior to each meeting for the public to
learn more about the proposed project. Meetings dates and times will be
published in a separate *Federal Register* notice.

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF TABLES ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xi

GLOSSARY xiii

SUMMARY xvii

1\. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE AGENCY ACTION 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.2 CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE 1-1

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION 1-3

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-3

1.4.1 DOE's Need 1-4

1.4.2 WMPI's Need 1-5

1.5 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT STRATEGY 1-5

1.6 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1-7

1.7 APPROACHES AND ASSUMPTIONS 1-9

2\. THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 2-1

2.1.1 Project Location and Background 2-1

2.1.2 Technology and Project Description 2-2

> 2.1.2.1 Gasification Technology 2-4
>
> 2.1.2.2 Fischer-Tropsch Technology 2-7
>
> 2.1.2.3 Combined-Cycle Power Plant 2-8

2.1.3 Construction Plans 2-8

2.1.4 Operational Plans 2-9

2.1.5 Resource Requirements 2-9

2.1.5.1 Land Area Requirements 2-9

> 2.1.5.2 Water Requirements 2-12

2.1.5.3 Fuel and Other Material Requirements 2-14

2.1.6 Outputs, Discharges, and Wastes 2-15

> 2.1.6.1 Air Emissions 2-15
>
> 2.1.6.2 Liquid Discharges 2-15
>
> 2.1.6.3 Solid Wastes 2-16
>
> 2.1.6.4 Toxic and Hazardous Materials 2-18

2.2 ALTERNATIVES 2-18

2.2.1 No-Action Alternative 2-19

2.2.2 Alternatives Dismissed from Further Consideration 2-23

2.2.2.1 Alternative Sites 2-24

2.2.2.2 Alternative Technologies 2-24

2.2.2.3 Other Alternatives 2-24

[3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT](#__RefHeading___Toc99784829) 3-1

[3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION, LAND USE, AND
AESTHETICS](#__RefHeading___Toc99784830) 3-1

[3.1.1 Site of the Proposed Facilities](#__RefHeading___Toc99784831) 3-1

[3.1.2 Land Use](#__RefHeading___Toc99784832) 3-1

[3.1.3 Aesthetics](#__RefHeading___Toc99784833) 3-1

[3.2 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784834)2

[3.2.1 Climate](#__RefHeading___Toc99784835) 3-2

[3.2.2 Air Quality 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784836)3

[3.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784837)5

[3.3.1 Physiography 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784838)5

[3.3.2 Stratigraphy and Structure 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784839)6

[3.3.3 Mineral Resources 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784840)6

[3.3.4 Soils 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784841)8

[3.3.5 Geologic Hazards 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784842)9

3.3.5.1 Mines 3-9

3.3.5.2 Seismic Activity 3-9

[3.4 WATER RESOURCES 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784843)10

[3.4.1 Surface Water 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784844)10

[3.4.2 Groundwater 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784845)12

[3.4.3 Mine Pool 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784846)14

[3.4.4 Water Supply 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784847)16

[3.5 FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784848)18

[3.5.1 Floodplains 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784849)18

[3.5.2 Wetlands 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784850)18

[3.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784851)18

[3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784852)18

[3.6.2 Aquatic Ecology 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784853)20

[3.6.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784854)20

[3.6.4 Biodiversity 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784855)21

[3.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784856)21

[3.7.1 Population 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784857)21

[3.7.2 Employment and Income 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784858)22

[3.7.3 Housing 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784859)23

[3.7.4 Water and Wastewater Services 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784860)24

[3.7.5 Public Services 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784863)25

3.7.5.1 Police Protection 3-25

3.7.5.2 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services 3-25

3.7.5.3 Schools 3-26

3.7.5.4 Health Care 3-26

[3.7.6 Local Government Revenues 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784861)26

[3.7.7 Environmental Justice 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784862)27

[3.7.8 Transportation 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784863)28

3.7.8.1 Roads 3-28

3.7.8.2 Railways 3-28

[3.7.9 Cultural Resources 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784864)28

[3.8 WASTE MANAGEMENT 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784865)29

[3.9 Human Health 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784866)30

[3.9.1 Air Quality and Public Health 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784867)30

[3.9.2 Electromagnetic Fields 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784868)31

[3.9.3 Worker Health and Safety 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784868)33

[3.10 Noise 3-](#__RefHeading___Toc99784869)34

[4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES](#__RefHeading___Toc99787110) 4-1

[4.1 PROPOSED ACTION](#__RefHeading___Toc99787111) 4-1

[4.1.1 Land Use and Aesthetics](#__RefHeading___Toc99787112) 4-1

4.1.1.1 Land Use 4-1

4.1.1.2 Aesthetics 4-1

[4.1.2 Atmospheric Resources and Air
Quality](#__RefHeading___Toc99787113) 4-2

4.1.2.1 Construction 4-2

4.1.2.2 Operation 4-5

[4.1.3 Geology and Soils](#__RefHeading___Toc99787114) 4-12

4.1.3.1 Mineral Resources 4-12

4.1.3.2 Soils 4-13

4.1.3.3 Geologic Hazards 4-13

[4.1.4 Water Resources](#__RefHeading___Toc99787115) 4-14

4.1.4.1 Surface Water and Mine Pool 4-14

4.1.4.2 Groundwater 4-16

[4.1.5 Floodplains and Wetlands](#__RefHeading___Toc99787116) 4-17

4.1.5.1 Floodplains 4-17

4.1.5.2 Wetlands 4-18

[4.1.6 Ecological Resources](#__RefHeading___Toc99787117) 4-18

4.1.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology 4-18

4.1.6.2 Aquatic Ecology 4-20

4.1.6.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 4-21

4.1.6.4 Biodiversity 4-21

[4.1.7 Social and Economic Resources](#__RefHeading___Toc99787118) 4-21

4.1.7.1 Population 4-22

4.1.7.2 Employment and Income 4-23

4.1.7.3 Housing 4-24

4.1.7.4 Water and Wastewater Services 4-24

4.1.7.5 Public Services 4-24

4.1.7.6 Local Government Revenues 4-25

4.1.7.7 Environmental Justice 4-26

4.1.7.8 Transportation 4.26

4.1.7.9 Cultural Resources 4-28

[4.1.8 Waste Management](#__RefHeading___Toc99787119) 4-28

4.1.8.1 Construction 4-28

4.1.8.2 Operation 4-29

[4.1.9 Human Health and Safety](#__RefHeading___Toc99787120) 4-34

4.1.9.1 Public Health 4-34

4.1.9.2 Electromagnetic Fields 4-35

> 4.1.9.3 Worker Health and Safety 4-35

4.1.10 Noise 4-36

4.2 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4-38

[4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NO ACTION](#__RefHeading___Toc99787121)
4-38

5\. IMPACTS OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION 5-1

6\. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 6-1

7\. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 7-1

7.1 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS 7-1

7.2 STATE REQUIREMENTS 7-5

7.3 LOCAL REQUIREMENTS 7-6

8\. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 8-1

9\. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 9-1

10\. REFERENCES 10-1

11\. LIST OF PREPARERS 11-1

12\. LIST OF AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED 12-1

APPENDIX A CONSULTATION LETTER UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT A-1

APPENDIX B CONSULTATION LETTER UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT B-1

