[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-20824] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: August 24, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Record of Decision; Proposed Polk Unit 1 Clean Coal Technology Project, Polk County, FL AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Record of Decision; Proposed Polk Unit 1 Clean Coal Technology Project, Polk County, Florida. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a Federal Cooperating Agency, with the Region IV (Atlanta, Georgia) Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the Federal lead agency, for the purpose of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS; EPA 904/9-94-002) for Tampa Electric Companys (TECs) proposed 1,150 megawatt (MW) Polk Power Station. DOEs participation results from the proposal by its Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program to provide cost-sharing financial assistance for the development of the first generating facility to be built at the Polk Power Station site. Specifically, the proposed 260 MW integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) unit, called Polk Unit 1, is being considered by DOE for cost-shared financial assistance in the amount of $130 million under the terms of the CCT Demonstration Program. DOE considers the proposal to provide cost-shared financial assistance for the IGCC demonstration project to be a major federal action subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to the corresponding DOE regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). In accordance with these provisions, alternatives available to DOE include the proposed action (which is DOE's preferred alternative), and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (i.e., the no-action alternative, including scenarios reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the no-action alternative). In March 1993, EPA, DOE, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby EPA was designated as the Federal Lead Agency for the preparation of this EIS, and DOE and USACOE were designated as Cooperating Agencies. The EPA Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an EIS for this proposed project was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 29577) on May 21, 1993. DOE has adopted this EIS as being adequate and appropriate for the purpose of developing DOE's Record of Decision for its proposed action. Accordingly, after careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts assessed in the EIS for the proposed Polk Unit 1, along with consideration of CCT Demonstration Program goals and objectives, DOE has decided that it will provide approximately $130 million in federal funding support for the construction and operation of the IGCC technology to be demonstrated at Polk Unit 1. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on DOE's activities related to the EIS, contact Bruce J. Buvinger, Environmental Specialist, U.S. Department of Energy, Morgantown Energy Technology Center, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV. Telephone (304) 291-4379. For further information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight [EH-25], Office of Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and DOE regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). This Record of Decision is based on the EPA Final EIS for the Proposed Tampa Electric Company-- Polk Power Station (EPA 904/9-94-002). An overall NEPA compliance strategy was developed for the CCT Demonstration Program, consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations and DOE regulations for compliance with NEPA, that includes consideration of both programmatic and project- specific environmental impacts during and after the process of selecting a project. This strategy is called tiering (40 CFR Part 1508.28), which refers to the coverage of general matters in a broader EIS (e.g., for the CCT Demonstration Program), with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the particular project under consideration. The DOE strategy has three principal elements. The first element involved preparation of a comprehensive Programmatic EIS for the CCT Demonstration Program (DOE/EIS-0146, November 1989) to address the potential environmental consequences of widespread commercialization of each of 22 successfully demonstrated clean coal technologies in the year 2010. The Programmatic EIS evaluated (1) A no-action alternative, which assumed that the CCT Demonstration Program was not continued and that conventional coal-fired technologies with flue gas desulfurization controls would continue to be used for new plants or as replacements for existing plants that are retired or refurbished, and (2) a proposed action, which assumed that CCT Demonstration Program projects were selected for funding and that successfully demonstrated technologies would undergo widespread commercialization by 2010. The second element involved preparation of a preselection environmental review of project-specific environmental data and analyses that the CCT Demonstration Program offerors supplied to DOE as part of their CCT Demonstration Program proposals. The third element consists of preparing site-specific NEPA documents for each selected project. For Polk Unit 1, DOE determined that an EIS should be prepared to address project- specific concerns. EPA agreed with DOE's determination that an EIS should