Record of Decision, Orlando Gasification Project, Orlando, Orange County, FL, 17143-17149 [E7-6435]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 66 (Friday, April 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17143-17149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6435]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision, Orlando Gasification Project, Orlando, Orange 
County, FL

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0383) to assess the environmental 
impacts associated with a proposed project that would be cost-shared by 
DOE and Southern Company (in partnership with the Orlando Utilities 
Commission) (OUC) under DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) 
program. The project would demonstrate advanced power generation 
systems using Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology 
at OUC's existing Stanton Energy Center near Orlando, Florida. After 
careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts, along 
with program goals and objectives, DOE has decided that it will 
provide, through a cooperative agreement with Southern Company, a total 
of $235 million in cost-shared funding (about 41% of the total cost of 
approximately $569 million) to design, construct, and demonstrate the 
Orlando Gasification Project proposed by Southern Company.

ADDRESSES: The final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at 
https://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documentspub.html and on the DOE National 
Energy Technology Laboratory

[[Page 17144]]

Web site at https://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/EIS/
eis_orlando.html, and the Record of Decision (ROD) will be available 
on both Web sites in the near future. Copies of the final EIS and this 
ROD may be requested by contacting Mr. Richard A. Hargis, Jr., 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: 412-386-6065; or 
e-mail: Richard.Hargis@netl.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about 
the project or the EIS, contact Mr. Richard A. Hargis, Jr., 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: 412-386-6065; or 
e-mail: Richard.Hargis@netl.doe.gov. For general information on the DOE 
NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 
Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103; telephone: 202-
586-4600; or leave a toll-free message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE has prepared this ROD pursuant to 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the 
procedural provisions of NEPA [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
Parts 1500-1508] and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). This ROD 
is based on DOE's final EIS for the Orlando Gasification Project (DOE/
EIS-0383, January 2007).

Background and Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    In 2002, the U.S. Congress established the CCPI program to 
accelerate commercial deployment of advanced coal-based technologies 
for generating clean, reliable, and affordable electricity in the 
United States. Congress indicated that projects in the program should 
be industry enterprises assisted by the government and not government-
directed demonstrations. These projects are expected to showcase 
technologies in which coal-fired power plants can continue to generate 
low cost electricity with improved efficiency and comply with more 
stringent environmental standards expected in the future.
    DOE issued the second-round CCPI solicitation in February 2004 and 
received 13 proposals in June 2004. The Orlando Gasification Project 
(``Orlando Project'') was one of four projects selected in October 2004 
for further consideration. Evaluation criteria used in the selection 
process included technical merit of the proposed technology, potential 
for a successful demonstration of the technology, and potential for the 
technology to be commercialized. DOE also considered the participant's 
funding and financial proposal; DOE budget constraints; environmental, 
health, and safety implications; and program policy factors, such as 
DOE's preference for projects that represent a diversity of 
technologies, utilize a broad range of U.S. coals, and represent a 
broad geographical cross-section of the United States.
    DOE selected the Orlando Project for further consideration in view 
of two principal needs. First, the project would meet the Congressional 
mandate to demonstrate advanced coal-based technologies that can 
generate clean, reliable, and affordable electricity in the United 
States. Second, the demonstration would provide a more cost-effective 
fuel supply for integration with a privately funded combined-cycle unit 
to generate electricity.
    More specifically, the Orlando Project could demonstrate advanced 
coal gasification for power generation applications using IGCC 
technology at a sufficiently large scale to allow industries and 
utilities to assess the project's potential for commercial application. 
A successful demonstration would confirm that the technology could be 
implemented at the commercial scale. The cost-shared contribution by 
DOE would help reduce the risk to the Southern Company team in 
demonstrating the technology at the level of maturity needed for 
decisions on commercialization.
    Further, the transport gasifier technology that would be 
demonstrated offers a simpler method for generating power from coal 
than other alternatives. It is unique among coal gasification 
technologies in that it is cost-effective when handling low rank coals 
and when using coals with high moisture or high ash content. These 
coals make up half the proven reserves in both the U.S. and the world. 
Moreover, the transport gasifier is capable of both air- and oxygen-
blown operation. This inherent flexibility will allow it to readily 
adapt to other applications beyond power generation including chemical 
production and possible future carbon management requirements.