APPENDIX C ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT C-1

**LIST OF FIGURES**

2.1.1 General location of proposed facilities . 2-2

2.1.2 Location of proposed main plant and ancillary facilities . 2-3

2.1.3 A generalized diagram of the technologies integrated into the
proposed facilities . 2-4

2.1.4 Simplified schematic that identifies inputs and outputs associated
with major

system components of the proposed project . 2-5

2.1.5 Preliminary layout of proposed main plant 2-11

3.1.1 Power plants in the region of the proposed facilities 3-2

3.3.1 Anthracite coal production in Pennsylvania, 1983-2002 3-8

3.4.1 Mahanoy Creek watershed 3-11

3.9.1 Rates of death by cause in Pennsylvania, and Schuylkill and
surrounding counties 3-32

3.10.1 Proposed project site noise measurement locations 3-35

**LIST OF TABLES**

S.1 Comparison of key potential impacts between the proposed facilities

and the no-action alternative xxix

1.6.1 Issues identified for consideration in the environmental impact
statement 1-8

2.1.1 Anticipated operating characteristics of the proposed facilities
2-10

2.1.2 Water balance for the proposed facilities 2-13

2.1.3 Analysis of the composition of anthracite culm and petroleum coke
expected

to be received at the proposed facilities 2-14

2.1.4 Expected characteristics of coarse slag and fine solids generated
by the

proposed facilities 2-17

2.2.1 Comparison of key potential impacts between the proposed
facilities

and the no-action alternative 2-20

3.2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria
pollutants 3-4

3.2.2 Allowable increments for Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)

of air quality 3-5

3.4.1 Water quality data for Mahanoy Creek near Gilberton 3-13

3.4.2 Chemical analysis of Gilberton mine pool water 3-16

3.7.1 Population data for Schuylkill County and selected communities
3-22

3.7.2 Employment and income data for Schuylkill County in 2000 3-22

3.7.3 Employment by industry or economic sector in Schuylkill County in
2001 3-23

3.7.4 Housing data for Schuylkill County and selected communities in
2000 3-24

3.7.5 Environmental justice data for the United States, Pennsylvania,
Schuylkill County,

and the nine census tracts within 3 miles of the proposed facilities
3-27

3.9.1 Hospitalization rates for pediatric asthma in Pennsylvania
(1997--2001)

and the United States (2001) 3-31

3.9.2 Number of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses in the
United States (2003) 3-33

3.9.3 Number of fatal occupational injuries (2003) 3-33

4.1.1 Maximum predicted air pollutant concentrations from proposed
project operations

compared to significant impact levels 4-7

4.1.2 Chemical analysis of Gilberton Power Plant coal ash and Synthetic
Precipitation

Leaching Procedure (SPLP) leachate 4-31

4.2.1 Pollution prevention and mitigation measures developed for the
proposed facilities 4-39

Number range CHAPTER**ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS**

ADT average daily traffic

amsl above mean sea level

BMP best management practices

Btu British thermal unit

°C degrees Celsius

CCPI Clean Coal Power Initiative

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR *Code of Federal Regulations*

cm centimeter

CO carbon monoxide

CO~2~ carbon dioxide

dB decibel

dB(A) decibels as measured on the A-weighted scale

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EIS environmental impact statement

EMF electromagnetic fields

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

*FR Federal Register*

F-T Fischer-Tropsch

ft feet

ft^3^ cubic feet

g acceleration of gravity

gal gallon

gpm gallons per minute

H~2~ hydrogen gas

H~2~O water

H~2~S hydrogen sulfide

HRSG heat recovery steam generator

in. inch

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISCST Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (an air dispersion model)

kg kilogram

L liter

lb pound

m^3^ cubic meter

µg microgram

µm micrometer

µS microsiemens

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

mg milligram

mgd million gallons per day

MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

mV millivolt

MW megawatt

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NEPaA Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NO~2~ nitrogen dioxide

NO~x~ oxides of nitrogen

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRC National Research Council

NSC National Safety Council

O~3~ ozone

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Pb lead

PDC Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

PDCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

PDEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PDLI Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry

PDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PFBC Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

PGC Pennsylvania Game Commission

pH hydrogen-ion concentration notation

PM particulate matter

PM-2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter

PM-10 particulate matter less than 10 µm in aerodynamic diameter

PNDI Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory

ppm parts per million

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

R&D research and development

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

s second

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation

SCREEN3 a screening air dispersion model

SEDCO Schuylkill Economic Development Corporation

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SO~2~ sulfur dioxide

SPCCP spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan

SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure

SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission

U.S. United States

USC *United States Code*

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound

yd^3^ cubic yard

**GLOSSARY**

**Aerodynamic diameter**---a term used to describe particles with common
aerodynamic properties, which avoids the complications associated with
varying particle sizes, shapes, and densities. For example, PM-10 is
defined in 40 CFR 50 as consisting of particles 10 micrometers or less
in aerodynamic diameter, meaning particles that behave aerodynamically
like spherical particles of unit density (1 gram per cubic centimeter)
having diameters of 10 micrometers or less.

**Air dispersion model**---computer program that incorporates a series
of mathematical equations used to predict downwind concentrations in the
ambient air resulting from emissions of a pollutant. Inputs to a
dispersion model include the emission rate; characteristics of the
emission release such as stack height, exhaust temperature, and flow
rate; and atmospheric dispersion parameters such as wind speed and
direction, air temperature, atmospheric stability, and height of the
mixed layer.

**Anthracite**---the hardest type of coal, characteristically black in
color, lustrous, with a conchoidal fracture (smoothly curved, irregular
breakage surface). Anthracite coal consists of 92‑98% carbon and less
than 8% volatile constituents by weight.

**Anticline**---a geologic fold that is arch-like in form, with rock
layers dipping outward from both sides of the axis, and older rocks in
the core. The opposite of syncline.

**Aquifer**---a body of rock or sediment that is capable of transmitting
groundwater and yielding usable quantities of water to wells or springs.

**Artesian**---groundwater conditions in which water in wells rises
above its level in the aquifer, including conditions in which
groundwater rises to the ground surface or above.

**Ash**---the mineral content of a product remaining after complete
combustion.

**Baghouse**---an air pollution control device that filters particulate
emissions, consisting of a bank of bags that function like the bag of a
vacuum cleaner; the bags intercept particles that are mostly larger than
10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter.

**Beneficiation**---the process of washing or otherwise cleaning coal to
increase the energy content by reducing the ash content.

**Biocide**---a substance (e.g., chlorine) that is toxic or lethal to
many organisms and is used to treat water.

**Blowdown**---the portion of steam or water removed from a boiler at
regular intervals to prevent excessive accumulation of dissolved and
suspended materials.

**Bottom ash---**combustion residue composed of large particles that
settle to the bottom of a combustor from where they can be physically
removed.

**Building downwash**---the downward movement of an elevated plume
toward the area of low pressure created on the lee side of a structure
in the wake around which the air flows.

**Capacity factor**---the percentage of energy output during a period of
time compared to the energy that would have been produced if the
equipment operated at its maximum power throughout the period.

**Census tract**---a small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision
of a county.

**Coal gasification**---a process that converts coal into a gaseous
product, which involves crushing coal into a powder and heating the
powder in the presence of steam and oxygen. After impurities (e.g.,
sulfur) are removed, the gas can be used as a fuel or further processed
and concentrated into a chemical or liquid fuel.

**Combustor**---equipment in which coal or other fuel is burned at high
temperatures.

**Cooling water**---water that is heated as a result of being used to
cool steam and condense it to water.

**Culm**---coal waste that consists of rock and coal with varying
amounts of carbon material remaining after removal of higher-quality
saleable coal.

**Culm bank**---a pile or other deposit of culm on the land surface.

**Evapotranspiration**---the amount of water removed from a land area by
the combination of direct evaporation and plant transpiration.

**Fault**---a fracture or fracture zone in rock along which the sides
have been displaced vertically or horizontally relative to one another.

**Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis**---a process that uses a
metal-containing catalyst to convert a mixture of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen (known as synthesis gas) into a mixture of carbon dioxide,
water, and aliphatic compounds (hydrocarbons lacking an arrangement of
atoms in their molecular structure), which are used to produce liquid
fuels.

**Floodplain**---the strip of relatively level land adjacent to a river
channel that becomes covered with water if the river overflows its
banks.

**Flue gas**---residual gases after combustion that are vented to the
atmosphere through a flue or chimney.

**Flux**---a material (e.g., limestone) that is added to a substance to
lower the melting temperature of the substance and promote fluidity.