be prepared to satisfy both agencies' NEPA regulations. As part of the overall NEPA strategy for the CCT Demonstration Program, the Polk Power Station EIS draws upon the Programmatic EIS and preselection environmental reviews that have already analyzed various alternatives and scenarios (e.g., alternative technologies and sites). The DOE proposal to provide cost-shared financial assistance to TEC for construction and operation of the 260 MW IGCC unit was determined by DOE to be a major federal action subject to NEPA. Because of DOE's CCT involvement, DOE and EPA initially agreed that DOE would assume the Federal lead agency role for the development of the EIS, and that EPA would be a Cooperating Agency. However, EPA's proposed federal action, in its role as permitting authority for the proposed issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, pertains to the entire 1,150 MW Polk Power Station project, which extends beyond DOE's involvement with Polk Unit 1. An additional consideration in determining the Federal lead agency was the fact that, if either DOE or TEC were to withdraw from the IGCC demonstration agreement, DOE's interest in the EIS would cease, whereas EPA's NEPA obligations regarding the preparation of the EIS would continue by virtue of TEC's NPDES sitewide permit application. Therefore, it was mutually determined that EPA would assume the lead agency role for the preparation of the EIS for the proposed 1,150 MW complex. This change in Federal lead agency from DOE to EPA was announced in the EPA's Federal Register Notice of Intent (NOI) of May 21, 1993 (58 FR 29577). Project Description TEC proposes to expand its electric generating capacity by establishing an 1,150 MW power station on an approximately 4,348-acre site in southwestern Polk County, Florida. Approximately 94 percent of the site has been mined to recover phosphate or has been disturbed by mining-related activities. Portions of the proposed site continue to be mined. Existing mine cuts at the site would be modified to become the Polk Power Station cooling reservoir. Much of the Polk Power Station storm water would be reused in the cooling reservoir. Over one-third of the Polk Power Station site (approximately 1,511 acres) would be reclaimed as a wildlife habitat area of mixed forested and nonforested uplands and wetlands. The proposed power station would be formally known as the ``Tampa Electric Polk Power Station.'' At completion to its full 1,150 MW generating capacity, the proposed Polk Power Station would consist of one 260 MW (net) IGCC generating facility, two 220 MW (net) combined cycle (CC) generating units, and six 75 MW (net) combustion turbine (CT) generating units. This DOE ROD is specific to Polk Power Station Unit 1, the 260 MW IGCC unit that is the portion of the project for which DOE has decided to provide cost-shared financial assistance to TEC. The IGCC project was selected under DOE's CCT Demonstration Program to demonstrate the commercial application of an IGCC system. The plant is a combination of two leading technologies. The first technology, combined cycle, is currently the most efficient commercially available method of producing electricity. The second technology, gasification, uses coal to produce a clean-burning gas. The integration of these technologies will allow TEC to couple the high efficiency of the combined cycle design with the low cost of coal for fuel. Project objectives include demonstrating the IGCC technology in a commercial electric utility application at the 260 MW size, demonstrating commercial operation of the facilitys innovative hot gas cleanup technology, and assessing long-term reliability, availability, and maintainability. The IGCC system offers several advantages over conventional coal- based power generation technology, including: (1) Major reductions in sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and dust emissions, (2) decreased coal consumption associated with increased generating efficiency, (3) modular construction for economic increments of capacity to match load growth, (4) fuel flexibility, (5) reduced land area and cooling water requirements, and (6) potential for design standardization due to modular construction, which should reduce engineering effort, construction time, and permitting complications for subsequent plants. The proposed Polk Power Station Unit 1 would consist of a 260 MW IGCC power plant that would include a pressurized, oxygen-blown, entrained flow gasifier designed by Texaco. Gas cleanup is accomplished by low temperature acid gas removal, plus hot gas moving bed desulfurization. The combined cycle portion of the system is an advanced 150 MW General Electric gas turbine heat recovery steam generator and a 130 MW steam turbine. The IGCC generation process is about 10 to 12 percent more efficient than a conventional coal-fired power plant because combined cycle generation reuses the exhaust heat from the combustion turbines to produce additional electricity. The combined cycle design consists of a combustion turbine/generator, a heat recovery steam generator, and a steam turbine/generator. In the gasification portion of the plant, coal would be partially burned to produce coal gas, which is first cleaned and then used as fuel in the combustion turbine to produce electricity. The exhaust heat from the combustion turbine is recovered in the heat recovery steam generator to produce steam, which