EIS Process

    On August 11, 2005, DOE published in the Federal Register (70 FR 
46825) a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS and hold a public 
scoping meeting. DOE held a public scoping meeting in Orlando, Florida, 
on August 30, 2005. DOE received 11 oral responses at the public 
scoping meeting and 11 responses by comment card, mail, e-mail, and 
telephone from members of the public, interested groups, and Federal, 
state, and local officials. The responses assisted in establishing 
additional issues to be analyzed in the EIS and in determining the 
level of analysis warranted for each issue.
    On August 24, 2006, DOE published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
50051) a Notice of Availability for the Orlando Gasification Project 
draft EIS. The Notice of Availability invited comments on the draft EIS 
and participation in the NEPA process. As part of the review process, 
DOE conducted a public hearing on September 13, 2006, in Orlando, 
Florida. DOE also conducted an informational session prior to the 
hearing for the public to learn more about the proposed project. The 
public was encouraged to provide oral comments at the hearings and to 
submit written comments to DOE during a 45-day public comment period 
that ended October 10, 2006. DOE received oral comments from two 
individuals at the public hearing, and written comments from three 
individuals, one non-governmental organization, two Federal agencies, 
and one local agency during and after the public hearing.
    In January 2007, DOE issued the final EIS and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the final 
EIS in the Federal Register on January 26, 2007 (72 FR 3846). In the 
final EIS, DOE considered and, as appropriate, responded to public 
comments on the draft EIS. Among the issues raised in the comments on 
the draft EIS were concerns about (1) Carbon dioxide (CO2) 
emissions and mitigation options; (2) vehicle and rail traffic; (3) 
mercury deposition and bioaccumulation; (4) ambient concentrations of 
ozone; (5) environmental justice considerations; and (6) air toxics 
impacts.

Project Location and Description

    The Orlando Project would be located at OUC's existing 3,280-acre 
Stanton Energy Center in eastern Orange County, approximately 3 miles 
east of the eastern city limits of Orlando, Florida, and about 13 miles 
east-southeast of downtown Orlando. The topography of the area is 
relatively flat. The new

[[Page 17145]]

facilities would be constructed on approximately 35 of the 1,100 acres 
of land that were previously cleared, leveled, and licensed for power 
plant use. The project equipment would be located between existing 
coal-fired units and an existing natural gas-fired combined-cycle unit. 
A short transmission line (approximately 3,200 ft in length), proposed 
to serve as an electrical interconnection from the proposed facilities 
to an existing onsite substation, would occupy a small amount of 
additional land. Land use in the vicinity includes undeveloped areas 
interspersed with a mixture of residential and commercial buildings, as 
well as a park, correctional facility, and landfill.
    Construction would begin in late 2007 and continue until early 
2010. An average of about 350 construction workers would be on the site 
during construction. Approximately 600 to 700 workers would be required 
during the peak construction period between fall 2008 and spring 2009. 
After mechanical checkout of the proposed facilities, demonstration 
(including data analysis and process evaluation) would be conducted 
over a 4.5-year period from mid 2010 until late 2014.
    If the demonstration is successful, commercial operation would 
follow immediately. The combined workforce (i.e., including the Orlando 
Gasification Project and the combined-cycle generating unit) would 
consist of approximately 72 employees added to the existing Stanton 
Energy Center staff of 204 employees. Of the 72 new employees, 19 
workers would provide support only during the startup and demonstration 
phases of the project, while 53 employees would be needed over the 
lifetime of the facilities. The facilities would be designed for a 
lifetime of at least 20 years, including the 4.5-year demonstration 
period.
    The new coal gasifier would operate entirely on coal, consuming a 
total of approximately 1,020,000 tons per year to produce synthesis 
gas. Two to three trains per week would deliver low-sulfur 
subbituminous coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The heating 
value of the coal would average about 8,760 Btu/lb and the sulfur 
content would average about 0.26%. Most air emissions would result from 
combustion of synthesis gas in the gas combustion turbine during normal 
operations. The exhaust gas would be released to the atmosphere via a 
205-ft stack.