**Fly ash**---combustion residue composed of fine particles (e.g., soot)
that are entrained with the draft leaving the combustor.

**Formation**---the primary unit associated with formal geological
mapping of an area. Formations possess distinctive geological features
and can be combined into "groups" or subdivided into "members."

**Gaussian**---concentrations of pollutants downwind of a source are
assumed to form a normal distribution (i.e., bell-shaped curve) from the
centerline of the plume in the vertical and lateral directions.

**Groundwater**---water below the ground surface in a zone of
saturation.

**Hazardous waste**---a category of waste regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). To be considered hazardous, a
waste must be a solid waste under RCRA and must exhibit at least one of
four characteristics described in 40 CFR 261.20 through 40 CFR 261.24
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity) or be
specifically listed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR
261.31 through 40 CFR 261.33.

**Integrated gasification combined‑cycle**---a process that uses
synthesis gas derived from coal to drive a gas combustion turbine and
exhaust gas from the gas turbine to generate steam from water to drive a
steam turbine.

**Laydown area**---material and equipment storage area during the
construction phase of a project.

**Leachate**---solution or product obtained by leaching, in which a
substance is dissolved by the action of a percolating liquid.

**Liquefaction**---the process of transforming a gas into a liquid.

**Magnitude (of an earthquake)** ---a quantity that is characteristic of
the total energy released by an earthquake. Magnitude is determined by
taking the common logarithm of the largest ground motion recorded on a
seismograph during the arrival of a seismic wave type and applying a
standard correction factor for distance to the epicenter. A one-unit
increase in magnitude (e.g., from magnitude 6 to magnitude 7) represents
a 30‑fold increase in the amount of energy released.

**Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)** ---the maximum concentration
of a substance in drinking water at which there is no known or
anticipated adverse effect on human health, and which allows an adequate
margin of safety, as determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

**Petroleum coke**---a high-sulfur, high-energy product having the
appearance of coal, which is produced by oil refineries by heating and
removing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the residue remaining
after the refining process.

**pH**---a measure of the relative acidity or alkalinity of a solution,
expressed on a scale from 0 to 14, with the neutral point at 7. Acid
solutions have pH values lower than 7, and basic (i.e., alkaline)
solutions have pH values higher than 7.

**Plume (atmospheric)**---a visible or measurable, elongated pattern of
emissions spreading downwind from a source through the atmosphere.

**Safe yield**---the maximum quantity of water that can be withdrawn
continuously from a surface water or groundwater source during a 50-year
(or greater) drought without ultimate depletion of the source
(considering intrusion of undesirable-quality water, interference with
other existing water sources, downstream flow requirements, and other
factors).

**Secondary drinking water standards**---non‑enforceable federal
guidelines regarding cosmetic effects (e.g., tooth or skin
discoloration) or aesthetic effects (e.g., taste, odor, or color) of
drinking water.

**Selective catalytic reduction**---a system to reduce NO*~x~* emissions
by injecting a reagent such as ammonia into exhaust gas to convert
NO*~x~* emissions to nitrogen gas and water via a chemical reduction
reaction.

**Slag**---molten inorganic material collected at the bottom of a
combustor and discharged into a water-filled compartment where it is
quenched and removed as glassy particles resembling sand.

**Sludge**---a semi-solid residue containing a mixture of solid waste
material and water from air or water treatment processes.

**Slurry**---a watery mixture or suspension of fine solids, not thick
enough to consolidate as a sludge.

**Specific yield**---the volume of water released from storage in a unit
area of an unconfined aquifer per unit decline in the water table.
Values are dimensionless (corresponding, for example, to cubic feet of
water per square foot of aquifer per foot of water table decline) and
typically are between 0.01 and 0.3. In physical terms, the specific
yield can be understood as the fraction of the aquifer volume that
consists of drainable void space.

**Spring**---a location on the land surface or the bed of a surface
water body where groundwater emerges from rock or soil without
artificial assistance.

**Syncline**---a geologic fold in which the rock layers dip inward from
both sides toward the axis, with younger rocks in the core. The opposite
of anticline.

**Synthesis gas**---a mixture of gases produced as feedstock, especially
as a fuel produced by controlled combustion of coal in the presence of
water vapor.

**Tailings pond**---an outside water-filled enclosure that receives
discharges of wastewater containing solid residues from processing of
minerals. The solid residues settle due to gravity and separate from the
water.

**Wetlands**---areas that are inundated by surface water or groundwater
with a frequency sufficient to support, under normal circumstances, a
prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or
seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, wet
meadows, river overflow areas, mudflats, and natural ponds.

**SUMMARY**

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended (42 USC 4321
et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing
NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part
1021). The EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated
with the construction and operation of facilities near Gilberton,
Pennsylvania, which have been proposed by WMPI PTY, LLC, for producing
electricity, steam, and liquid fuels from anthracite coal waste (culm).
The project has been selected by DOE under the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) to demonstrate the integration of coal waste
gasification and Fischer-Tropsch (F‑T) synthesis of liquid hydrocarbon
fuels at commercial scale. The CCPI Program accelerates commercial
deployment of advanced coal-based technologies for generating clean,
reliable, and affordable electricity in the United States by moving
promising technologies from research and development (R&D) to the
commercial marketplace through demonstration.

The EIS will be used by DOE in making a decision on whether or not to
provide approximately \$100 million (about 16% of the total cost of
approximately \$612 million) in cost-shared funding to design,
construct, and demonstrate the technologies proposed by WMPI PTY, LLC,
at the proposed facilities. The proposed action is for DOE to provide
the cost-shared funding. DOE determined that providing cost-shared
funding for the proposed project would constitute a major federal action
that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, DOE has prepared this EIS to assess the potential impacts on
the human and natural environment of the proposed action and reasonable
alternatives. 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. If a loan guarantee is provided, DOE's
contribution of approximately \$100 million to the project would likely
be reduced.

The proposed facilities would use a gasifier to convert coal waste to
synthesis gas, which would be conveyed to F-T liquefaction facilities
for production of liquid fuels and to a combined-cycle power plant. The
power plant would use the synthesis gas to drive a gas combustion
turbine and exhaust gas from the gas turbine to generate steam from
water to drive a steam turbine. Both turbines would generate
electricity. For coal gasification, the project would use Shell
technology, which has operated commercially using coal feedstock in the
Netherlands since the 1990s. For liquefaction, the SASOL F-T technology
would be used, which has operated commercially in South Africa since the
1980s.

The purpose of the proposed project is to generate technical,
environmental, and financial data from the design, construction, and
operation of the integrated technologies at a sufficiently large scale
to allow industries and utilities to assess the project's potential for
commercial application. While the individual technologies have been
independently operated, this project would demonstrate the integration
of the technologies, which may ultimately help to reduce U.S. dependence
on imported oil.

The site for the proposed project is located adjacent to the existing
Gilberton Power Plant in Schuylkill County in eastern Pennsylvania. The
area is primarily rural with a mixture of industrial, commercial, and
residential land use in the vicinity. The site is about 1 mile north of
Interstate 81. The city of Pottsville is located about 8 miles to the
south of the site. The main plant for the proposed project would occupy
about 75 acres of nearly level WMPI-owned land on top of Broad Mountain.
The land is currently an undisturbed forested area.

Construction of the proposed facilities would begin in early 2006 and
continue until mid 2008. An average of 516 construction workers would be
at the site during the construction period; approximately 1,000 workers
would be required during the peak construction period. Demonstration
(including performance testing and monitoring) would be conducted over a
3-year period from mid 2008 until mid 2011. If the demonstration is
successful, commercial operation would follow immediately. About 250
workers would be required during the demonstration, and 150 workers
would be needed for long-term operations. The facilities would be
designed for a lifetime of 26 years.

The primary feedstock for the proposed facilities would be low-cost
anthracite culm, which is a locally abundant, previously discarded
resource (about 100 million tons) that could accommodate fuel
requirements throughout the lifetime of the facilities. The culm would
be trucked to the site from the surrounding local area. The proposed
facilities would also be capable of using a blend of feedstock
containing up to 25% petroleum coke, although no petroleum coke would be
used during the demonstration period and its use during commercial
operation following the demonstration period is uncertain. Micronized
limestone, which would be used as a flux added to the feedstock to lower
the ash melting temperature of the culm and promote fluidity, would be
trucked from mines within 100 miles of the project site.

The facilities would produce about 5,000 barrels of liquid fuels per day
and 41 MW of electricity for export to the regional power grid. To
reduce costs, the project would take advantage of existing local
infrastructure, including rail, water, and transmission lines. The net
efficiency would be about 45%, compared to an efficiency of about 33%
for a traditional coal-fired power plant and about 40% for a
state-of-the-art integrated gasification combined‑cycle power plant.

Proposed emissions from the facilities would be small, especially for
sulfur dioxide (SO~2~), because most of the sulfur would be removed from
the synthesis gas prior to conveying the gas to the F-T liquefaction
facilities and the combined‑cycle power plant. The use of anthracite
culm would reduce waste disposal from operating mines and allow
reclamation of land currently stockpiled with culm.

The EIS considers the proposed action (funding the demonstration) and
the no-action alternative (not funding the demonstration), including a
scenario reasonably expected to result as a consequence of the no-action
alternative. Other alternatives to the proposed action have been
examined and found not to be reasonable alternatives under NEPA. No
other sites to host the proposed project were seriously considered by
WMPI PTY, LLC and its project partners. The geographical area considered
for the proposed site was limited by the economic and environmental
advantages resulting from using nearby piles of anthracite culm as
feedstock for the proposed facilities. Other technologies have been
dismissed as not reasonable. Other CCPI projects were selected to
demonstrate other coal-based technologies. The use of other technologies
and approaches that are not applicable to coal (e.g., natural gas, wind
power, solar energy, and conservation) would not contribute to the CCPI
Program goal of accelerating commercial deployment of advanced
coal-based technologies. Other alternatives, such as delaying or
reducing the size of the proposed project, have been dismissed as not
reasonable. Delaying the project would not result in any change of
environmental impacts once the project were implemented but would
adversely delay reductions in waste disposal from operating mines, delay
reclamation of land currently stockpiled with culm, and adversely affect
the CCPI Program goal. The design size for the proposed project was
selected because it is sufficiently large to show potential customers
that the integrated technologies, once demonstrated at this scale, could
be applied commercially without further scale-up.

Potential impacts that could result from construction and operation of
the proposed facilities, as well as potential impacts resulting from the
scenario under the no-action alternative, were evaluated in the areas of
land use, aesthetics, air quality, geology, water resources,
floodplains, wetlands, ecological resources, socioeconomic resources,
waste management, human health, and noise. The following sections
provide key findings for areas of potential concern related to
construction and operation of the proposed facilities.

**Potential Impacts**

**Land Use and Aesthetics.** The proposed main plant would be confined
to the area between the existing Gilberton Power Plant and the Mahanoy
State Correctional Institution, and thus would not affect offsite land
use. The ancillary facilities would not affect offsite land use due to
their small size (i.e., a few acres) and location adjacent to ancillary
facilities for the Gilberton Power Plant. Over the 26-year operating
life of the proposed facilities, approximately 1,000 acres of land would
be reclaimed after culm removal to provide feedstock for the facilities.

Five 200-ft stacks and one 300-ft stack would be constructed as part of
the proposed facilities. The five 200-ft stacks would be considerably
shorter than the existing 326-ft stack at the adjacent Gilberton Power
Plant, and the 300-ft stack would be slightly shorter. The new gasifier
and turbine buildings would be similar in size to the existing power
plant buildings. Because the visual landscape of the area is already
conspicuously marked with industrial structures, the proposed facilities
would not alter the industrial appearance of the site and, accordingly,
would not degrade the aesthetic character of the area.

**Air Quality.** Emissions of air pollutants would be discharged
primarily from the five new 200‑ft stacks located in the main plant area
of the proposed facilities. A computer-based air dispersion model was
used to estimate maximum increases in ground-level concentrations of
SO~2~, nitrogen dioxide (NO~2~), particulate matter less than or equal
to 10 μm in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10), and carbon monoxide (CO) that
would occur at any location as a result of emissions from the stacks. In
this analysis, the significance of the maximum predicted concentrations
was evaluated using "significant impact levels" (a form of ambient air
quality standards, as described below). According to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, a preliminary modeling analysis
using significant impact levels should include only the emissions
associated with the proposed facilities to determine if the facilities
would have a significant impact on ambient air quality. If the maximum
predicted concentrations are less than the significant impact levels,
additional modeling, including other sources and background
concentrations, is not required.

Initial results indicated that maximum concentrations were predicted to
be less than their corresponding significant impact levels, with the
exception of the annual NO~2~ concentration, which had a value of
1.1 μg/m^3^ versus a significant impact level of 1 μg/m^3^. However,
oxides of nitrogen (NO~x~) emissions from the proposed facilities would
be composed of both NO~2~ emissions and nitric oxide (NO) emissions.
Because not all NO emissions would convert to NO~2~ in the atmosphere,
the analysis was refined by relaxing the initial conservative assumption
that all NO~x~ emissions would be in the form of NO~2~. The revised
maximum annual NO~2~ concentration was predicted to be 0.8 μg/m^3^,
which was less than the significant impact level of 1 μg/m^3^ for NO~2.~
Therefore, additional modeling, including other sources and background
concentrations, was not required for any of the pollutants. Due to the
conservative assumptions used in the analysis, actual degradation of air
quality should be even less than the small amounts predicted.

Maximum concentrations for all pollutants were predicted to occur at the
same location, on top of Locust Mountain, slightly over 3 miles north of
the main plant area. Concentrations would be negligible at the nearest
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I area (Brigantine
Wilderness Area), about 130 miles to the southeast in New Jersey.
Dispersion of pollutants at that distance would reduce atmospheric
concentrations to a small fraction of the maximum modeled
concentrations, which were predicted to be less than PSD Class I
increments (standards) at the location of their maximum impact (i.e., on
top of Locust Mountain).

Ozone (O~3~) is not emitted directly from a combustion source, but is
formed from photochemical reactions involving emitted volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and NO~x~. Stack VOC emissions from the proposed
facilities would be less than 0.4% of Schuylkill County's VOC emissions
inventory. Stack NO*~x~* emissions would be less than 1% of the county's
NO~x~ emissions inventory. Because the nearest O~3~ monitoring station
is located in Reading, about 35 miles south-southeast of Gilberton,
existing ambient O~3~ concentrations in the area are uncertain. The
small percentage increases in VOC and NO~x~ emissions would not be
likely to degrade local or regional air quality sufficiently to cause
violations in the O~3~ standards, but the magnitude of the degradation
cannot be quantified.

Regarding hazardous air pollutants, the synthesis gas would be cleaned
extensively by wet scrubbing followed by acid gas removal using a
Rectisol unit, prior to sending the gas to the F‑T synthesis facilities
and the combined‑cycle power plant. As a result, a high percentage of
hazardous air pollutants and trace elements in the synthesis gas would
be removed, but no quantitative estimates of the proposed facilities'
emissions of these pollutants are currently available. However, the air
permit for the proposed facilities establishes maximum allowable limits
for total facility emissions of less than 10 tons for any single
hazardous air pollutant and less than 25 tons altogether for any
combination of hazardous air pollutants during any consecutive 12-month
rolling period. The permitted limits function as a cap to ensure that
the proposed facilities would be a minor new source of hazardous air
pollutants under applicable regulations.

During the scoping process, local residents expressed concern about the
potential for odorous emissions of hydrogen sulfide (H~2~S). For the
proposed facilities, nearly complete H~2~S removal from the shifted
synthesis gas, occurring in the acid gas removal plant using a Rectisol
unit, would be required by the downstream F‑T synthesis process.
Remaining concentrations would be as low as 1 to 5 ppm. The captured
H~2~S would be converted to marketable elemental sulfur in a Claus
sulfur recovery unit, a process which should remove approximately 99.99%
of the sulfur from the recovered acid gas stream. Thus, odorous
emissions of H~2~S should not be perceptible.

During the scoping process, local residents also expressed concern about
the possibility of emissions from the proposed facilities creating
safety issues, such as emissions from the new bank of
12 mechanical-draft cooling towers generating fog that would affect
Interstate 81. During occasional meteorological conditions when the
atmosphere is nearly saturated, winds are light, and mixing is very low
(i.e., during some early morning hours), condensation of water vapor
from the cooling towers is possible, which would appear in the form of a
cooling tower plume and/or fog. The fog would probably not affect
Interstate 81, due to the distance from the proposed site. No fog
resulting from existing Gilberton Power Plant operations has been
observed on Interstate 81. However, upon initial operation of the
proposed facilities, conditions at the interstate would be monitored
and, if warranted, flashing lights would be installed to warn motorists
of fog.

The proposed facilities would increase global CO~2~ emissions by about
832,000 tons per year, which is about 0.003% of global CO~2~ emissions
resulting from fossil fuel combustion. Thus, increases from the proposed
facilities would be large in terms of number of tons per year but small
in comparison to global totals.

**Geology.** Because the proposed main plant would be built over rock
units that do not contain coal, the plant would not be affected by
subsidence from mining activities. Subsidence could, however, affect
product transfer lines and related facilities in the valley of Mahanoy
Creek. Abrupt subsidence could rupture product transfer lines and
release liquid fuels into the environment. Environmental consequences of
such an event would be similar to those from collision and rupture of a
gasoline truck, potentially including fire, explosion, and release of a
toxic material into surface waters and soils. Gradual subsidence also
could damage product lines and cause leakage, with similar but smaller
impacts. The possibility of abrupt subsidence has decreased over time
following the closure of underground mines, and will continue to
decrease in the future. The potential risks of product line leakage due
to gradual subsidence would be reduced by inspecting product lines
regularly and repairing any problems.

**Water Resources.** During construction, water quality could be
affected by stormwater runoff from construction sites. Standard
engineering practices such as silt fencing, straw bales, revegetation of
graded areas, and stormwater detention basins would be implemented to
control runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. If runoff from the site
drained to old strip mining pits on the north or south slopes of Broad
Mountain, any sediments would settle out in the pits before the
remaining water would seep to the underlying mine pools. If runoff were
directed toward tributaries of Mill Creek, it would be routed through
detention basins in which sediments would settle out before the water
would be released to a stream. Impacts attributable to
construction-related runoff would be minimal.

Construction and operation of the proposed facilities would not change
groundwater use on Broad Mountain, but the facilities would increase the
area of impervious surface. Water that previously would infiltrate the
soil to enter the groundwater under Broad Mountain would instead become
stormwater runoff and would be discharged to streams or strip mining
pits, thus reducing groundwater recharge to the aquifers on Broad
Mountain. Estimated recharge within a 1,000-ft radius of the Morea well
should remain sufficient to meet the needs of the Morea water system.
The wells serving the Gilberton Power Plant are closer to the proposed
main plant site than the Morea well is to the main plant site, and thus
would be more likely to experience any impacts from reduced recharge. If
the water supply were affected, the facilities' owners would address the
situation by establishing a connection with one of the public water
suppliers. Because other wells in the area are farther from the proposed
facilities than the Morea well is from the proposed facilities, they
should not be affected by reduced recharge.

Operation of the proposed facilities would reduce the water volume in
the Gilberton mine pool and the volume of water needed to be pumped from
the mine pool and discharged to Mahanoy Creek in order to prevent
flooding. These changes would result in reduced stream flow in the
creek. However, the creek would not go dry from receiving less mine pool
water because the creek's minimum flows would be maintained by
continuous discharges from mine openings in upstream portions of the
watershed. Because the stream is not a source of water supply due to
poor water quality, reduced flow would not affect water availability.

Discharge of treated effluent to the mine pool by seepage from the
tailings pond would be expected to improve mine pool water quality by
reducing concentrations of acidity and dissolved metals. Consequently,
water pumped from the mine pool to Mahanoy Creek would also improve in
quality. Reduced loadings of acidity, manganese, aluminum, and iron
would increase the potential for Mahanoy Creek to provide suitable
habitat for aquatic life. Concentrations of sulfate in the stream could
increase, but this increase would not affect attainment of water quality
criteria because no water quality criteria exist for sulfate in waters
designated for use as aquatic habitat.

**Floodplains and Wetlands.** The main plant would be located at an
elevation well above the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
delineated 100-year floodplain. A new culm beneficiation plant or
expansion of the existing facility in the adjacent valley to the north
of the main plant area would also lie above the elevation of the
100-year floodplain. Ancillary facilities that would cross the 100-year
floodplain of Mahanoy Creek would be placed atop an existing trestle at
an elevation above the level of the 100-year flood. No new construction
within the floodplain would be required. Construction and operation of
the proposed facilities would have no adverse effects on wetlands
because none are present on the project site. Runoff and spills from the
site would not be expected to reach wetlands due to use of standard
construction engineering practices and spill control procedures.

**Ecological Resources.** Loss of approximately 75 acres of deciduous
forest to construct the main plant and 1.5 acres for ancillary
structures would affect wildlife species. Other factors associated with
construction of the proposed facilities would include increased human
activity in the main plant area, increased traffic on local roads, and
noise. The presence of construction crews and increased traffic would
cause some wildlife species to avoid areas next to the construction site
during the 30-month construction period. Burrowing and less mobile
species such as amphibians, some reptiles, and some small mammals could
be adversely affected during site preparation activities. Construction
would temporarily modify the quality of the surrounding habitat in the
project area by the creation of noise. No long-term impacts on the
hearing ability of wildlife species would be expected from
construction-generated noise. Some unavoidable impacts on wildlife would
occur as a result of increased vehicular traffic. Construction traffic
along the new access road would increase the potential for roadkills for
animals such as turkeys, squirrels, and chipmunks.

The loss of deciduous forest during construction would displace some
small mammals and songbirds from the construction areas, but would not
be expected to eliminate any wildlife species from Broad Mountain
because similar habitat is relatively common along and on both sides of
the ridge. Clearing for support facilities would create additional
forest edge and introduce habitat diversity as these areas partially
revegetate. This would tend to benefit edge-related wildlife species,
while displacing forest-related species from the new habitat. Over the
26-year operating life of the proposed facilities, the terrestrial
habitat created on approximately 1,000 acres of reclaimed land after
culm removal would offset the 76.5 acres of deciduous forest that would
be cleared for the facilities.

Impacts to aquatic habitats and fish from construction and operation of
the proposed facilities would be minor to negligible. No surface waters
are on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site.
Because the proposed facilities would not be located within an area that
provides habitat for any protected species except for occasional
transient individuals, it is unlikely that any such species would be
affected by project construction or operations.

**Social and Economic Resources.** Construction and operation of the
proposed facilities would not result in major impacts to population,
housing, local government revenues, or public services in Schuylkill
County. Overall, construction of the proposed facilities would have
short-term positive effects on employment and income in the region.
Project operations would also have positive effects on employment and
income and, provided that the demonstration is successful, these effects
would last longer than the effects of construction. The project\'s
positive effects on employment and income would contribute to the
regional economy.