then passes through a steam turbine to power another generator, thereby producing additional electricity. The proposed IGCC facility would be constructed in two phases. The first phase would be a 150 MW advanced combustion turbine, fueled by oil, to begin operation in 1995. In 1996, the coal gasification system and combined cycle portion of the plant would begin operation, bringing the total output to 260 MW. Project Status Project activities to date include applications for permits and approvals necessary to construct and operate the Polk Power Station, preparation of designs and specifications necessary to apply for these permits and approvals, and preparation, publication, and distribution of the draft and final EIS. In July 1992, TEC submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and other appropriate agencies a site certification application (SCA) for the construction and operation of the proposed Polk Power Station pursuant to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA). The PPSA provides for the coordination of all applicable state, regional, and local regulatory requirements, permits, and approvals for steam electric generating facilities with capacities greater than 75 MW under the SCA review and certification process. In accordance with the PPSA process, a land-use hearing was held in Bartow, Florida, on October 29, 1992. The Florida Power Plant Siting Board (FPPSB) found the project to be consistent with state, regional, and local land-use plans on January 26, 1993. The site certification hearing for the project was held in Bartow, Florida, on October 13, 1993. On January 25, 1994, the FPPSB concurred with the Recommended Order granting certification for the proposed Polk Power Station subject to specific conditions of certification. TEC's application for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit (i.e., air quality construction and operation permit), which was submitted to FDEP as part of the SCA process, included modeling analyses and potential impact assessments for the proposed 1,150 MW build-out of the power station. However, FDEP approval of the PSD permit has been granted only for the initial 260 MW IGCC unit. Additional PSD permit application approvals will need to be pursued by TEC for each additional proposed generating increment up to the full 1,150 MW level. Under the PPSA, the determination of need for new electrical generating capacity is the exclusive responsibility of the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). TEC submitted a need for power petition to the FPSC on September 5, 1991, including a ``Polk Unit One Need Determination Study.'' On January 31, 1992, the FPSC voted to approve and issue a certification of need for TECs planned IGCC unit (Polk Power Station Unit 1). Additional need for power petitions must be filed with the FPSC by TEC and approved prior to determination of need for power beyond the initially-approved level. TEC has submitted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application to EPA that seeks approval for discharge of water from the proposed power station cooling reservoir to waters of the United States. TEC also requested that EPA provide an NPDES ``new source determination.'' By letter to TEC dated January 11, 1994, EPA tentatively determined that the proposed Polk Power Station is a ``new source'' that requires an NPDES permit based on New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The pending EPA Notice of Determination for the NPDES permit would constitute a formal ``new source determination'' by EPA. In addition, TEC has applied to the USACOE for a ``Section 404'' (of the Clean Water Act) permit to conduct dredge-and-fill activities in waters of the United States. The USACOE is also a Federal Cooperating Agency to EPA for this EIS because of these permitting responsibilities. The USACOE is expected to issue its permit following the issuance of the RODs by each federal agency. Alternatives Considered Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCT Program by means of partial funding of projects owned and controlled by nonfederal-government sponsors. This statutory requirement places DOE in a much more limited role than if the federal government were the owner and operator of the project. In the latter situation, DOE would be responsible for a comprehensive review of reasonable alternatives for the project. However, when DOE signs a Cooperative Agreement with an industrial partner, the scope of alternatives is necessarily more restricted, because the agency must focus on alternative ways to accomplish its purpose, which reflect both the industrial partner's needs and the functions it plays in the decisional process. It is appropriate in such cases for DOE to give substantial weight to the industrial partner's needs in establishing a project's reasonable alternatives. Based on the foregoing principles, the reasonable alternative to the proposed action is the no-action alternative (including scenarios reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the no- action alternative). The proposed action for the EIS under consideration here is TEC's proposed project, described in the EIS as the ``Preferred Alternative with DOE Financial Assistance.'' Reasonable alternatives and subalternatives to the proposed project were considered in the EIS. In addition to TEC's ``Alternative Power Resource Proposal (Without DOE Financial