Alternatives

    Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCPI Program by 
means of partial funding of projects owned and controlled by non-
Federal sponsors. This statutory requirement places DOE in a much more 
limited role than if the Federal government were the owner and operator 
of the project. In the latter situation, DOE would be responsible for a 
comprehensive review of reasonable alternatives for siting the project. 
However, in dealing with an applicant under the CCPI Program, DOE must 
focus on alternative ways to accomplish CCPI's purpose that reflect 
both the application before it and the role DOE plays in the decisional 
process. It is appropriate in such cases for DOE to give substantial 
weight to the applicant's desires in establishing a project's 
reasonable alternatives.
    Based on the foregoing principles, the only reasonable alternative 
here to the proposed action was the no-action alternative, including 
one scenario that could reasonably be expected to result as a 
consequence of the no-action alternative. DOE dismissed from further 
consideration other alternatives that did not meet the goals and 
objectives of the CCPI Program or of the applicant.
    The Stanton Energy Center was the only location identified in 
Southern's CCPI proposal. It is an existing site at which the private 
partners have already established a business relationship. Because it 
is an existing site, DOE concluded that it would be preferable to any 
undeveloped location.
    DOE considered alternative technologies but dismissed them as 
unreasonable. Technologies and approaches that did not involve the use 
of 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 reducing the size of the proposed project, were 
dismissed as unreasonable. The design size for the proposed project was 
selected because it is sufficiently large to show potential customers 
that the gasification technology, once demonstrated at this scale, 
could be applied commercially without further scale-up. The size of the 
proposed project is also related to OUC's projected need for power.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is for DOE to provide Southern Company a total 
of $235 million in cost-shared funding to design, construct, and 
demonstrate the Orlando Project. A portion ($13.762 million) of this 
funding has already been provided for activities in the first budget 
period, such as project definition, front-end engineering design, 
environmental permitting activities, and preparation of environmental 
information for NEPA analysis.
    Although DOE funding would support only the Orlando Project (i.e., 
coal gasifier, synthesis gas cleanup systems, and supporting 
infrastructure), the Orlando Project would be integrated with a 
privately funded, combined-cycle unit, which together would constitute 
the IGCC facilities. The IGCC facilities would convert coal into 
synthesis gas to drive a gas combustion turbine, and hot exhaust gas 
from the gas turbine would generate steam from water to drive a steam 
turbine. Combined, the two turbines would generate 285 MW (megawatts) 
of electricity. This proven, reliable combined-cycle approach of using 
a gas turbine and steam turbine in tandem increases the amount of 
electricity that can be generated from a given amount of fuel. The IGCC 
facilities are expected to provide a source of electricity that is 
reliable, low cost, environmentally sound, and efficient. DOE expects 
that approximately 40% of the energy in the fuel would be converted to 
electricity compared to about 33% for conventional coal-fired power 
plants. The IGCC facilities would substantially reduce emissions of 
sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 
and mercury relative to existing, conventional coal-fired power plants.

No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared 
funding for the design, construction, and demonstration of the proposed 
Orlando Project at OUC's Stanton Energy Center near Orlando, Florida. 
Based on information from the private partners, without DOE 
participation, Southern Company and/or OUC could reasonably be expected 
to pursue at least one option (i.e., the combined-cycle facilities 
would be built at the Stanton Energy Center and operated using natural 
gas as fuel, without the gasifier, synthesis gas cleanup systems, and 
supporting infrastructure). Accordingly, DOE analyzed a no-action 
alternative scenario in which combined-cycle facilities would operate 
using natural gas as fuel without the availability of synthesis gas. 
Under the no-action alternative, commercialization of the gasification 
facilities (alone or integrated with the combined-cycle facilities to 
form IGCC technology) would probably not occur because utilities and 
industries tend to use known and demonstrated technologies rather than 
unproven technologies.

