Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings: Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project, Rainelle, Greenbrier County, WV, 23214-23221 [E8-9329]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23214-23221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9329]



[[Page 23214]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings: Western 
Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project, Rainelle, Greenbrier 
County, WV

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD) and Floodplain Statement of Findings.

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

SUMMARY: DOE has decided to implement the Proposed Action alternative, 
identified as the preferred alternative, in the Western Greenbrier Co-
Production Demonstration Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(DOE/EIS-0361; November 2007) (FEIS). That alternative is to provide 
approximately $107.5 million (up to 50% of the development costs) to 
Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC (WGC) through a cooperative 
agreement under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) Program for a 
Co-Production Facility to be located at Rainelle in Greenbrier County, 
West Virginia. This funding will be used by WGC to design, construct 
and demonstrate a 98 megawatt (net) power plant and cement 
manufacturing facility based on an innovative atmospheric-pressure 
circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler with a compact inverted cyclone 
to generate electricity and steam by burning approximately 3,000 to 
4,000 tons per day of coal refuse from several local sites.
    DOE considered two overall alternatives: To provide cost-shared 
funding or not to provide cost-shared funding to WGC's proposed 
project. In addition, DOE examined a range of implementing options for 
the power plant site, fuel supply, water supply, limestone supply, 
means of transportation, and transmission corridors. DOE analyzed in 
detail the environmental (including socioeconomic) impacts of each of 
these different options, as well as the economic and environmental 
benefits related to the reclamation and potential reuse of the coal 
refuse sites.
    This ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings have been prepared in 
accordance with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508) for 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), DOE's NEPA 
Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021), and DOE's Compliance with 
Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR part 
1022).

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 (NETL) Web site at https://
www.netl.doe.gov. This ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings will be 
available on both Web sites in the near future. Copies of the Final 
EIS, this ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings also may be 
requested by contacting Mr. Roy G. Spears, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. 
Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 
Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26505; telephone: 304-285-5460; or 
e-mail: roy.spears@netl.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about 
the project or the EIS, contact Mr. Roy G. Spears, NEPA Document 
Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology 
Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26505; telephone: 
304-285-5460 or e-mail: roy.spears@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 800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE has prepared this ROD pursuant to CEQ 
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA [40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508] and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR part 1021). This ROD 
is based on DOE's Final EIS and other program considerations.

Background and Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    The promotion of America's energy security through reliable, clean, 
and affordable energy is one of the core components of DOE's mission to 
discover solutions to power and secure America's future. Coal is the 
most plentiful energy source in America today. Accordingly, DOE has 
strived to accelerate deployment of innovative clean coal technologies 
that can meet near-term energy and environmental goals, reduce risk in 
the business community to an acceptable level, and provide incentives 
to the private sector for innovative research and development directed 
at solving various energy supply problems. Since the early 1970s, DOE 
and its predecessor agencies have supported research and development 
programs that include long-term, high business-risk activities for the 
development of a wide variety of innovative coal technologies through 
the proof-of-concept stage. On November 5, 2001, the President signed 
the ``Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2002,'' which established and appropriated initial funding for the 
CCPI Program (Pub. L. 107-63). Under this Initiative, DOE is required 
to promote the widespread commercial application of innovative 
technologies for more efficient and environmentally sustainable uses of 
coal by the power industry in the United States. This Initiative 
achieves that goal by co-funding proposed projects that DOE has 
selected through solicitation and negotiation.
    DOE issued the first-round CCPI solicitation in March 2002 and 
received 36 proposals. The Western Greenbrier Co-Production 
Demonstration Project was one of eight projects selected in January 
2003 for further consideration following a preliminary environmental 
review. The evaluation criteria that DOE used in the selection process 
included technical merit of the proposed technology, potential for a 
successful demonstration of the technology, potential for the 
technology to be commercialized, and environmental factors. In addition 
to demonstrating the first commercial application in the United States 
of a compact, inverted cyclone CFB design, which reduces size, steel 
requirements, costs and construction time, this project offers a novel 
approach to converting waste ash into commercial building products 
while also integrating power generation with remediation of coal refuse 
piles. A successful demonstration would generate technical, 
environmental, and financial data to confirm that similar integrated 
technologies can be implemented at the commercial scale.

EIS Process

    On June 3, 2003, DOE published in the Federal Register (68 FR 
33111) a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS and to hold a public 
scoping meeting. DOE held the meeting in Charmco, West Virginia, on 
June 19, 2003. The public scoping period ended on July 3, 2003. DOE 
considered all of the comments received in preparing the Draft EIS.
    On December 1, 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal 
Register (71 FR 69562) and DOE's Notice of Availability of the Draft 
EIS was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2006 (71 FR 
70371). DOE's Notice of Availability announced a public hearing on the 
Draft EIS and invited agencies,

[[Page 23215]]

organizations, and individuals to present oral and written comments.
    DOE conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIS on January 4, 2007, 
in Crawley, West Virginia. An informational session was held prior to 
the hearing for the public to learn more about the proposed project. 
The public was encouraged to provide comments, either at the hearing or 
in writing, by January 18, 2007. Twenty people commented at the hearing 
and 179 people submitted written comments. DOE considered and responded 
to all public comments in the Final EIS.
    In November 2007, DOE issued its Final EIS and the EPA published a 
Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in the Federal Register on 
November 9, 2007 (72 FR 63579).