Assistance)'' and the ``No-Action Alternative,'' alternative and subalternative analyses performed by EPA as the Lead Agency included Alternatives to Constructing New Generating Facilities, Alternative Generating Technologies, Alternative Sites, and Alternative Processes and Facilities. The ``EIS Action Alternatives'' available to DOE are either to provide cost-shared financial assistance for the proposed initial 260 MW IGCC unit, or to deny the financial assistance. After reviewing the environmental effects associated with the Action Alternatives, DOE has determined that its Preferred Alternative is to provide cost-shared financial assistance for the proposed project. EPA's ``EIS Action Alternatives'' are to issue, issue with conditions, or deny the NPDES permit for TEC's proposed project. EPA's preferred permitting action is to issue the NPDES permit with conditions, following completion of the EIS process. DOE's Proposed Action The proposed federal action is the provision of approximately $130 million in cost-shared federal funding support for the construction and operation of the 260 MW Unit 1 of the Polk Power Station, a proposed new 1,150 MW power generating facility in Polk County, Florida. The CCT program will demonstrate environmentally acceptable and economically viable means of generating electricity with coal, the most abundant energy resource in the United States. The IGCC integrates coal gasification and combined cycle technologies to develop a highly efficient new technology for removing sulfur from synthetic fuelgas (``syngas'') prior to combustion. The 150 MW advanced General Electric Model 7F combustion turbine unit would be integrated with heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and steam turbine (ST) generator facilities to form a combined cycle generating unit with coal gasification facilities to complete the proposed 260 MW Polk Power Station Unit 1. A Texaco pressurized, oxygen-blown, entrained-flow gasifier would be used to produce a medium-Btu fuel gas. Coal/water slurry and oxygen would be combined at high temperature and pressure to produce a high- temperature syngas. Molten coal-ash would flow out of the bottom of the vessel into a water-filled quench tank where it would be turned into a solid slag. The syngas from the gasifier would move to a high- temperature heat recovery unit that cools the gases. The cooled gases would flow to a particulate removal section, and then enter two gas cleanup trains, i.e., a demonstration hot gas cleanup (HGCU) train and a conventional cold gas cleanup (CGCU) train. When both the HGCU and CGCU systems are used, a portion of the syngas would be passed through a moving bed of zinc titanate absorbent in the HGCU system to remove sulfur. The remaining syngas would be cooled further through a series of heat exchangers before entering a conventional CGCU train, where sulfur would be removed by an acid gas removal system. The cleaned gases then would be routed to a combined cycle system for electric power generation. The advanced combustion turbine unit would have a generating capacity of 190 MW (net) when fired on the syngas. An HRSG would use heat from the combustion turbine exhaust to produce high-pressure steam. This steam, along with the steam generated in the gasification process, would be routed to the ST to generate an additional 70 MW (net). By-products from the process--sulfur, sulfuric acid, and slag--can be sold commercially: the sulfur by-product as a raw material to make agricultural fertilizer, and the non-leachable slag for use in roofing shingles, asphalt roads, and as a structural fill in construction projects. The proposed IGCC unit would provide DOE the opportunity to demonstrate oxygen-blown entrained-flow IGCC technology, which is expected to achieve significant reductions of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen emissions as compared to conventional pulverized coal technologies used in existing and planned future coal-burning power plants. In accordance with a cooperative agreement with DOE under the CCT Demonstration Program, TEC would be required to use coal from various domestic sources for the IGCC unit. The potential coal supply sources during the demonstration period are expected to be coal seams in the eastern and midwestern United States. The project participant would obtain all applicable permits for the Polk Power Station and would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances. The proposed IGCC unit would require approximately 2,325 tons per day of coal on a dry weight basis when operating at full capacity. No Action This alternative does not provide DOE cost-shared financial assistance for the 260 MW IGCC unit. The Programmatic EIS for the CCT Demonstration Program (DOE/EIS-0146) evaluated the consequences of no action on a programmatic basis. Under the no-action alternative for Polk Unit 1, the commercial readiness of the proposed integrated gasification combined cycle technology for the combustion of coal would not be demonstrated in Florida at the Polk Power Station, and probably would not be demonstrated elsewhere because there are currently no other similar proposals in the CCT Program. The opportunity to demonstrate this technology would likely be lost. As a result, commercialization of the technology could be delayed or might not occur because the utility and industrial sectors tend to utilize known and demonstrated technologies