Schuylkill County and eight of the nine census tracts (small, relatively
permanent statistical subdivisions of a county) within 3 miles of the
proposed facilities have lower minority percentages than Pennsylvania
and the United States. For the remaining census tract, however,
significant minority populations reside at the Mahanoy and Frackville
State Correctional Institutions. The Mahanoy State Correctional
Institution is 2,600 ft east of the proposed main plant site, and its
minority inmate population represents an \"environmental justice\"
population to which the adverse impacts of constructing and operating
the proposed facilities could be distributed disproportionately.
However, disproportionately high and adverse air quality and health
impacts to this population would not be expected because (1) air quality
impacts would not be appreciable with the exception of temporary
fugitive dust during construction; and (2) the Mahanoy State
Correctional Institution is a sealed facility in which inmates and
employees would not be exposed to outside air except during periods of
outdoor activity.

Schuylkill County\'s population percentage below the poverty level is
lower than that of Pennsylvania and the United States. However, two
nearby census tracts have poverty rates that exceed those of both
Pennsylvania and the United States. The relatively large populations
below the poverty level in these tracts represent \"environmental
justice\" populations to which the adverse impacts of constructing and
operating the proposed facilities could be distributed
disproportionately. However, disproportionately high and adverse air
quality, water quality, and health impacts to these populations would
not be expected. The proposed project could have positive economic
effects for these populations by creating employment and income in the
region.

With regard to transportation, all of the 1,000 workers during the
6-month peak construction period would access the project site from
State Route 1008 (Morea Road), and most of these workers would access
State Route 1008 from its intersection with State Route 61 in the town
of Frackville. This assessment assumed that 1,000 additional vehicle
trips (500 to the site and 500 from the site) would be generated each
day during the peak construction period, which would represent increases
of 10% and 22% over existing traffic on State Route 61 and State Route
1008, respectively. Increases of this size on these roads would likely
cause traffic congestion and have an appreciable impact on traffic flow
and safety during morning and afternoon commutes. In addition to these
construction workers\' vehicles, the number of construction delivery
trucks accessing the project site from State Route 61 and State Route
1008 would increase. WMPI personnel have committed to contacting the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to discuss potential
mitigation options, including signaling, road widening, and scheduling
work hours and/or deliveries to avoid periods of heavy traffic.

During the demonstration and long-term project operations, all of the
250 and 150 workers, respectively, would access the facilities from
State Route 1008 (primarily via State Route 61 in Frackville). This
assessment assumed that 500 additional vehicle trips (250 to the site
and 250 from the site) would be generated each day by workers commuting
during the demonstration, while 300 additional vehicle trips (150 to the
site and 150 from the site) would be generated each day by workers
commuting during long-term operations. Approximately 104 truck trips per
day (52 to the site and 52 from the site) would deliver culm to the
site, 40 truck trips per day (20 to the site and 20 from the site) would
bring limestone, and 22 truck trips per day (11 to the site and 11 from
the site) would transport waste material to an offsite landfill. In
addition, if liquid fuels produced by the proposed facilities should be
shipped by truck rather than rail, about 80 additional vehicle trips
would occur daily (40 to the site and 40 from the site). The impacts of
operations-related traffic would be less severe than those of
construction-related traffic but would be more long lasting. WMPI
personnel have committed to contacting the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation to discuss the same potential mitigation options as those
available for construction-related traffic.

Once per week, a new supply of empty tank cars would be delivered, and a
train of tank cars filled with liquid fuels produced by the proposed
facilities would be transported from the site. Rail shipments of this
magnitude would not have adverse impacts on the local rail system.

DOE has consulted with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) regarding the potential for impacts associated with the
proposed facilities on any historic resources that may be listed in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Impacts from
construction and operation of the facilities would not be likely because
the SHPO has identified no such historic or archaeological properties in
the project area.

**Waste Management.** Because project construction waste quantities
would be small in comparison with commercial landfill capacities and
waste quantities currently handled at these facilities, landfills in the
region should have ample capacity to receive project construction wastes
for disposal.

Solid wastes and byproducts generated by the operation of the proposed
facilities would include gasifier slag, fine solids, elemental sulfur,
and sludges from water and wastewater treatment. Commercial uses would
be sought for the gasifier slag, including lightweight construction
aggregate, asphalt roofing shingle granules, blasting grit, and
pipe-bedding material. However, markets for this material have not yet
been established. Any slag that is not used commercially would be used
as fill material for surface mine reclamation at and near sites where
culm would be obtained. Because the Pennsylvania residual waste
management regulations are intended to prevent or reduce the potential
for adverse impacts from leaching of wastes, compliance with these
regulations would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water
quality from land application of the slag.

Most of the fine solids generated by the proposed facilities would be
used as fill material in a permitted ash disposal area on WMPI land as
part of mine reclamation, subject to the same residual waste regulations
that would govern the slag. The potential for impacts to water quality
from using this material in mine reclamation would be larger than from
similar use of slag, but compliance with the residual waste regulations
would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality.
Provided that the residual waste regulations are met, sludges from
treatment of raw water and wastewater would also be placed on WMPI land
that is permitted for disposal of coal byproducts. The placement of the
proposed facilities' solid wastes and byproducts on lands that were
previously mined or covered with culm banks would contribute to
reclamation of surface-mined lands. Reclamation activities and needs in
the vicinity could easily absorb the volume of material that would be
generated by the proposed facilities.

If fine solids or sludges from the facilities failed to meet criteria
for land application, they would require disposal in an offsite
commercial landfill. The additional waste would increase average daily
waste volumes at either of the two nearest landfills by more than 10%.
However, commercial landfill capacity in the region appears to be
sufficient to handle the additional waste volume. Management of the fine
solids and sludges would require special clearance from the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection. Special handling might also be
required before shipment or within the landfill to control the release
of water, which could affect the quantity and characteristics of
landfill leachate.

Elemental sulfur would be produced and sold commercially. Because
consumption in the United States exceeds domestic production, a market
should be available for the elemental sulfur that the proposed
facilities would generate.

None of the proposed facilities' solid wastes and byproducts would be
expected to be hazardous as defined under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure test
would be performed to verify this expectation, and any wastes found to
be subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulations would be handled in
accordance with applicable procedures.

Several wastewater collection and treatment units would be used to
manage liquid waste streams. Stormwater collected from process areas and
stormwater from parking lots and other portions of the site not used for
processing or materials storage would be collected in two separate lined
retention basins. Wastewater from the gasification and liquefaction
processes would be combined with runoff from process areas in an
equalization basin, then routed to a series of oil-water separation
units where droplets of oil and grease would be recovered and oily
sludge would be collected for disposal or recycling to the gasification
process. Effluent from this stage of treatment would be mixed with
non-oily wastewater streams and routed to a biological treatment unit
that would combine aeration with clarification in order to treat
wastewater with high levels of chemical and biological oxygen demand.
This unit would be designed to consume the organic compounds and
nutrients in the wastewater, yielding treated effluent for discharge and
a biological sludge for disposal. Treated effluent would be mixed with
non-process-area stormwater in an equalization basin for final settling
and testing prior to discharge to a tailings pond in Mahanoy Creek
valley.

Potential odor impacts from liquid waste streams would be controlled by
treating all process wastewater within enclosed facilities prior to
discharge to the final equalization basin. Treatment system upsets
(e.g., if fluctuations in wastewater characteristics were to cause a
die-off of microorganisms in the biological treatment unit) could result
in release of incompletely treated water, causing odor problems and
water quality degradation off the site. The potential for upsets could
be minimized by designing the system with ample reserve capacity,
selecting treatment units that are demonstrated to tolerate a wide range
of wastewater characteristics, and controlling inflows to the treatment
system to maintain consistent wastewater characteristics. Potential for
explosion in oil-water separation units could be minimized by using a
nitrogen gas blanket over these units.

**Human Health and Safety.** A potential health impact to the public
would be associated with operational air emissions from the proposed
facilities, including criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.
However, all maximum ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants from
the proposed facilities were estimated to be less than their
corresponding significant impact levels, and Air Quality Program Permit
No. 54-399-034, issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection for the proposed facilities, establishes maximum allowable
limits to ensure that the proposed facilities would be a minor new
source of hazardous air pollutants (e.g., mercury).

The proposed facilities would be subject to Occupational Safety and
Health Administration standards. During construction, permits would be
required and safety inspections would be employed to minimize the
frequency of accidents and maximize worker safety. Construction
equipment would be required to meet all applicable safety design and
inspection requirements, and personal protective equipment would be
used, as needed to meet regulatory standards. Operations would be
managed from a control room. All instruments and controls would be
designed to ensure safe start-up, operation, and shut down. The control
system would also monitor operating parameters. The overall design,
layout, and operation of the facilities would minimize human hazards.
With regard to electromagnetic fields, no perceptible changes would
occur because no new transmission line would be built.

While catastrophic accidents would be possible, including accidents
involving fire and/or explosion, the probability of such an incident
would be remote. The probability of fire or explosion caused by a
catastrophic vessel/tank failure would be approximately one occurrence
per 100,000 years. The likelihood of fire or explosion resulting from
the release of flammable F-T fuels due to catastrophic pipe failure
would be about one occurrence per 10,000 years. For potential accidents
associated with transport of the produced liquid fuels from the proposed
facilities, the U.S. incidence rate for a serious railcar accident
involving hazardous materials resulting in a release or injury is
approximately 7 accidents per million train-miles. For the proposed
project, because a train of filled tank cars would be moved off the site
only once per week and because fuels produced by the facilities would be
transported to local distribution centers and/or refineries within a
150-mile radius, a rail accident involving the tank cars would be very
unlikely.

**Noise.** During construction of the proposed facilities, the principal
sources of noise would be from construction equipment and material
handling. The amount and type of construction equipment would vary
depending on the specific construction activity occurring at the time
(e.g., site excavation, structural steel/mechanical/electrical equipment
erection and installation, piping, fabrication, etc.). Construction
activity would primarily occur within 6 acres of the 75-acre main plant
site.

During operation of the proposed facilities, the principal sound sources
would include equipment like the combustion turbine/generator, steam
turbine/generator, heat recovery systems, turbine air inlets, exhaust
stacks, cooling towers, pumps (e.g., feed, circulating, etc.), and
compressors. These sound sources would be enclosed and acoustically
insulated. Noise sources within the buildings would be fitted with
sound-attenuating enclosures or other noise dampening measures.

The proposed project site's highest sound level was measured to be 55
dB(A) under existing conditions. The highest sound level during
simultaneous operation of the Gilberton Power Plant and the proposed
facilities was estimated by assuming that the sound level generated by
the two facilities would be equal. A doubling of sound energy
corresponding with operation of both facilities yielded an increase of 3
dB, indicating that the proposed site's highest sound level measurement
would be 58 dB(A). A change in sound level of plus or minus 3 dB is the
threshold of perception to the human ear.

The center of the proposed main plant would be about 2,600 ft west of
the Mahanoy State Correctional Institution. The increase in noise levels
(i.e., 3 dB) would probably be imperceptible because of (1) the distance
between the prison and the proposed project site, (2) planned noise
attenuation measures, (3) natural and man-made terrain features and
structures, and (4) the limited period during which the inmates are
allowed outside the sealed prison. No perceptible change in noise
associated with the proposed facilities would be expected at the nearest
residence, located 3,600 ft southeast of the proposed main plant, or
other offsite locations.

**No-Action Alternative**

Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared
funding to demonstrate the commercial-scale integration of coal
gasification and F-T synthesis technologies to produce electricity,
steam, and liquid fuels. At the site of the proposed project, it is
reasonably foreseeable that no new activity would occur. Thus, under the
no-action alternative, no construction or operation of the proposed
facilities would occur; no site preparation would be required, such as
clearing of trees and other vegetation; no employment would be provided
for construction workers in the area or for operators of the proposed
facilities; and no resources would be required and no discharges or
wastes would occur. This scenario would not contribute toward the
removal of anthracite culm, which is stacked locally in numerous piles
that were set aside during previous mining of anthracite coal.

Because no new activity would occur, current environmental conditions at
the site, which are described in Section 3 (Existing Environment), would
not change. Specifically, air quality in the area would remain the same,
and no changes would occur to existing geologic and soil conditions in
the area. No changes would occur to the quantity and quality of surface
water and groundwater and the availability of water supplies in the
area. Ecological resources would remain the same. No changes would
affect the current management of solid and hazardous waste in the
proposed project area.

Table S.1 presents a comparison of key potential impacts between the
proposed facilities and the scenario under the no-action alternative.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table S.1.                                                  
  Comparison of                                                 
  key potential                                                 
  impacts between                                               
  the proposed                                                  
  facilities\                                                   
  and the                                                       
  no-action                                                     
  alternative**                                                 
  --------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------
  Resource        Impacts of the proposed facilities            Impacts of the
                                                                no‑action
                                                                alternative

  Land use and    The locations of the proposed main plant and  Offsite land
  aesthetics      ancillary facilities would not affect offsite use would not
                  land use. Over the 26-year operating life of  be affected.
                  the proposed facilities, approximately 1,000  No additional
                  acres of land would be reclaimed after culm   structures
                  removal to provide feedstock for the          would be
                  facilities. Because the visual landscape is   built. Impacts
                  already conspicuously marked with industrial  would remain
                  structures, the proposed facilities would not unchanged from
                  alter the industrial appearance of the site   existing
                  and would not degrade the aesthetic character conditions.
                  of the area.                                  

  Air quality     Modeling results based on emissions from the  No additional
                  proposed facilities predicted that maximum    air emissions
                  concentrations would be less than their       would occur.
                  corresponding significant impact levels.      Impacts would
                  Concentrations would be negligible at the     remain
                  nearest Prevention of Significant             unchanged from
                  Deterioration (PSD) Class I area (Brigantine  existing
                  Wilderness Area). The small percentage        conditions.
                  increases in VOC and NO~x~ emissions would    
                  not be likely to degrade local or regional    
                  air quality sufficiently to cause violations  
                  in the O~3~ standards, but the magnitude of   
                  the degradation cannot be quantified. Limits  
                  stated in the authorized permit would ensure  
                  that the proposed facilities would be a minor 
                  new source of hazardous air pollutants.       
                  Because nearly complete H~2~S removal from    
                  the shifted synthesis gas would be required   
                  by the downstream F‑T synthesis process,      
                  odorous emissions of H~2~S should not be      
                  perceptible. Upon initial operation of the    
                  proposed facilities, conditions at Interstate 
                  81 would be monitored and, if warranted,      
                  flashing lights would be installed to warn    
                  motorists of fog. Increases in CO~2~          
                  emissions from the proposed facilities would  
                  be large in terms of number of tons per year  
                  but small in comparison to global totals.     