Proposed Action

    The Proposed Action is for DOE to provide WGC with approximately 
$107.5 million through a cooperative agreement under the CCPI Program 
for up to 50% of the cost for a Co-Production Facility, emphasizing a 
98 megawatt (net) CFB that generates electricity and steam, to be 
located at Rainelle in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. The facility 
would be designed for long-term commercial operation (at least 20 
years) following completion of the cooperative agreement. It is 
anticipated that DOE's share of project costs would be paid back over a 
20-year period following the one-year demonstration period, based on a 
Repayment Agreement negotiated between DOE and WGC. The proposed power 
plant, which employs an inverted cyclone combustor, would require less 
steel than a plant configured with a conventional cyclone, reducing 
steel costs by approximately 40%. Because the boiler system is shorter 
and has a smaller footprint, it would take about 10% less time to 
construct than a conventional cyclone facility. WGC would obtain fuel 
for the power plant from the Anjean, Joe Knob, Donegan, and Green 
Valley coal refuse sites in the area for an initial period of 20 years. 
Before these fuel sources are depleted, WGC would identify additional 
coal refuse sites in accordance with West Virginia Department of 
Environmental Protection (WVDEP) clean-up priorities. Refuse coal 
removed from these sites would be beneficiated (washed or otherwise 
cleaned to increase the energy content by reducing the ash content) in 
a semi-mobile, relocatable, coal preparation plant. Heavy-haul trucks 
would transport the fuel on local roads to the power plant site. By 
processing the fuel near the coal refuse sites, WGC would substantially 
reduce the volume of truck traffic that otherwise would be generated by 
the project and also reduce fuel processing and handling activities on 
the power plant site.
    The power plant would generate electricity for distribution on the 
national grid via a new transmission line and corridor. The power plant 
would also produce an alkaline ash from fuel combustion. WGC would 
return a portion of the ash to coal refuse piles to facilitate 
remediation and reclamation efforts at each of the coal refuse sites in 
accordance with agreements between WGC and the WVDEP. WGC would produce 
cement from the balance of the ash by combining it with limestone in a 
coal-fired rotary kiln associated with the power plant. In addition to 
electricity and cement, the planned plant would co-produce steam and 
would serve as the anchor tenant for a proposed, environmentally 
balanced industrial park (``EcoPark'') to be located on an adjacent 
property in Rainelle.

Alternatives

    DOE pursues the goals of the CCPI Program by co-funding projects 
owned by non-Federal sponsors. As such, DOE has a more limited role 
than if the Federal government were the owner and operator of the 
projects. DOE evaluated CCPI Program applications to determine if they 
meet the CCPI Program's goals. It is appropriate for DOE to consider 
the applicant's needs and goals in determining the scope of the EIS 
(i.e., identifying the range of reasonable alternatives).
    Based on the foregoing principles, DOE has identified and analyzed 
two reasonable alternatives: (1) Provision by DOE of cost-shared 
funding for the WGC Project as proposed, subject to conditions (e.g. 
mitigations), and (2) a no-action alternative in which DOE would not 
provide funding for the project. Without funding, DOE assumes that the 
project would be cancelled.
    DOE considered and dismissed from further review other alternatives 
that did not meet the goals and objectives of the CCPI Program. 
Commenters proposed additional alternatives such as encouraging energy 
efficiency rather than demonstrating a coal-fired power plant and 
employing high quality fuel rather than refuse fuel. DOE considered but 
dismissed these and similar alternatives from further analysis because 
they would not satisfy the Department's purpose and need.
    DOE examined numerous implementing options for the power plant 
site, fuel supply, water supply, limestone supply, materials handling, 
transportation, and transmission corridor sites. For example, DOE 
examined three locations for the proposed power plant facility, each of 
which would change the configuration and size of the power plant 
footprint. One of the advantages of the inverted cyclone technology is 
that it reduces the plant footprint, and the resulting reduction of 
material and construction cost is relevant to DOE's decision to fund or 
not fund. DOE also examined four different coal refuse sites for fuel 
supply. These sites vary widely in size and distance from the plant 
site. DOE examined secondary and tertiary water supply options that 
would involve varying degrees of surface (river) water and groundwater. 
The implementing options, in some instances, have distinct 
environmental impacts. For example, one option for water supply would 
reduce streamflow in the Meadow River to a greater degree than the 
other option. The EIS analyzes in detail the environmental impacts of 
these different options.
    After considering the range of reasonable implementing options, the 
potential environmental impacts, and all public comments, DOE concluded 
in the Final EIS that providing cost-shared funding for WGC's preferred 
configuration of options is DOE's Preferred Alternative.

Analysis of Environmental Impacts

    Atmospheric conditions and air quality: In examining how the 
construction and operation of the WGC Co-Production Facility could 
impact air resources in the planning area, DOE reviewed the predictive 
air dispersion modeling, Class I and Class II Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) analysis, and visibility modeling that were 
completed by WGC in support of the Permit to Construct, R14-0028, 
issued to WGC by WVDEP \1\. During construction of the Co-Production 
Facility and the associated coal preparation plant system, the 
potential sources of air emissions would be material handling and 
storage, soil excavation, diesel-fueled construction equipment, and 
construction worker vehicles. During operations, the potential sources 
of air emissions would be process equipment (including the CFB and 
kiln), material handling and storage, and vehicles. The majority of

[[Page 23216]]

these emissions would be exhaust from the combustor and kiln via a 
common stack during operations. The Co-Production Facility's emissions 
would be less than levels specified in the R14-0028 permit, which 
complies with New Source Performance Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In accordance with the West Virginia Air Pollution Control 
Act (West Virginia Code Sec. Sec.  22-5-1 et seq.), 45 CSR. 13--
Permits for Construction, Modification, Relocation and Operation of 
Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants, Notification Requirements, 
Temporary Permits, General Permits and Procedures for Evaluation, 
and 45 CSR. 14--Permits for Construction and Major Modification of 
Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the implementing options proposed by WGC would emit similar 
types and quantities of pollutants. Analyses in the EIS show that 
emissions of criteria pollutants, when combined with ambient background 
concentrations of pollutants, would comply with National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition, pursuant to the governing 
Permit R14-0028, the facility would be equipped with a Continuous 
Emission Monitoring System to ensure that NAAQS would not be exceeded.
    To limit the rate at which increased emissions can occur in areas 
that attain air quality standards, PSD regulations include limits, or 
increments (``PSD increments''), that the proposed facilities 
classified as major sources must meet. PSD increments are the maximum 
allowable concentration increases above a baseline concentration. PSD 
increments applicable to the proposed project have been established for 
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 
particulate matter (PM10). The Co-Production Facility's 
emissions of these NAAQS pollutants, namely SO2, 
NO2 and PM10, will contribute to PSD increments 
in the Class II areas (Class II areas are designated areas in which 
moderate deterioration, associated with well managed growth, is 
allowed) that surrounds the proposed WGC plant. These emissions, 
however, would contribute in a range between 25% and 75% of the 
allowable increment depending upon the pollutant and associated 
averaging time. The 24-hour PM10 emissions in the immediate 
vicinity of the site would be responsible for the greatest percentage 
of the PSD increment.
    In response to public scoping comments and after consulting with 
WVDEP and Federal Land Managers, DOE analyzed potential impacts at the 
four nearest Class I areas (Class I areas are designated areas in which 
the degradation of air quality is to be severely restricted [e.g., 
National Park or Wilderness Areas]). These Class I areas (and their 
distances from Rainelle) are: James River Wilderness Area (74 miles), 
Otter Creek Wilderness Area (89 miles), Dolly Sods Wilderness Area (102 
miles), and Shenandoah National Park (105 miles). A visibility 
analysis, using methodology requested by Federal Land Managers 
responsible for the Class I areas, indicated that in the closest Class 
I areas there would likely be no more than 6 days over a 3-year period 
when there would be a 5% change in light extinction, and no days with 
greater than 10% light extinction (thresholds that Federal Land 
Managers use to determine potential significance). However, 
meteorological records suggest that these occurrences may be 
attributable to natural obscuring conditions (such as fog, clouds, and 
rain). The analyses indicate that, even without accounting for 
naturally obscuring periods, concentrations of all the criteria 
pollutants emitted from the Co-Production Facility would have an 
insignificant impact at the nearest Class I Areas.
    As a fossil fuel-fired steam electric power plant, the CFB would be 
among the 28 named source categories listed in section 169 of the Clean 
Air Act as a major source that has the potential to emit a regulated 
air pollutant (or precursor) or a hazardous air pollutant in quantities 
equal to or exceeding listed thresholds. For emissions that could be 
above a threshold, a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis 
was conducted by WGC as part of the permitting process. This analysis 
resulted in the selection of the following emission control 
technologies:
     Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)--Selective Non-Catalytic 
Reduction from the combined flow of the CFB and Kiln.
     Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Volatile Organic Compounds 
(VOCs)--A combination of temperature profile, residence time, 
turbulence, and excess air levels for controlling CO and VOC emission 
rates from the combined flow of the CFB/Kiln.
     SO2--Limestone injection into the CFB for 
controlling SO2 emissions from the CFB, and use of a flash 
dryer absorber for the CFB/Kiln.
     Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4)--Limestone 
injection into the CFB for controlling SO2 emissions from 
the CFB, and use of a flash dryer absorber for the CFB/Kiln.
     Particulate matter (PM)--Use of a baghouse for controlling 
PM emission rates from the combined flow of the CFB/ Kiln.
    DOE independently reviewed the BACT analysis that WGC conducted to 
determine how WGC would control emissions of NOX, CO, VOC, 
SO2, H2SO4, and PM. In addition, in 
May 2006, the Sierra Club (West Virginia Chapter), West Virginia 
Highlands Conservancy, and Greenbrier River Watershed Association filed 
an appeal with the West Virginia Air Quality Board (AQB), challenging 
WVDEP's issuance of the air permit. The final order for this appeal was 
issued on February 28, 2007. In it, the AQB affirmed the WVDEP's 
issuance of the air permit to WGC. According to the final order, the 
AQB concluded that WGC appropriately conducted the BACT analysis, and 
WVDEP complied with procedural requirements in accordance with the 
applicable laws and regulations.
    WGC's planned extraction and processing of coal refuse would emit 
fugitive dust and WGC would contain these emissions within site 
boundaries through the use of dust suppression activities in accordance 
with the West Virginia Code of State Rules (CSR) 38 CSR 2 and 45 CSR 5. 
WGC would construct and operate the preparation plant in accordance 
with a WVDEP Class II General Permit G10-C for coal preparation plants 
and coal handling operations. WVDEP would issue the permit in 
accordance with 45 CSR 13.
    Based on test burn analysis conducted for WGC's PSD Permit 
Application, WGC and DOE concluded that the Co-Production Facility 
would emit a maximum of 0.014 tons of mercury per year, which is 
significantly less than the 200 pound (0.1 ton) per year threshold 
listed in 45 CSR 13. The plant is not anticipated to discharge 
objectionable odors as regulated by 45 CSR 4.
    Analysis based on the Seasonal/Annual Cooling Tower Impact model, 
developed by the Electric Power Research Institute, demonstrated that 
the cooling tower proposed for the WGC project would not lead to excess 
fogging, rime ice deposition, plume shadowing, loss of solar energy, or 
salt and water deposition. The analysis shows that the cooling tower 
would have minimal adverse air impacts on neighboring properties.
    Under the Acid Rain Program established by Title IV of the Clean 
Air Act, utility generating units greater than 25 MW are required to 
obtain a Phase II Acid Rain Permit from EPA, under which they cannot 
emit more tons of SO2 than held in marketable allowances. 
The proposed Co-Production Facility would have to obtain and comply 
with such a permit and would be operated in a manner that is consistent 
with EPA's overall efforts to reduce SO2 emissions.
    CO2 Emissions: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 
its Fourth Assessment Report, \2\ stated that warming of the earth's 
climate system is unequivocal, and that warming is very likely due to 
anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG)