over new, unproven, technologies. Under the no-action alternative, i.e., without DOE cost-shared financial assistance, TEC's ``Alternative Power Resource Proposal (Without DOE Financial Assistance)'' calls for construction and operation of a 500 MW pulverized coal-fired unit to replace the IGCC and several other of the planned units. Environmental consequences of this alternative are additional sulfur dioxide and oxide of nitrogen emissions, additional water use, additional coal consumption, less flexibility in relation to load growth, and additional land area required for the power generation facilities. Alternative Sites TEC employed a citizens' Power Plant Siting Task Force composed of public and private representatives to select its preferred site. The overall goal of the TEC Power Plant Site Selection Assessment Program was to select a site, or sites, that were considered the most suitable for developing the needed electric generating facilities to meet TEC's future power supply demands. In addition to the preferred site, two alternative Polk County sites with similar attributes were selected. Although differences in impacts existed among the three sites, TEC considered all three sites suitable and potentially permittable as potential sites for the proposed facilities. Use of the final proposed site would result in less environmental impact than the other two sites; it also would be less costly to develop. Environmentally Preferred Alternative (with DOE Financial Assistance) DOE's providing TEC with approximately $130 million in cost- shared financial assistance to construct the proposed Polk Power Station Unit 1 is the environmentally preferred alternative, and is the same as DOE's proposed action. TEC would demonstrate an HGCU system for removing sulfur compounds, particulates, and other potential pollutants from syngas produced in the coal gasification facility prior to firing in the advanced combustion turbine. The demonstration HGCU system has the potential to achieve pollutant removal efficiencies equivalent to or greater than the conventional CGCU technology, while providing a more efficient power generation system. The HGCU process is also a factor in minimizing air emissions, land and water impacts, and other negative environmental consequences as compared with the conventional pulverized coal technology described in the EIS under the ``No Action'' alternative. Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential impacts that could result from construction and operation of the proposed Polk Power Station were analyzed in the EIS, including air quality, surface water and groundwater quality, biological resources, noise, cultural resources, socioeconomics, hazardous and nonhazardous wastes, and human health and risk to wildlife. Air Quality Generally accepted computer models, appropriate for establishing compliance with Clean Air Act (CAA) regulatory requirements, were used for analyzing potential impacts within the Polk Power Station area (a Class II air quality area) and within the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Area (a Class I air quality area where stringent standards have been established by EPA). The CAA standards were used as one means of assessing the magnitude of potential impacts associated with Polk Power Station air emissions. EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) were used to establish absolute limits for pollutant concentrations in the ambient air, whereas Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments were employed to define permissible air quality degradation. Air quality modeling results indicated that the operation of the proposed Polk Power Station at completion would not cause or contribute to a violation of any air quality regulations, including consumption of PSD increments and the National and State of Florida AAQS. Maximum ambient concentrations at or beyond the facility perimeter are predicted to be less than the National and Florida AAQS for all cases, although the predicted short term particulate matter (PM) concentrations approach the standard. The results of a No-Threat Level analysis indicate that public health in Polk County and adjacent counties would not be jeopardized due to human inhalation of air emissions from the proposed project operations. To minimize potential air quality impacts, TEC would implement Best Available Control Technology measures for the proposed project wherever feasible to reduce combustion, process, and fugitive emissions. Use of low-sulfur and low-ash fuels would minimize emissions of sulfur dioxide and particulates. Coal handling and slag systems would be designed to effectively control fugitive particulate matter emissions. Surface Water and Groundwater Quality No unacceptable surface water or groundwater impacts are expected from the construction or operation of the proposed Polk Power Station. The results of modeling efforts conducted by TEC indicate that discharges from the cooling reservoir and from storm water are expected to meet all state Class III surface water quality standards. The proposed groundwater withdrawals and associated drawdowns are not expected to affect other water users in the site vicinity. No impacts to water quality in the Floridan or intermediate aquifers are anticipated from the proposed project operations, due to the presence of confining layers between these aquifers and the overlying surficial aquifer. