Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Notices 60889

Rules of Practice and Procedure on

October 22, 1997.

H. Public Dialogue.

Dated: November 3, 1997.

Susan M. Weisman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–29868 Filed 11–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6360–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement and

Notice of Floodplain and Wetlands

Involvement for the Proposed

Jacksonville Electric Authority

Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor

Project

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),

and notice of floodplain and wetlands

involvement.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) announces its intent to prepare

an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq.), the Council on Environmental

Quality NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts

1500–1508), and the DOE NEPA

regulations (10 CFR Part 1021), to assess

the potential environmental and human

health impacts of the construction and

operation of a project proposed by the

Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA)

that has been selected by DOE to

demonstrate circulating fluidized bed

(CFB) technology under the Clean Coal

Technology (CCT) Program. The

proposed project would involve

construction and operation of a CFB

combustor fueled by coal and petroleum

coke to repower an existing steam

turbine at JEA’s Northside Generating

Station in Jacksonville, Florida, to

generate nearly 300 megawatts of

electricity (MWe). This EIS will support

a DOE decision regarding whether DOE

will provide approximately $75 million

in cost-shared funding (about 24% of

the total cost of approximately $309

million) for the proposed project.

The purpose of this Notice of Intent

is to inform the public about the

proposed action; present the schedule

for the action; announce the plans for a

public scoping meeting; invite public

participation in the scoping process;

and solicit public comments for

consideration in establishing the scope

and content of the EIS. The EIS will

evaluate the potential impacts of the

proposed action and reasonable

alternatives. Because the proposed

project may involve an action in

floodplains and wetlands, the 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).

DATES: To ensure that the full range of

issues related to this proposal is

addressed, DOE invites comments on

the scope and content of the EIS from

all interested parties. All comments

must be received by December 31, 1997,

to ensure consideration. Late comments

will be considered to the extent

practicable. In addition to receiving

comments in writing and by telephone,

DOE will conduct a public scoping

meeting in which agencies,

organizations, and the general public are

invited to present oral comments or

suggestions with regard to the range of

actions, alternatives, and impacts to be

considered in the EIS. The scoping

meeting will be held at the Northside

Generating Station, In-Plant Conference

Room, 4377 Heckscher Drive,

Jacksonville, Florida, on Wednesday,

December 3, 1997, at 7 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests to participate in the public

scoping process should be addressed to:

Dr. Jan Wachter, NEPA Document

Manager for the JEA Project, Federal

Energy Technology Center, U.S.

Department of Energy, 3610 Collins

Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26507–

0880. Individuals who would like to

verbally or electronically provide

comments should contact Dr. Wachter at

direct telephone 304–285–4607; toll free

number 1–800–432–8330 (ext. 4607); fax

304–285–4469; or E-mail

JWACHT@FETC.DOE.GOV.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To

obtain additional information about this

project or to receive a copy of the draft

EIS when it is issued, contact Dr. Jan

Wachter at the address provided above.

For general information on the DOE

NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance (EH–42), U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585–0119;

telephone 202–586–4600; or leave a

message at 1–800–472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Need for the Proposed

Action

Under Public Law 99–190, Congress

provided authorization and funds to

DOE to support the construction and

operation of demonstration facilities

selected for cost-shared financial

assistance as part of DOE’s CCT

Program. In December 1985, Congress

made funds available to DOE for

conducting the first round of the CCT

Program. Congress directed that this

first solicitation for federal cost-sharing

(1) be open to all market applications of

clean coal technologies, (2) apply to any

segment of the U.S. coal resource base,

and (3) encompass both new and retrofit

applications. In response to the

solicitation, proposals were received

and projects were selected by DOE for

negotiation. In addition, a list of

alternate candidates was established

from which replacement selection could

be made should any of the original

selections not proceed. JEA’s proposed

CFB combustor project has evolved

through a series of site changes from a

project that was selected from the

alternate list for demonstration.

The demonstration of JEA’s CFB

combustor project under the CCT

Program would fulfill an existing DOE

programmatic need. Coal has the

potential to address critical energy

supply issues because of its abundant

reserves; however, barriers to increased

use of coal include concerns about

environmental issues, such as acid

deposition, global climate change,

polyaromatic hydrocarbon emissions,

and solid waste. Since the early 1970’s,

DOE and its predecessor agencies have

sponsored long-term programs to

develop innovative coal technologies

through the proof-of-concept stage to

overcome these environmental barriers

while improving combustion efficiency

and reducing costs.

However, the availability of a

technology at the proof-of-concept stage

is not sufficient to ensure its continued

development and subsequent

commercialization. Before any

technology can seriously be considered

for commercialization, it must be

demonstrated at a large enough scale to

prove its reliability and to show

economically competitive performance.

The financial risk associated with such

large-scale demonstration is, in general,

too high for the private sector to assume

in the absence of strong incentives. The

congressionally-directed CCT Program

provides a mechanism to accelerate the

commercialization of innovative

technologies to meet the nation’s nearterm energy and environmental goals, to
60890 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Notices

reduce technological risk to industry to

an acceptable level, and to provide

private sector incentives required for

continued research and development

aimed at finding solutions to long-range

energy supply problems.

Proposed Action

The proposed action is for DOE to

provide, through a cooperative

agreement with JEA, cost-shared

financial assistance to JEA for the

design, construction, and operation of

the proposed project, as described

below. JEA plans to form an alliance

with Foster Wheeler Corporation

through its subsidiary, Foster Wheeler

Power Systems, Inc., to jointly own and

operate the project. Together with other

Foster Wheeler affiliates, Foster Wheeler

Power Systems, Inc. will provide the

CFB combustor and perform the project

engineering, procurement, and

construction. The demonstration project

would last 24 months and cost

approximately $309 million, with DOE’s

share being nearly $75 million (24%).

The proposed project would be located

at JEA’s existing Northside Generating

Station in Jacksonville, Florida, which

currently consists of 3 heavy oil- and

natural gas-fired steam generation units

and 4 diesel oil-fired combustion

turbine units.

The Northside Generating Station is

approximately 10 miles north of

downtown Jacksonville, Florida. The

Northside Generating Station is an

industrial site encompassing

approximately 400 acres, with 200 acres

devoted to existing steam generation

units, combustion turbine units, and

associated infrastructure. New

construction associated with JEA’s

proposed CFB combustor project would

occupy approximately 60 acres of

previously disturbed land. The

Northside Generating Station contains a

number of wetland areas, especially in

the perimeter areas. Preliminary

analysis indicates that the site may be

in a hurricane storm surge area, in

addition to the 100-year floodplain of

the St. Johns River. The most significant

environmental feature associated with

the Northside Generating Station is the

nearby presence of estuarine salt marsh

backwaters of the St. Johns River. St.

Johns River Power Park, an industrial

site which consists of two 624 MWe

coal- and petroleum coke-burning

power plants on 1,656 acres, is adjacent

to the Northside Generating Station.

The overall objective of the project is

to demonstrate the feasibility of CFB

technology at a size that will be

attractive for large-scale utility

operation. The new CFB combustor

would use coal and petroleum coke to

generate nearly 300 MWe by repowering

the existing Unit 2 steam turbine, a

297.5-MWe unit that has been out of

service since 1983. The project is

expected to provide JEA with a lowcost, efficient, and environmentallysound generating resource. In addition,

JEA plans to repower the currently

operating Unit 1 steam turbine without

cost-shared funding from DOE. The Unit

1 steam turbine will be essentially

identical to the turbine for Unit 2, and

is scheduled to be repowered about 6 to

12 months after the Unit 2 repowering.

While the proposed project only

consists of the Unit 2 repowering

(because DOE would provide no

funding for the Unit 1 repowering), the

EIS will evaluate the Unit 1 repowering

as a related action.

In a CFB combustor, coal and coal/

fuel blends, air, and limestone are

introduced into the lower portion of the

combustor, where initial combustion

occurs. As the fuel is reduced in size

through combustion and breakage, it is

transported higher in the combustor

where additional air is introduced. Ash

and unburned fuel and limestone pass

out of the combustor, collect in a

particle separator, and recirculate to the

lower portion of the combustor. Sulfur

reacts with limestone added in the

furnace to form ash that can be

marketed as a useful byproduct such as

roadbed material.

For the proposed project, the

combined installation of the CFB

combustor and a flue gas scrubber is

expected to remove over 97% of the

sulfur dioxide emitted from burning

coal that contains up to 4.5% sulfur.

The relatively low furnace operating

temperature of about 1650°F would

result in appreciably lower nitrogen

oxide emissions compared to

conventional coal-fired power plants.

The project would also include a new

selective non-catalytic reduction system

to further reduce emissions of nitrogen

oxides. Over 99.8% of particulate

emissions would be removed by a new

baghouse or a new electrostatic

precipitator.

In addition to the CFB combustor

itself and the air pollution control

systems, new equipment for the project

would include a new stack and new

fuel, limestone, and ash handling

systems. The height of the proposed

new stack is expected to be

approximately 450 feet compared to 300

feet for the existing stack at Unit 2. The

project would also require overhaul

and/or modifications to existing systems

such as the steam turbine, condensate

and feedwater systems, circulating

water systems, water treatment systems,

plant electrical distribution systems, the

switchyard, and the control systems.

Options being considered for

transport of coal include (1) an

extension of conveyors from the nearby

St. Johns River Power Park, and (2)

construction of new receiving, handling,

and storage facilities for solid fuel.

Limestone and ash storage and handling

facilities also would be required.

Wherever possible, existing facilities

and infrastructure located at the

Northside Generating Station would be

used for the proposed project. These

include the discharge system for cooling

water to the St. Johns River, the

wastewater treatment system, and the

electric transmission lines and towers.

Because Unit 2 has not operated since

1983, the baseline emissions from that

unit are zero. Units 1 and 3 have been

operating at annual capacity factors of

less than 40%, firing either heavy oil or

natural gas. Unit 3 would continue as a

563.7-MWe oil/gas-fired unit. With the

exception of low-NOX (nitrogen oxide)

burners on Unit 3, Units 1 and 3 are not

currently equipped with emission

control systems.

The area is in attainment of the

National Ambient Air Quality

Standards. However, as part of JEA’s

commitment to the local community in

the implementation of this project, JEA

has committed to a 10% reduction in

the annual stack emissions for criteria

pollutants (i.e., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen

oxides, and particulate matter) from the

Northside Generating Station (as

compared to recent annual emissions).

In achieving this objective, the

combined emissions from the

repowered Units 1 and 2 operating at

annual capacity factors of 100% are

projected to be less than recent typical

annual emissions from Unit 1 alone.

Another part of JEA’s community

commitment is that groundwater

consumption will be reduced by at least

10% from recent levels. This would be

accomplished by increased recycling of

the treated wastewater produced at the

station. Plant wastewater is presently

treated with lime, followed by

clarification in settling basins. While

some recycled water is currently

utilized, most of the treated wastewater

is discharged to percolation ponds.

Should the proposed project be

implemented, the discharge of treated

wastewater to the ponds would be

reduced.

Project activities would include

engineering and design, permitting,

equipment procurement, construction,

startup, and a 24-month demonstration

of the commercial feasibility of the

technology. DOE plans to complete the

EIS and issue a Record of Decision
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Notices 60891

within 15 months of publication of this

Notice of Intent, assuming timely

delivery of environmental information

from JEA for use in developing the EIS.

Upon completing its NEPA review, if

DOE decides to implement the proposed

action, construction would commence

in early 1999 and finish in late 2001,

startup would occur in early 2002, and

demonstration of the technology would

begin in April 2002. During the

demonstration, Unit 2 would be

operated on several different types of

coal and coal/fuel blends to demonstrate

the flexibility of the technology. Upon

completion of the demonstration phase,

the facility would continue its

commercial operation.

Alternatives

NEPA requires that agencies discuss

the reasonable alternatives to the

proposed action in an EIS. The purpose

for agency action determines the range

of reasonable alternatives. Congress

established the CCT Program with a

specific purpose: to demonstrate the

commercial viability of technologies

that use coal in more environmentally

benign ways than conventional coal

technologies. Congress also directed

DOE to pursue the goals of the CCT

Program by means of partial funding

(cost-sharing) of projects owned and

controlled by non-federal government

sponsors. This statutory requirement

places DOE in a much more limited role

than if the federal government were the

owner and operator of the project. In the

latter situation, DOE would be

responsible for a comprehensive review

of reasonable alternatives. However, in

dealing with an applicant, the scope of

alternatives is necessarily more

restricted. It is appropriate in such cases

for DOE to give substantial weight to the

applicant’s needs in establishing a

project’s reasonable alternatives.

An overall strategy for compliance

with NEPA was developed for the CCT

Program that includes consideration of

both programmatic and project-specific

environmental impacts during and after

the process of selecting a project. As

part of the NEPA strategy, the EIS for

JEA’s proposed CFB combustor project

will tier off the program’s final

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (PEIS) that was issued by

DOE in November 1989 (DOE/EIS–

0146). Two alternatives were evaluated

in the PEIS: (1) the no action alternative,

which assumed that the CCT Program

was not continued and that

conventional coal-fired technologies,

with flue gas desulfurization and

nitrogen oxide controls to meet New

Source Performance Standards, would

continue to be used; and (2) the

proposed action, which assumed that

the clean coal projects would be

selected and funded, and that

successfully demonstrated technologies

would undergo widespread

commercialization by the year 2010.