[[Page 23217]]

concentrations. Emissions of the GHG, CO2, from the proposed 
project (including activities at the coal refuse and preparation plant 
sites and related trucking activities) would be approximately 0.87 
million tons per year (0.79 million metric tons). Emissions of 
CO2 resulting from global fossil fuel combustion are 
estimated to have averaged 28 billion tons (26 billion metric tons) per 
year during the period 2000 to 2005.\3\ Over the 50-year duration of 
expected commercial operation, the proposed project could release 
approximately 44 million tons (40 metric tons) of CO2. DOE 
is not aware of any methodology to correlate the CO2 
emissions exclusively from the proposed project to any specific impact 
on global warming; however, studies such as the IPCC report support the 
premise that CO2 emissions from the proposed project, 
together with global GHG emissions, will very likely have a cumulative 
impact on global warming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment 
Report, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy 
Makers, released in Valencia, Spain, November 17, 2007.
    \3\ Energy Information Agency, https://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/
international/iealf//tablehlco2.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although not proposed by the applicant, DOE has considered 
potential measures to mitigate impacts on global climate change by 
using geologic sequestration to reduce emissions of CO2. DOE 
determined that geologic sequestration is not reasonable for this 
project. Unlike plants that use integrated gasification combined cycle 
technology and produce a capturable stream of high-pressure 
CO2 in the pre-combustion gasification stage, the proposed 
project will use a circulating fluidized bed system, and only emit a 
post-combustion, low pressure, diluted CO2 stream in the 
flue gas. Currently, there is no economically viable technology that 
can capture diluted CO2 in this low pressure stream. In 
order to raise its CO2 to a pressure high enough for 
capture, the plant would need to use pressurization equipment that 
would consume so much energy and be so prohibitively expensive to 
operate that the plant would be economically infeasible.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For information on the status of various capture 
technologies, see https://www.netl.doe.gov/technolgoies/carbon_seq/
FAQs/tech-status.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the future, cost-effective energy efficient technology may be 
available to capture the type of low-pressured CO2 stream 
that a CFB plant emits. DOE has established a 2020 goal for the 
commercial scale operation of large scale plants that can select from a 
suite of technologies (currently in a conceptual phase) to capture up 
to 90% of CO2 emissions and store it with 99% storage 
permanence (meaning that at most 1% of the stored CO2 might 
leak out) at less than a 10% increase in the cost of energy services. 
At present, however, because CO2 capture and subsequent 
sequestration is not a feasible option for the proposed project, DOE is 
not requiring specific mitigation measures to reduce CO2 
emissions.
    Surface Water: As required by a National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System General Construction Permit, WGC would minimize 
impacts from discharge of pollutants and storm water on surface waters 
during construction by implementing an erosion and sedimentation 
control plan. WGC would implement a storm water management pollution 
prevention plan and a groundwater protection plan based on West 
Virginia Department of Transportation and WVDEP requirements, thereby 
minimizing impacts on surface water during operation of the plant.
    WGC intends to use effluent from the Rainelle Sewage Treatment 
Plant as the primary source of process water for the facilities. WGC 
proposed two implementing options to provide supplemental sources of 
process water. Under the first option, WGC would withdraw groundwater 
as a secondary source of water supply and withdraw surface water from 
the Meadow River as a tertiary supply. The plant would withdraw water 
from the Meadow River intermittently, only during low aquifer 
conditions. WGC estimates that the Meadow River's streamflow would be 
reduced by a maximum of approximately 1.6 to 2.0 cubic feet per second 
(cfs) at the end of a 25-year period. Under the second implementing 
option, WGC would withdraw from the Meadow River as a secondary source 
of water supply. This might reduce base river flows, but the plant 
would stop withdrawing river water when flows could fall below 60% of 
the annually or seasonally adjusted average flow. The West Virginia 
Division of Natural Resources has provided base flow thresholds to be 
maintained in the Meadow River: 178 cfs April through September and 118 
cfs October through March. A flow monitoring system would be 
implemented to alert operators or inspectors when the flows are at or 
approaching the thresholds. WGC personnel are responsible for the 
monitoring. WGC will install an electronic monitoring device with a 
``low flow'' alarm, which will provide constant river flow information.
    Under DOE's preferred alternative, DOE would fund the plant only if 
it employs surface water as a secondary source and groundwater as a 
tertiary source (i.e., operates under the second implementing option). 
During periods when the plant does not use groundwater for water 
supply, the local aquifer would recharge and replenish itself. 
According to the widely used Tenant Method and the West Virginia 
Division of Natural Resources' recently determined base flow 
thresholds, the WGC plant's withdrawal of river water will leave the 
water flow high enough to sustain survival of stream habitat. Based on 
the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources' guidelines, the 
maximum that WGC would be allowed to withdraw from the river is 2.7 
cfs, which represents less than 1% of Meadow River's average annual 
flow. Withdrawal from the river would be limited to high flow 
conditions. The WGC plant would reduce streamflow by a maximum of 
approximately 0.8 cfs at the end of a 25-year period.
    Floodplains: All of the power plant siting options would 
unavoidably impact the floodplain of Sewell Creek. The preferred option 
would have the least impact on the floodplain, requiring 16 acres to be 
filled, resulting in a maximum increase in water elevation for a 100-
year flood of 0.48 ft. The other two (non-preferred) options would 
require up to 20 acres to be filled, resulting in a maximum increase in 
water elevation for a 100-year flood of up to 0.67 ft. These potential 
increases in the 100-year flood elevations for Sewell Creek would be 
less than the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 
maximum height of 1 ft in the local upstream area. No component of the 
Proposed Action would impact floodplains at coal refuse sites, 
limestone supply quarries, or power transmission facilities associated 
with the proposed project.
    Biological Resources (Including Wetlands): The power plant site has 
lost most of its original ecological resource value as a result of 
prior land-disturbing activity. Extensive adjacent acreage of 
undisturbed upland areas offer higher quality habitat. DOE determined 
that the project is not expected to impact any protected species. The 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed DOE's habitat assessment report 
and surveys and confirmed that no federally-listed threatened and 
endangered species were found in the vicinity of the proposed project, 
and determined that no further consultation is required under Section 7 
of the Endangered Species Act for DOE's preferred alternative.
    The preferred power plant siting option would impact approximately 
0.26 acres of wetlands. The non-preferred power plant options would 
encroach into significant areas of wetlands and require filling of a

[[Page 23218]]

meander bend of Sewell Creek. In addition, construction and operation 
of the proposed transmission line corridor could impact approximately 
three acres of wetlands. With respect to the proposed transmission line 
corridor, most of the wetlands impacts would be temporary and the areas 
would be restored to their pre-existing conditions when construction 
activities end. Over time, restored wetlands would develop a similar or 
greater functional capacity compared to pre-disturbance conditions. 
However, impacts to approximately 0.38 acres of forested wetlands would 
result in a permanent habitat conversion and a change in wetlands 
function because post-construction corridor maintenance would result in 
a scrub-shrub cover type and prevent transitioning into a forested 
cover type. WGC has submitted a revised wetlands permit application to 
WVDEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The 0.26 acres of 
wetlands impacted by the preferred option, or larger acreage impacted 
by the non-preferred options, in addition to the approximately three 
acres of wetlands impacted within the transmission line corridor would 
result in a cumulative wetland impact that exceeds 0.5 acres, and thus 
necessitated WGC's submission of an Individual Permit application. Both 
state Section 401 and Federal Section 404 wetlands permit applications 
discuss temporary and permanent wetlands impacts and best management 
practices (BMPs), and include a compensatory conceptual wetlands 
mitigation plan for impacted wetlands. The conceptual wetlands 
replacement design would be finalized once WVDEP approves the plan. The 
USACE has decided to evaluate the WVDEP's response regarding 
compensatory wetlands replacement design before it would issue a 
jurisdictional determination on wetlands delineated by WGC. The 
Floodplain Statement of Findings in this ROD (below) contains further 
information about potential floodplain and wetlands impacts.
    Geology and Groundwater: DOE's groundwater modeling demonstrated 
that both of the implementing options considered for pumping water from 
the local aquifer were feasible and would not cause unacceptable levels 
of drawdown. These implementing options are described in greater detail 
under Surface Water. The Rainelle Water Department separately indicated 
that the two city wells would be able to safely meet the city water 
demand under both implementing options.
    In response to concerns expressed by members of the public during 
the EIS process about potential impacts on groundwater resulting from 
leaching of metals in the CFB ash proposed to be used for coal refuse 
remediation, DOE has conducted a further examination, including a 
review of case studies. Based on its review, DOE has concluded that CFB 
ash can be used to remediate coal refuse sites in a manner that does 
not degrade groundwater resources by leaching of arsenic or other 
metals. Remedial plans would govern the potential leaching of metals in 
the context of local conditions at the coal refuse site (e.g., geology 
and hydrology). The potential for mobilizing arsenic and other metals 
would be carefully evaluated as part of the remediation planning 
efforts overseen by WVDEP, who would direct and supervise the 
development and implementation of the site-specific reclamation plans. 
DOE will require that WGC develop plans in a manner that not only is 
protective of groundwater and surface water resources, but would 
potentially have a long-term beneficial impact to water resources.
    Cultural Resources: None of the project components associated with 
the Proposed Action would occur on, or otherwise affect, federally-
recognized Native American tribal lands. The West Virginia State 
Historic Preservation Office (WV SHPO) concurred with the conclusion of 
a Phase I survey that none of the WGC implementing options for the 
proposed project would have an effect on any archaeological resources 
that might exist at the plant site. To date, no other cultural, 
historic or archaeological resource impacts have been identified at the 
sites associated with this project. In general, these sites have been 
extensively disturbed by previous mining-related operations and, as 
such, DOE does not expect that archaeological resources will be present 
in the vicinity of the proposed project. DOE conducted and submitted an 
additional Phase I survey to the WV SHPO in November, 2007, following 
further refinements to the proposed transmission corridor and water 
supply facilities. No prehistoric or historic archeological materials 
were reported in the survey; however, DOE anticipates WV SHPO's 
comments on the report in the near future and will continue 
consultation with the WV SHPO in accordance with the National Historic 
Preservation Act Section 106 review process.
    Socioeconomics: DOE determined that socioeconomic impacts would be 
predominately beneficial. Construction and operation of the power plant 
would increase local employment opportunities and provide economic 
stimulus to area businesses without displacing existing residents or 
businesses or adversely affecting current trends in population growth 
and the demand for housing. During construction, the project would 
likely employ an average of 185 individuals per month over a 29-month 
period. During the demonstration phase and subsequent commercial 
operation, the proposed project would employ approximately 126 full-
time personnel and would result in approximately 114 new jobs from 
economic activity triggered by the proposed project. However, due to 
their close proximity to the proposed power plant, residential 
properties to the east of and within 1,500 feet of the plant site could 
decline in value because of temporary impacts to aesthetics, noise, 
dust emissions, and traffic during construction, and long-term impacts 
to aesthetics and noise during operations.
    Environmental Justice: DOE determined that the proposed power plant 
would not have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority 
or low-income populations. DOE did not identify any minority 
populations in the potentially affected area. The proportion of 
minorities in the region affected by the power plant site is 
substantially below 50%, and is not meaningfully greater than the 
proportion of minorities in the larger local jurisdictions, county, and 
state. DOE did, however, identify low-income populations. The general 
population of western Greenbrier County represents a ``low-income 
population.'' In comparison to the state and county, local communities 
in the proposed project area have relatively large low-income 
populations. However, the EIS analyses show that there will be no 
significant impacts on any populations, and DOE has concluded that 
impacts on low-income populations would not be disproportionately high 
and adverse.
    Land Use: WGC would develop the proposed project on disturbed land 
near areas that have historically been used for industrial activities. 
Potential business opportunities arising from the proposed project 
could cause land uses surrounding the power plant to change. The three 
communities sponsoring the project envision the development of the 
EcoPark industrial park on adjoining vacant land that was previously 
designated for such use but has not been developed. Once WGC has 
completed its reclamation work at the degraded coal refuse sites, these 
sites might be suitable for other uses beneficial to the local 
communities, county, and state. The development of a transmission line 
corridor right-of-way would require the

[[Page 23219]]

clearing of a 206-acre corridor. The route would not traverse populated 
land areas, and would not cross any parks, trails, or byways. Many of 
the properties that would be traversed by the new corridor are owned by 
timber companies that would likely clear-cut the properties prior to 
WGC's construction of the power line. WGC would compensate landowners 
for granting an easement.
    Community Services and Utilities: Because the local population has 
been declining since the 2000 census, currently available public 
services are adequate for Rainelle. Based on community response to the 
proposed project, DOE expects that most of the construction workers 
would be hired locally. The operation of the proposed facility may 
attract up to 100 employees from larger communities just outside of 
Rainelle (e.g., Lewisburg). Thus, DOE anticipates that the proposed 
power plant would not impose excessive demands on community services 
and utility systems during construction and operation, and the project 
would not induce unsupportable development. Construction activities and 
anticipated injuries may increase the short-term demand on medical 
services.
    Traffic and Transportation: DOE determined that existing roadways 
could accommodate the additional traffic volumes during construction 
and operation of the proposed power plant. The trucking of fuels, 
limestone, and other materials would not cause delays beyond level of 
service ``C'' at any of the intersections studied because it would 
occur on designated heavy haul routes (``C'' represents stable traffic 
flow; levels beyond ``C'' (i.e., levels of service ``D'' through 
``F''), signify higher density of traffic flow and increasing 
degradation of roadway capacity). However, heavy-haul trucks would 
likely increase travel times on some local roads between the 
preparation plant sites and the power plant site.
    Public Health and Safety: DOE anticipates that worker safety 
impacts would track normal Bureau of Labor Statistics for the 
construction and operation of the power plant, activities at the coal 
refuse and preparation plant sites, and trucking of fuel and limestone. 
Worker safety at the proposed facilities would be subject to 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards.
    EIS analyses show that carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to 
members of the public from routine plant releases would be 
insignificant.
    Aqueous ammonia would be stored at the power plant to reduce 
NOX emissions. A sudden release of aqueous ammonia (whether 
accidental or caused by an act of sabotage or terrorism) could present 
a health hazard to people within a 600-ft radius of the power plant; 
however, there are only two residential properties within the 600-ft 
radius and WGC plans to purchase these properties. Thereafter, there 
would be no residents living within the 600-ft radius. On-site workers 
are present within a 300-ft radius, such that they could be affected in 
the event of a release.
    Noise: DOE anticipates that the majority of adverse impacts during 
plant construction, including blasting noise and vibration, would only 
impact those residential properties located within 1,500 ft east of the 
plant site and would be temporary and intermittent. Some short-term, 
intermittent daytime noise impacts would occur during construction 
activities at other areas associated with the proposed project. In 
accordance with noise requirements as regulated by the West Virginia 
Public Service Commission, WGC would incorporate noise attenuation and 
mitigation measures into the final design that would ensure operational 
noise levels would remain below a threshold level at each identified 
receptor site above which noise monitoring would otherwise be required 
by the Public Service Commission. Nonetheless, to ensure compliance, 
WGC would monitor noise levels during plant operations. Noise from 
steam blow-off sources would be temporary and infrequent, occurring 
only during start-up and maintenance operations. Coal refuse sites and 
candidate preparation plant sites are located in remote, sparsely 
populated areas where there has been or still are coal mining 
activities. Commercial operations at limestone quarries would not 
change appreciably from baseline conditions. DOE estimates that 
traffic-related noise during construction and operation will fall below 
Federal and state impact criteria.
    Cumulative Impacts: Other than commercial activities by private 
sponsors, there are no known major projects planned by Federal, state, 
county, or municipal authorities in the WGC area. The principal 
commercial activities in the planning area include the following: 
ongoing timber harvesting activities (clear cutting) in the vicinity of 
the proposed project; ongoing and future surface coal mining and 
preparation operations at and near the Green Valley and Anjean sites; a 
proposed wind power generating facility to be located north of the 
proposed project area by Invenergy Wind, LLC; and the planned EcoPark 
industrial development to be located adjacent to the WGC plant site. 
Greenbrier Valley Economic Development Corporation plans to develop the 
EcoPark on approximately 26 acres of land on the former site of the 
Meadow River Lumber Company located directly northwest of the WGC plant 
site across Sewell Creek. The proposed plant would support the EcoPark 
by providing electricity, steam, and hot water and by producing cement 
in a kiln for use in the manufacture of construction materials by 
potential tenants. The EcoPark may include a facility for the 
production of building products using cement from the kiln, a facility 
to produce farm-raised tilapia fish, and a commercial greenhouse 
operation. DOE did not identify significant adverse cumulative impacts 
resulting from the proposed project.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    DOE has identified the no-action alternative as environmentally 
preferred. Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-
shared funding for the proposed project and the project would not be 
completed. Without the project as a stimulus and anchor, it is doubtful 
that the planned EcoPark would attract potential tenants. If the 
project is not constructed, baseline conditions would remain unchanged. 
No site preparation (grading, clearing of trees and other vegetation) 
would occur, no employment or transportation of construction workers 
and operators would occur, coal refuse would not be removed, and no 
discharges, emissions, or solid wastes would be produced. Hence, DOE 
would anticipate that no adverse impacts would occur other than adverse 
impacts from existing conditions. Biological conditions at the coal 
refuse sites would remain unchanged but any offsetting benefits 
associated with land reclamation and acid mine water remediation would 
not be realized. Socioeconomic conditions would remain unchanged, 
however given the current reduced state of the local economy, 
employment, and income, the area would lose the potential for stimulus 
to prevent further decline. Long term environmental benefits (e.g. 
reclamation of old coal refuse piles, reduction in acid mine drainage) 
that would be expected from project actions would not be provided under 
the no-action alternative.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

    DOE received comments on the Final EIS from EPA, Region III, 
Environmental Programs Branch, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and from the 
Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment (ACEE), Mathias,

[[Page 23220]]

West Virginia (on behalf of ACEE and the West Virginia Highlands 
Conservancy).
    EPA stated that on January 17, 2007, they had provided comments on 
the Draft EIS, that DOE responded to those comments in the Final EIS, 
and that EPA has no further concerns. EPA further recognized ``the 
growing concerns with CO2 emissions from coal-fired power 
plants and Climate Change. Through a number of initiatives, the Federal 
government, partnerships and programs continue to investigate 
opportunities to conserve fossil fuels, improve energy efficiency'' * * 
* and it was their expectation that: ``The DOE Clean Coal Power 
Initiative will further promote these national goals.''
    Comments provided by the ACEE were substantially identical to 
comments on the Draft EIS previously submitted by ACEE on January 17, 
2007, and were addressed in Volume 3 of the Final EIS, ``Comments and 
Responses on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.'' Nevertheless, 
DOE reviewed the comments to ensure that the Final EIS adequately 
addressed the areas of expressed concern. In the Final EIS, DOE 
provides further information about the areas of expressed concern. For 
example, as discussed in the Final EIS, to address concerns expressed 
about potential impacts on surface and groundwater, DOE conducted new 
aquifer tests that confirm results of earlier studies. DOE also 
modified its preferred alternative regarding water use as requested by 
WVDEP to ensure protection of the Meadow River. In addition, the Final 
EIS contains additional information about the fuel supply sites and 
potential associated impacts, and responds to other issues raised by 
ACEE.

Decision

    DOE has decided to provide approximately $107.5 million 
(representing up to 50% of the development costs) to WGC through a 
cooperative agreement under the CCPI Program for a Co-Production 
Facility to be located at Rainelle in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. 
This funding will be used by WGC to support the design, construction 
and demonstration of a 98-megawatt (net) power plant and cement 
manufacturing facility based on an innovative atmospheric-pressure CFB 
boiler with a compact inverted-cyclone to generate electricity and 
steam by burning approximately 3,000 to 4,000 tons per day of coal 
refuse from several local sites. This action is identified as the 
preferred alternative in the ``Western Greenbrier Co-Production 
Demonstration Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-
0361) issued in November 2007.

Basis for Decision

    This decision is based on the information contained in the Final 
EIS and other program considerations. In arriving at its decision, DOE 
noted the potential for substantial economic benefits to the local 
community and environmental benefits related to the reclamation and 
potential reuse of coal refuse sites. Based on the analysis in the 
Final EIS and the mitigation commitments enforced through the 
cooperative agreement with WGC, DOE expects that the project will be 
implemented in an environmentally responsible manner. DOE has concluded 
that the project will meet DOE's objectives under the CCPI Program by 
generating technical, environmental, and financial data needed to 
confirm that similar integrated technologies could be implemented at 
the commercial scale.

Mitigation

    DOE's decision was made after careful review of the potential 
environmental impacts, presented in the EIS, and incorporates as 
mitigation measures and BMPs all practicable means to avoid or minimize 
environmental harm. WGC will implement all of the mitigation measures 
and BMPs listed in Table 4.19-1 in Section 4.19 (Volume 1) of the EIS, 
and in the Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment, Appendix M (Volume 2) of 
the EIS. DOE will verify the environmental impacts predicted in the EIS 
and the implementation of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures 
through an Environmental Monitoring Plan, which will be developed as a 
requirement of DOE's cooperative agreement with WGC. After 
consideration of engineering and site evaluation and planning measures, 
compliance with environmental requirements, and application of BMPs, 
WGC also may implement further mitigation measures. In addition, WGC 
will comply with state and Federal wetlands permits, which may require 
additional mitigation, such as compensatory wetlands replacement.
    As stated above, CO2 capture and subsequent 
sequestration is not a viable option for the project; therefore, DOE is 
not requiring such measures to reduce CO2 emissions. 
Although not viewed as a mitigation action, WGC plans to use waste heat 
from the Co-Production Facility in the planned EcoPark, which would 
off-set CO2 emissions that might otherwise be associated 
with producing energy from the facility.
    DOE has prepared a Mitigation Action Plan, in accordance with 
Section 1021.331(a) of the DOE NEPA regulations, to describe how 
mitigation measures will be planned and implemented.

Floodplain Statement of Findings

    DOE included a Floodplain and Wetland Assessment as Appendix M in 
Volume 2 of the Final EIS. The assessment and these findings have been 
prepared in accordance with DOE's regulations ``Compliance with 
Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements,'' 10 CFR Part 
1022. Portions of the proposed site for the Co-Production Facility 
unavoidably fall within a 100-year floodplain. A map of the floodplain 
is shown in Figure 2.2 of Appendix M in Volume 2 of the Final EIS. DOE 
concluded that the activities associated with the construction and 
operation of the proposed Co-Production Facility do not involve 
critical actions (e.g., storage of highly volatile, toxic, or water-
reactive materials), which would present unacceptable risks even if 
there is a slight chance of flooding and would require a 500-year 
floodplain evaluation. DOE has concluded that there are no practicable 
alternatives to some construction in floodplains, and consistent with 
10 CFR Part 1022, WGC will design or modify actions to minimize 
potential harm to floodplains and wetlands.
    DOE determined that all practicable power plant site layout options 
would cross into floodplain and wetland areas. DOE evaluated three 
implementing options including the preferred site layout by WGC. Under 
each option the power plant site would be graded to rise about 20 feet 
so that the base elevation would be above the 100-year floodplain 
elevation. Up to 20 acres of floodplains could be permanently lost (for 
the preferred site layout, approximately 16 acres of floodplains would 
be filled). This means that the proposed project will affect a very 
small area of floodplain, and none of the siting options would result 
in changes in surface water elevations that would exceed the FEMA 
designated height of one foot for the 100-year flood event as 
demonstrated by predictive modeling conducted by DOE. Based on the 
changes from the layout options proposed by WGC in the water surface 
elevations, only minor changes are expected for the predicted 100-year 
flood boundary, with little potential impact to upstream or downstream 
structures over baseline conditions. Potentially disturbed areas will 
be restored by WGC to their original grade,

[[Page 23221]]

where feasible, and planted with native vegetation. WGC will implement 
BMPs to minimize adverse environmental impacts during construction of 
road crossings. WGC has prepared and submitted a Federal Section 404 
Authorization permit for water resources impacts, including wetlands 
impacts, and a State Section 401 permit under the Clean Water Act 
issued by USACE and WVDEP, respectively. DOE estimated that 0.26 acre 
of wetlands will be potentially impacted at the proposed power plant 
site by service roads, stockpile areas, and water supply lines.
    Under one option a cooling water intake structure, pump house, and 
pipeline would be used to withdraw water from Meadow River. WGC is 
currently looking at the best locations for these facilities to 
minimize disturbance of wetlands and floodplains. Prior to construction 
of a permanent intake structure WGC must obtain a Section 404 
Authorization permit from the USACE and Section 401 permit from the 
WVDEP. The Section 404 Authorization permit is required as a result of 
water resources impacts, including wetlands impacts. The Water Quality 
401 Certification is required to ensure that the project will not 
violate the state's water quality standards or stream designated uses. 
Depending upon the final plant design and location of the water supply 
line from the sewage treatment plant, up to one additional acre of 
wetlands and 120 linear feet ``waters of the U.S.'' could be impacted. 
WGC is in the process of consulting with the USACE concerning the 
wetland permitting process to identify wetland impacts and methods for 
avoiding and minimizing impacts and developing suitable forms of 
wetland mitigation.
    Under all options for the transmission line corridor from the 
proposed WGC power plant to the Grassy Falls substation, construction 
activities would be temporary and localized and would not result in 
permanent impacts to existing 100-year floodplains. Where the 
transmission line corridor would cross a stream, new power line poles 
would be situated at maximum distances so as to not obstruct flood 
flows. Construction and operation of the transmission line could impact 
approximately three acres of wetlands, of which 0.38 acres could be 
permanently impacted as discussed above in Biological Resources.
    No floodplain or wetland impacts are expected as a result of the 
fuel recovery efforts that would occur at the Anjean, Donegan, Green 
Valley, and Joe Knob coal refuse sites to be used for fuel supply to 
the project.
    Any structures located within the floodplain would be designed in 
accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 
requirements for nonresidential buildings and structures located in 
special flood hazard areas. The NFIP regulations require vulnerable 
structures to be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation or to 
be watertight. In accordance with 10 CFR part 1022, DOE will ensure 
through the cooperative agreement that WGC implements measures to 
mitigate the adverse impacts of actions in a floodplain or wetlands, 
including but not limited to, minimum grading requirements, runoff 
controls, design and construction constraints. Whenever possible, WGC 
will avoid disturbing floodplains and wetlands and will minimize 
impacts to the extent practicable, if avoidance is not possible. 
Impacts to floodplains and wetlands will be minimized through the 
implementation of engineering design standards and BMPs (as described 
above under Mitigation, these measures are contained in Appendix M 
(Volume 2) of the EIS). In addition, WGC will comply with state and 
Federal wetlands permits, which may require additional mitigation as 
well as compensatory wetland replacement.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 23rd day of April, 2008.
James A. Slutz,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. E8-9329 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P