  Geology         Because the proposed main plant would be      Impacts would
                  built over rock units that do not contain     remain
                  coal, the plant would not be affected by      unchanged from
                  subsidence from mining activities. Subsidence existing
                  could, however, affect product transfer lines conditions.
                  and related facilities in the valley of       
                  Mahanoy Creek. The possibility of abrupt      
                  subsidence has decreased over time following  
                  the closure of underground mines, and will    
                  continue to decrease in the future. The       
                  potential risks of product line leakage due   
                  to gradual subsidence would be reduced by     
                  inspecting product lines regularly and        
                  repairing any problems.                       
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                **Table S.1. Continued**                      
  ------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------
  Resource      Impacts of the proposed facilities            Impacts of the
                                                              no‑action
                                                              alternative

  Water         Impacts attributable to construction-related  No changes in
  resources     runoff would be minimal. Because the          water
                facilities would increase the area of         requirements
                impervious surface on Broad Mountain, water   or discharge
                that previously would infiltrate the soil to  of effluents
                enter the groundwater under Broad Mountain    would occur.
                would instead be included in the wastewater   Impacts would
                discharge to Mahanoy Creek valley, thus       remain
                reducing groundwater recharge to the aquifers unchanged from
                on Broad Mountain. Estimated recharge within  existing
                a 1,000-ft radius of the Morea well should    conditions.
                remain sufficient to meet the needs of the    
                Morea water system, and other wells farther   
                away from the proposed facilities should not  
                be affected. Operation of the proposed        
                facilities would reduce the water volume in   
                the Gilberton mine pool and the volume of     
                water needed to be pumped from the mine pool  
                and discharged to Mahanoy Creek in order to   
                prevent flooding. These changes would result  
                in reduced stream flow in the creek. However, 
                the creek would not go dry from receiving     
                less mine pool water because the creek's      
                minimum flows would be maintained by          
                continuous discharges from mine openings in   
                upstream portions of the watershed. Discharge 
                of treated effluent to the mine pool by       
                seepage from the tailings pond would be       
                expected to improve mine pool water quality   
                by reducing concentrations of acidity and     
                dissolved metals. Consequently, water pumped  
                from the mine pool to Mahanoy Creek would     
                also improve in quality.                      

  Floodplains   The main plant and a new culm beneficiation   No floodplains
  and wetlands  plant or expansion of the existing facility   or wetlands
                would be located above the elevation of the   would be
                100-year floodplain. Ancillary facilities     affected.
                that would cross the 100-year floodplain of   Impacts would
                Mahanoy Creek would be placed atop an         remain
                existing trestle at an elevation above the    unchanged from
                100-year floodplain. No new construction      existing
                within the floodplain would be required.      conditions.
                Construction and operation of the proposed    
                facilities would have no adverse effects on   
                wetlands because none are present on the      
                project site.                                 

  Ecological    Loss of approximately 76.5 acres of deciduous No clearing of
  resources     forest to construct the main plant and        trees or other
                ancillary structures would affect wildlife    vegetation
                species. Over the long term, the terrestrial  would be
                habitat created on reclaimed lands from which required.
                culm would be obtained would offset the loss  Impacts would
                of deciduous forest. Impacts to aquatic       remain
                habitats and fish from construction and       unchanged from
                operation of the proposed facilities would be existing
                minor to negligible because no surface waters conditions.
                are on or in the immediate vicinity of the    
                proposed project site. Because the proposed   
                facilities would not be located within an     
                area that provides habitat for any protected  
                species except for occasional transient       
                individuals, it is unlikely that any such     
                species would be affected by project          
                construction or operations.                   
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

  --------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------
                  **Table S.1. Continued**                      

  Resource        Impacts of the proposed facilities            Impacts of the
                                                                no‑action
                                                                alternative

  Socioeconomic   Construction and operation of the proposed    No employment
  resources       facilities would not result in major impacts  would be
                  to population, housing, local government      provided for
                  revenues, or public services in Schuylkill    construction
                  County. With regard to environmental justice, workers in the
                  one nearby census tract has significant       area or for
                  minority populations residing at the Mahanoy  operators of
                  and Frackville State Correctional             the proposed
                  Institutions. Disproportionately high and     facilities.
                  adverse impacts to these populations would    Impacts would
                  not be expected because (1) air quality       remain
                  impacts would not be appreciable with the     unchanged from
                  exception of temporary fugitive dust during   existing
                  construction; and (2) the adjacent Mahanoy    conditions.
                  State Correctional Institution is a sealed    
                  facility in which inmates and employees would 
                  not be exposed to outside air except during   
                  periods of outdoor activity. Similarly, for   
                  two nearby census tracts that have relatively 
                  high poverty rates, disproportionately high   
                  and adverse impacts to these populations      
                  would not be expected. Increases in traffic   
                  during project construction would likely      
                  cause congestion and have an appreciable      
                  impact on traffic flow and safety during      
                  morning and afternoon commutes. WMPI          
                  personnel have committed to contacting the    
                  Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to  
                  discuss potential mitigation options,         
                  including signaling, road widening, and       
                  scheduling work hours and/or deliveries to    
                  avoid periods of heavy traffic. Although the  
                  impacts of additional operations-related      
                  traffic would be less severe than those       
                  during construction, they would be more long  
                  lasting. WMPI personnel have committed to     
                  contacting the Pennsylvania Department of     
                  Transportation to discuss the same potential  
                  mitigation options. Impacts on historic or    
                  archaeological properties would not be likely 
                  because the State Historic Preservation       
                  Office has identified no such properties in   
                  the project area.                             

  Waste           Solid wastes and byproducts generated during  No changes
  management      operations would be sold, used for mine       would result
                  reclamation, or transported to an offsite     to the current
                  commercial landfill for disposal. None of     management of
                  these materials would be expected to be       solid and
                  hazardous as defined under the Resource       hazardous
                  Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The     waste in the
                  Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure    proposed
                  test would be performed to verify this        project area.
                  expectation, and any wastes found to be       Impacts would
                  subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulations   remain
                  would be handled in accordance with           unchanged from
                  applicable procedures. Wastewater from the    existing
                  gasification and liquefaction processes would conditions.
                  be combined with stormwater from process      
                  areas in an equalization basin, then routed   
                  to a series of oil-water separation units     
                  where droplets of oil and grease would be     
                  recovered and oily sludge would be collected  
                  for disposal or recycling to the gasification 
                  process. Effluent from this stage of          
                  treatment would be mixed with non-oily        
                  wastewater streams and routed to a biological 
                  treatment unit that would combine aeration    
                  with clarification in order to treat          
                  wastewater with high levels of chemical and   
                  biological oxygen demand. This unit would be  
                  designed to consume the organic compounds and 
                  nutrients in the wastewater, yielding treated 
                  effluent for discharge and a biological       
                  sludge for disposal. Potential odor impacts   
                  from liquid waste streams would be controlled 
                  by treating all process wastewater within     
                  enclosed facilities prior to discharge to the 
                  final equalization basin.                     

                  **Table S.1. Concluded**                      

  Resource        Impacts of the proposed facilities            Impacts of the
                                                                no‑action
                                                                alternative

  Human health    Regarding operational air emissions, all      Impacts would
  and safety      maximum ambient concentrations of criteria    remain
                  pollutants from the proposed facilities were  unchanged from
                  estimated to be less than their corresponding existing
                  significant impact levels, and the air permit conditions.
                  establishes maximum allowable limits to       
                  ensure that the proposed facilities would be  
                  a minor new source of hazardous air           
                  pollutants (e.g., mercury). The proposed      
                  facilities would be subject to Occupational   
                  Safety and Health Administration standards.   
                  During construction, permits would be         
                  required and safety inspections would be      
                  employed to maximize worker safety.           
                  Construction equipment would be required to   
                  meet all applicable safety design and         
                  inspection requirements, and personal         
                  protective equipment would be used, as needed 
                  to meet regulatory standards. Operations      
                  would be managed from a control room. All     
                  instruments and controls would be designed to 
                  ensure safe start-up, operation, and shut     
                  down. No perceptible changes in               
                  electromagnetic fields would occur because no 
                  new transmission line would be built. The     
                  probability of a catastrophic accident        
                  associated with the facilities, including     
                  transportation of liquid fuels off the site,  
                  would be very unlikely.                       

  Noise           During operations, the increase in noise      No additional
                  levels (i.e., 3 dB) would probably be         noise would be
                  imperceptible at the Mahanoy State            generated.
                  Correctional Institution because of (1) the   Impacts would
                  distance between the prison and the proposed  remain
                  project site, (2) planned noise attenuation   unchanged from
                  measures, (3) natural and man-made terrain    existing
                  features and structures, and (4) the limited  conditions.
                  period during which inmates are allowed       
                  outside the sealed prison. No perceptible     
                  change in noise associated with the proposed  
                  facilities would be expected at the nearest   
                  residence or other offsite locations.         
  --------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------