[[Page 17146]]

Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

    In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts of 
the proposed action and the no-action alternative on potentially 
affected environmental resource areas. These include: land use and 
aesthetics, atmospheric resources and air quality, geology and soils, 
water resources, floodplains and wetlands, ecological resources, social 
and economic resources (including environmental justice and cultural 
resources), waste management, human health and safety, noise, and 
transportation. While the proposed project consists of only the 
gasifier, synthesis gas cleanup systems, and supporting infrastructure, 
the EIS includes the combined-cycle generating unit in the analysis of 
environmental impacts because the facilities are operationally 
interdependent. The EIS considers the impacts from these facilities 
combined with those from other, existing facilities at the Stanton 
Energy Center, and also examines potential incremental impacts of the 
project in combination with other past, present and reasonably 
foreseeable future actions (i.e., cumulative impacts). The following 
sections provide key findings for areas of potential concern.

Land Use and Aesthetics

    The Orlando Project would be confined to the existing Stanton 
Energy Center site and thus would not directly affect offsite land use. 
The 1,100-acre developed portion of the power plant site is already 
zoned specifically for power generation through the site certification 
process under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. The 
tallest new structures would be the 205-ft heat recovery steam 
generator (HRSG) stack, the 174-ft structure to house the gasifier, and 
the 114-ft HRSG. These structures would be shorter than the existing 
two 550-ft stacks serving two boiler buildings. Aesthetic impacts would 
be reduced because the facilities would be located between existing 
facilities, appearing as part of the site.
    Under the no-action alternative, offsite land use would be the 
same, but because the 174-ft structure to house the gasifier would not 
be required, aesthetic impacts would be less than those predicted under 
the proposed action.

Air Resources

    Modeling results based on emissions from the Orlando Project 
predicted that maximum concentrations would be less than their 
corresponding ``significant impact levels.'' (Under EPA guidelines, if 
maximum predicted concentrations are less than ``significant impact 
levels,'' then no further modeling for regulatory purposes is 
required.) Modeling results also predicted that, combined with ambient 
background concentrations, pollutant concentrations from Orlando 
Project emissions would be less than corresponding ambient air quality 
standards. Concentrations would be negligible at the nearest Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I area about 90 miles to the 
west-northwest. (Class I areas are designated areas in which the 
degradation of air quality is to be severely restricted.) Annual 
NOX emissions from the Stanton Energy Center overall would 
not be expected to increase because, as part of the air permitting 
process, OUC has agreed to reduce NOX emissions from other 
units at the Stanton Energy Center so that there would be a net 
decrease in NOX emissions. Annual emissions of volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs), a precursor of the criteria pollutant ozone, 
would be 129 tons. The small percentage increase in VOC emissions 
(approximately 0.3% of the Orange County 2001 emission inventory) would 
not be likely to degrade air quality sufficiently to cause violations 
of the ozone standard, but the magnitude of the degradation cannot be 
quantified. The maximum ambient 24-hour concentration of mercury from 
the proposed HRSG stack is predicted to be 0.8% of its corresponding 
guideline value, and the maximum ambient 24-hour concentration of 
beryllium from the stack is predicted to be 0.4% of its guideline 
value. These results indicate that mercury and beryllium emissions from 
the proposed facilities alone or in combination with other sources 
would pose no threat to human health in the area. Any potential odors 
would be limited to the immediate site area and would not affect 
offsite areas. Increases in CO2 emissions from the proposed 
facilities would add 1.8 million tons per year to an estimated global 
emission of 26,000 million tons per year.
    The proposed project would significantly reduce additional 
SO2, NOX, mercury, and particulate emissions by 
removing constituents from the synthesis gas. The removal of 
approximately 80% of the fuel-bound nitrogen from the synthesis gas 
prior to combustion in the gas turbine would result in appreciably 
lower NOX emissions compared to existing, conventional coal-
fired power plants. The project is expected to remove up to 95% of 
sulfur and over 90% of mercury emissions. Over 99.9% of particulate 
emissions would be removed.
    During operation, a number of means would be employed to reduce 
emissions of air pollutants, including: (1) Application of Best 
Available Control Technology; (2) enclosure of coal unloading, 
transfer, and conveying equipment, plus application of water sprays, as 
needed, and use of baghouses at key transfer points; (3) use of high 
temperature, high pressure filters within the gasification process to 
collect particulate matter from the synthesis gas; (4) use of gas 
cleanup technology to reduce sulfur concentrations in the synthesis 
gas; and (5) use of activated carbon to remove mercury from the 
synthesis gas.
    Southern would monitor to ensure emissions compliance. DOE expects 
the proposed facilities to be subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule, 
Clean Air Mercury Rule, applicable New Source Performance Standards, 
and 40 CFR Part 75 (Acid Rain Program). In general, these Federal rules 
require continuous monitoring and recording of SO2, 
NOX, and mercury emissions. Monitoring would be subject to 
stringent quality assurance and control requirements to ensure that the 
monitored emissions data are accurate and complete.
    Southern would conduct initial and periodic compliance testing 
pursuant to Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
requirements. This stack testing, using EPA reference methods, is 
expected to address the principal air pollutants emitted by the 
proposed facilities, including carbon monoxide, VOCs, and particulate 
matter.
    Approximately 25% less CO2 would be produced per unit of 
power generated compared to typical emission rates at existing, 
conventional coal-fired power plants. However, there would be a net 
increase in global emissions of CO2. For this project, 
mitigation, such as capture and sequestration, is not feasible because 
the planned sulfur removal technology would not generate a concentrated 
CO2 stream. However, even if the facilities were to generate 
a concentrated CO2 stream, the nearest location amenable to 
CO2 sequestration options that have been demonstrated at the 
scale needed (i.e., enhanced oil recovery) would be hundreds of miles 
away. The feasibility and effectiveness of other sequestration options, 
such as injection into saline formations, are not promising for this 
area and have not been fully characterized. Sequestration options for 
all regions of the country are still under investigation in DOE's 
Carbon Sequestration Program. A program goal is to initiate at least 
one large-scale demonstration, at the scale required for a power plant, 
in 2009 to demonstrate the appropriateness for CO2 
injectivity and validate storage capacity estimates and permanence.

[[Page 17147]]

    Under the no-action alternative, emissions of air pollutants would 
be less than those predicted for the new facilities. Also, because the 
flare would not be required, no occasional emissions from a flare would 
occur.

Water Resources

    Because construction would occur in developed site areas where 
surface water runoff is directed to onsite stormwater retention ponds 
and is used in the facilities, no impacts to natural surface waters 
would be experienced, except in the unlikely event of a major storm 
that caused overflow of the site stormwater collection system. 
Transmission line construction outside the main plant area could result 
in soil erosion and sediment deposition to streams, but best management 
practices described below would minimize erosion and sedimentation. 
Impacts from lowering the water table during dewatering would be 
inconsequential.
    Because operation of the facilities would not withdraw surface 
water or discharge liquid effluent, surface waters would experience no 
direct impacts. The Stanton Energy Center's use of reclaimed water 
would increase by an average of 2.1 million gallons per day (from 10.2 
million to about 12.3 million gallons per day), thus reducing by a 
similar amount the water volume discharged to the wetlands downstream 
from the Eastern Water Reclamation Facility and from those wetlands to 
the Econlockhatchee River. Because this surface water is not used, 
reduced flow would not affect water users. Water quality in the river 
could be affected if reduced streamflow also reduced the river's 
capacity to dilute contamination discharged from other parts of the 
watershed, however any such effects would be temporary. Increased 
groundwater withdrawals would not produce discernible impacts. Facility 
operation could add localized contamination to shallow groundwater from 
the possible placement of additional waste in the onsite ash landfill. 
Because any contamination would be limited to the shallow aquifer and 
any contaminated groundwater would be designed to discharge to onsite 
stormwater collection systems, impacts to water users are unlikely.
    The new coal pile would be lined and leachate collected to prevent 
the introduction of pollutants into groundwater. Use of treated 
wastewater effluent and other reclaimed water for cooling water makeup 
would minimize the withdrawal and consumption of Floridan aquifer 
groundwater. Measurement programs specified in the Stanton Energy 
Center Conditions of Certification would ensure continued monitoring of 
groundwater withdrawal rates from the Upper Floridan aquifer. In the 
unlikely event of a fuel spill or other release, assessment and 
recovery would be conducted in accordance with Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection requirements.
    Runoff during construction and operation, as well as all effluents 
from operation, would flow through the existing Stanton Energy Center 
collection and reuse system. No offsite discharges would occur, except 
during a major storm event. Site-specific Best Management Practices to 
prevent the deposition of sediments beyond the construction areas would 
include silt fences, hay bales, vegetative covers, and diversions, to 
reduce impacts to surface water. No process wastewater would be 
directly discharged to any surface waters, but would be reused.
    Under the no-action alternative, cooling water requirements would 
be about 20% less than under the proposed action. Releases to wetlands 
downstream from the Orange County Eastern Water Reclamation Facility 
and from the wetlands to the Econlockhatchee River would be reduced by 
20%, and use of groundwater would be the same as under the proposed 
action.

Floodplains and Wetlands

    No floodplains would be affected by the Orlando Project because no 
construction would occur within a floodplain. During construction, 
wetland and other vegetation communities within the transmission 
corridor would be altered. Because tall-growing vegetation would be cut 
and kept at a height low enough to prevent interference with the 
conductors, forest cover habitats would be reduced and shrub or other 
low-growing vegetation would eventually dominate the corridor. 
Construction of the transmission line would require submittal of a 
joint (1) Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 dredge-and-fill wetlands 
application and (2) Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
environmental resource permit. This permitting process would also 
require OUC to commit to a mitigation plan for any unavoidable wetland 
impacts. The net effect of clearing and maintaining 3.95 acres of 
wetland habitat for the transmission line would be (1) Loss of 1.04 
acres of wetland due to fill and (2) modification of vegetation in 
wetlands in the remainder of the corridor due to right-of-way 
maintenance. This would shift, to a small extent, the balance of 
wildlife habitat in the area away from wetland and forest toward shrub 
and brushland. To mitigate impacts to the wetland area, OUC would 
purchase credits at a local mitigation bank. The total number of acres 
required to mitigate the wetlands impacts would be determined after 
deliberations between the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection, the St. John's River Water Management District, and the 
Army Corps of Engineers.
    Under the no-action alternative, no floodplains would be affected 
and, because the new transmission line would still be required, the 
same alteration of wetland and other vegetation communities within the 
transmission corridor would be experienced.

Ecological Resources

    The land where the Orlando Project would be constructed is not 
important habitat for wildlife, and no areas of ecological sensitivity 
would be affected directly. Wildlife species would be affected by 
construction activities and resultant loss of habitat in the 
transmission corridor. Smaller less mobile animals would be at greatest 
risk, whereas larger more mobile animals would likely move from the 
disturbed areas and increase surrounding habitat use. No Federally-
listed threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur within 
the immediate vicinity of the main proposed facilities or the 
transmission corridor. Five plant species protected by the Florida 
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services are known to occur 
along or in the vicinity of the transmission corridor. Clearing and 
maintenance activities on the right-of-way would be expected to destroy 
some individual plants, but populations would persist in undisturbed 
areas. Other than transient or incidental use by some wildlife species, 
no federally-listed threatened or endangered animal species are found 
within the previously cleared 1,100 acres. Except for the five 
protected plants, no direct impacts are expected to listed species from 
proposed construction and operations. The site contains no appreciable 
natural aquatic resources.
    Impacts under the no-action alternative would be the same as for 
the proposed facilities.

Social and Economic Resources

    Construction and operation of the Orlando Project would not result 
in major impacts to population, housing, local government revenues, or 
most public services in Orange County. However, because the county's 
public schools are already above capacity, even the small increase in 
the number of

[[Page 17148]]

students as a consequence of the new facilities would contribute to 
overcrowding. Overall, construction and operation of the proposed 
facilities would have positive effects on employment and income in the 
region.
    The relatively large minority populations in and around the census 
tract in which the Stanton Energy Center is located (Census Tract 
167.22) represent ``environmental justice'' populations to which 
adverse impacts could be distributed disproportionately. However, 
impacts to land use and aesthetics would not be significant for the 
population as a whole and would not contribute to disproportionately 
high and adverse impacts. Likewise, with regard to health effects and 
noise, there would be no significant adverse impacts to the population 
as a whole, and no disproportionately high and adverse effects would be 
experienced.
    Under the no-action alternative, the peak and average construction 
work force would be reduced, and the construction period would be cut 
from 28 months to 24 months. Fewer operational workers would be 
required (21 rather than 72). Positive economic benefits would also be 
less.

Waste Management

    The Orange County Sanitary Landfill would have ample capacity to 
receive project construction wastes. Ash generated by the Orlando 
Project is being evaluated for several possible beneficial uses that 
could avoid disposal in the onsite landfill. If no beneficial use is 
found, the 347-acre dedicated landfill would provide more than enough 
space to dispose of this ash, as well as other coal combustion wastes 
generated by the Stanton Energy Center. The existing generating units 
would use the anhydrous ammonia produced by the new facilities to 
satisfy their requirements, and any excess would be sold commercially. 
If the elemental sulfur generated by the facilities proves to be as 
pure as it is projected to be, it would be sold commercially. 
Otherwise, it would be placed in the onsite landfill. Elemental sulfur 
would not be a hazardous waste, and the quantity produced would be 
small in comparison with the total capacity of the landfill.
    Under the no-action alternative, the quantities of construction 
wastes would be slightly less. Also, because no ash would be generated, 
no disposal sites would be needed to accommodate ash. No anhydrous 
ammonia or elemental sulfur would be produced.

Human Health and Safety

    Minimal adverse impacts to human health would be expected from 
operational SO2, NOX, and particulate matter 
emissions from the new facilities. With regard to health effects of 
hazardous air pollutants, the Orlando Project would pose less risk than 
most existing plants, many of which were built decades ago. A health 
risk analysis of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed facilities 
estimated that concentrations of all hazardous air pollutants would be 
below the threshold concentrations (below harmful levels).
    A catastrophic accident (e.g., a significant hazardous material 
release, fire, or explosion) associated with the facilities, including 
transportation of anhydrous ammonia off the site, would be unlikely.
    Southern Company and OUC would add project specific health and 
safety-related plans to those already in place for existing Stanton 
Energy Center units to prevent or minimize potential adverse impacts. 
These measures would include appropriate training and supervision of 
employees and enforcement of workplace safety policies.
    Southern Company and OUC would develop and implement a safety 
program for the chlorine and ammonia systems that would include 
emergency response measures as well as specify training protocols.
    Excess ammonia generated at the proposed facilities would be 
handled and transported according to the Department of Transportation's 
hazardous materials regulations.
    Because emissions of air pollutants would be less under the no-
action alternative, adverse impacts to human health would be less.