For JEA’s proposed CFB combustor

project, the range of reasonable

alternatives to be considered in the EIS

is also narrowed in accordance with the

overall NEPA strategy. The no action

alternative will be analyzed in the EIS

as a reasonable alternative to the

proposed action of providing costshared funding support for the proposed

project. DOE will consider any other

reasonable alternatives that may be

suggested during the public scoping

period.

Under no action, DOE would not

provide partial funding for the design,

construction, and operation of the

project. In the absence of DOE funding,

there are three options that JEA could

reasonably pursue. These options will

be analyzed under the no action

alternative. JEA could construct the

proposed project without DOE costshared funding. Under this scenario, the

potential environmental impacts or

benefits at Northside Generating Station

are expected to be identical to those of

the proposed project. A second option is

that JEA could construct a new gas-fired

combined cycle facility at Northside

Generating Station or at another

location. Under this scenario, potential

environmental impacts or benefits at

Northside Generating Station would

vary from those of the proposed project.

A third option is that JEA could

purchase electricity from other utilities

to meet JEA’s projected demand. Under

this scenario, potential environmental

impacts or benefits at Northside

Generating Station related to

demonstration of the proposed project

would not be realized. In addition, the

second and third options would not

contribute to the objective of the CCT

Program, which is to make available to

the U.S. energy marketplace advanced,

more efficient, economically feasible,

and environmentally acceptable coal

technologies.

Because of DOE’s limited role of

providing cost-shared funding for JEA’s

proposed project and because of the

advantages associated with the

proposed location, DOE does not plan to

evaluate alternative sites for the

proposed project. JEA considered

additional sites during its site selection

process. Site selection was governed

primarily by benefits that could be

realized by JEA. An existing plant site

was preferred because the cost

associated with construction of the

project at a ‘‘greenfield’’ site in an

undisturbed area would be much

higher, and the environmental impact

likely would be much greater than at an

existing facility. The existing Northside

Generating Station has several

advantages because it is an operating

plant with land available for installation

of new facilities. Much of the required

infrastructure, including the electric

transmission lines and towers, is

already in place, thereby reducing the

level of capital investment and

construction impacts. The station has

the flexibility to accommodate possible

fuel delivery needs with its existing rail

and water facilities. Furthermore, most

of the operational staffing for the new

facility would be accommodated by the

existing Northside Generating Station

staff.

Preliminary Identification of

Environmental Issues

The following issues have been

tentatively identified for analysis in the

EIS. This list, which was developed

partly on the basis of concerns provided

by the public in response to JEA’s

stakeholder outreach program, is not

intended to be all inclusive, but is

presented to facilitate public comment

on the scope of the EIS. Additions to or

deletions from this list may occur as a

result of the scoping process. The issues

include:

(1) Atmospheric Resources: potential

air quality impacts resulting from air

emissions during current and future

operation of Northside Generating

Station (e.g., effects of ground-level

concentrations of criteria pollutants,

and trace metals including mercury, on

surrounding residential areas and the

Timucuan Preserve (a National Park

Service Class II ecological and historic

preserve adjacent to the western edge of

the Northside Generating Station);

potential effects of greenhouse gas

emissions on global climate change;

(2) Water Resources and Aquatic

Ecology: potential effects on surface

water and groundwater resources

consumed and discharged; potential

effects on estuarine salt marsh

ecosystems and aquatic biota resulting

from withdrawing and discharging

cooling water from the St. Johns River

(e.g., thermal discharge, entrainment or

impingement of fish and invertebrate

species);

(3) Infrastructure and Land Use:

potential effects resulting from the

transport of coal, petroleum coke, and

limestone required for the proposed

project, including the development of

land for infrastructure, storage, or waste

disposal; affected resource areas

including land (e.g., existing shoreline

and wetlands), utilities, and
60892 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Notices

transportation routes (e.g., train traffic to

supply coal);

(4) Solid Waste: pollution prevention

and waste management practices,

including solid waste impacts, caused

by the generation, treatment, transport,

storage, and disposal of solid wastes;

(5) Construction: impacts associated

with noise, traffic patterns, and

construction-related emissions;

(6) Visual: impacts associated with a

new stack that is taller than existing

structures at Northside Generating

Station;

(7) Floodplains: potential impacts

(e.g., impeding floodwaters, re-directing

floodwaters, on-site and off-site

property damage) of siting new

buildings and infrastructure within

floodplain and hurricane storm surge

areas;

(8) Wetlands: potential reduction of

wetlands due to new construction (e.g.,

construction associated with feedstock

transport infrastructure);

(9) Community Impacts: impacts on

public safety related to fire and

emergency vehicle access to the

Northside community of Jacksonville;

impacts to local traffic patterns resulting

from rail traffic; socioeconomic impacts

on public services and infrastructure

(e.g., police protection, schools, and

utilities); noise associated with project

operation; environmental justice with

respect to the surrounding community;

and

(10) Cumulative effects that result

from the incremental impacts of the

proposed project when added to other

past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions (e.g.,

incremental discharge of cooling water

affecting aquatic biota).

Public Scoping Process

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposal are addressed,

DOE will conduct an open process to

define the scope of the EIS. The public

scoping period will run until December

31, 1997. Interested agencies,

organizations, and the general public are

encouraged to submit comments or

suggestions concerning the content of

the EIS, issues and impacts to be

addressed in the EIS, and the

alternatives that should be analyzed.

Scoping comments should clearly

describe specific issues or topics that

the EIS should address in order to assist

DOE in identifying significant issues.

Written, e-mailed, faxed, or telephoned

comments should be communicated by

December 31, 1997 (see ADDRESSES).

In addition, a public scoping meeting

to be conducted by DOE will be held in

the In-Plant Conference Room at the

Northside Generating Station on

December 3, 1997, at 7 p.m. The address

of the Northside Generating Station is

4377 Heckscher Drive, Jacksonville,

Florida. DOE requests that anyone who

wishes to speak at this public scoping

meeting contact Dr. Jan Wachter, either

by phone, fax, computer, or in writing

(see ADDRESSES in this Notice).

Individuals who do not make advance

arrangements to speak may register at

the meeting and will be given the

opportunity to speak after all previously

scheduled speakers have made their

presentations. Speakers who wish to

make presentations longer than five

minutes should indicate the length of

time desired in their request. Depending

on the number of speakers, it may be

necessary to limit speakers to five

minute presentations initially, with the

opportunity for additional presentation

as time permits. Speakers can also

provide additional written information

to supplement their presentations. Oral

and written comments will be given

equal weight.

DOE will begin the meeting with an

overview of the proposed CFB

combustor project. A presiding officer

will be designated by DOE to chair the

meeting. The meeting will not be

conducted as an evidentiary hearing,

and speakers will not be crossexamined. However, speakers may be

asked to clarify their statements to

ensure that DOE fully understands the

comments or suggestions. The presiding

officer will establish the order of

speakers and provide, any additional

procedures necessary to conduct the

meeting.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 6th day of

November, 1997.

Peter N. Brush,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Environment,

Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 97–29890 Filed 11–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[FERC–512]

Information Collection Submitted for

Review and Request For Comments

November 6, 1997.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of submission for review

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Regulatory

Commission (Commission) has

submitted the energy information

collection listed in this notice to Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) for

review under provisions of Section 3507

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Pub. L. No. 104–13). Any interested

person may file comments on the

collection of information directly with

OMB and should address a copy of

those comments to the Commission as

explained below. The Commission

received no comments in response to an

earlier Federal Register notice of May

28, 1997 (62 FR 28844) and has made

this notation in its submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments regarding this

collection of information are best

assured of having their full effect if

received within 30 days of this

notification.

ADDRESSES: Address comments to Office

of Management and Budget, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Desk Officer, 726 Jackson

Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. A

copy of the comments should also be

sent to Federal Energy regulatory

Commission, Division of Information

Services, Attention: Mr. Michael Miller,

888 First Street N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael P. Miller may be reached by

telephone at (202) 208–1415, by fax at

(202) 273–0873, and by e-mail at

mmiller@ferc.fed.us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

The energy information collection

submitted to OMB for review contains:

1. Collection of Information: FERC–

512 ‘‘Application for Preliminary

Permit’’

2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

3. Control No.: OMB No. 1902–0073.

The Commission is now requesting that

OMB approve a three-year extension of

the current expiration date, with no

changes to the existing collection. There

is a decrease in the reporting burden

due to a decrease in the number of

applicants filing with the Commission.

These are mandatory collection

requirements.

4. Necessity of Collection of

Information: Submission of the

information is necessary to enable the

Commission to carry out its

responsibilities in implementing the

provisions of the Federal Power Act

(FPA). The information reported under

Commission identifier FERC–512 is

filed in accordance with Sections 4(f), 5,

7, (FPA). The Part I of the FPA gives the

Commission authority to issue licenses