Noise

    During operation of the proposed facilities, the predicted noise 
level at the nearest residence (about 6,500 ft to the northeast) would 
be 46.5 dBA. No adverse community reaction would be expected as a 
result of noise levels below 50 dBA. Noise from infrequent steam blows 
would attenuate to a level of about 66 dBA at the nearest property 
boundary and 60 dBA at the nearest residence. A level of 60 dBA would 
be typical of normal conversation.
    Noise would be essentially the same under the no-action 
alternative.

Transportation

    Much of the work on planned road projects could coincide with 
construction and operation of the new facilities, creating a major 
cumulative impact to traffic flow on the local road network. This 
impact would be reduced if the Avalon Park Boulevard extension is 
completed in mid-2008 before the peak construction period. Also, 
Southern Company and OUC have committed to a number of measures that 
would mitigate these potential traffic impacts. A construction traffic 
impact mitigation program, which is required by the Stanton Energy 
Center Conditions of Certification, would be developed and implemented. 
Such a program could include encouraging construction workers to 
carpool; working with the local mass-transit system to provide workers 
with a park-and-ride service to the site; using the existing railway 
access to the Stanton Energy Center site for the delivery of some 
construction equipment and materials; staggering construction work 
schedules and shifts to avoid peak traffic hours; and working with the 
Florida Department of Transportation to provide temporary traffic 
control devices and alter signal times to assist in maintaining proper 
traffic flow. If the Avalon Park Boulevard extension project is 
completed prior to project construction, traffic issues would largely 
be mitigated and more modest mitigation could be considered. However, 
DOE acknowledges that these mitigation steps would not completely 
eliminate traffic impacts.
    Noise related to transportation would not be expected to be 
significant. At the nearest residence, noise levels from truck traffic 
on Alafaya Trail would be at about the same level as that of a quiet 
subdivision during daylight hours. Noise levels from current rail 
traffic have not caused any public complaints. Increased rail traffic 
due to the proposed project would result in more frequent noise from 
rail traffic, but the noise levels would be the same.
    Traffic congestion would be less under the no-action alternative. 
No additional trains would be needed to deliver coal, but trucks would 
continue to deliver anhydrous ammonia to the site once per week. Noise 
levels associated with transportation would be the same as for the new 
facilities but would be less frequent.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    The no-action alternative is environmentally preferable because it 
would result in slightly less impacts than those predicted for the 
proposed action.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

    The only comments that DOE received on the final EIS were from the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4, NEPA Program 
Office. EPA stated that the final EIS was responsive to their comments 
on the draft EIS, but observed that direct,

[[Page 17149]]

indirect, and cumulative impacts are inherent in projects that generate 
power. Therefore, EPA stated that verification of the impacts on air 
quality, wetlands, hazardous waste, and cumulative impacts will need to 
take place as the project progresses, with appropriate avoidance and 
mitigation measures implemented. DOE anticipated verifying impacts 
through an environmental monitoring plan. This plan will be developed 
as part of the cooperative agreement with Southern Company, and reports 
on monitoring activities will be included in the reports required under 
the cooperative agreement.
    EPA also expressed appreciation of DOE's consideration of diesel 
retrofit technology to minimize emissions from construction equipment. 
As stated in the final EIS, specification of the use of diesel retrofit 
technologies is not warranted since impacts from diesel engines during 
construction are not expected to be a concern. However, DOE will 
encourage Southern Company to consider the use of biodiesel and diesel 
retrofit technologies during construction activities to further reduce 
impacts.

Decision

    DOE will implement the proposed action, providing, through a 
cooperative agreement with Southern Company, a total of $235 million in 
cost-shared funding to design, construct, and demonstrate the Orlando 
Gasification Project.
    DOE's decision was made upon careful review of the potential 
environmental impacts, presented in the EIS, and incorporates all 
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. DOE plans to 
verify the environmental impacts predicted in the EIS and the 
implementation of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.

    Issued in Washington, DC on this 28th day of March 2007.
James A. Slutz,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
 [FR Doc. E7-6435 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P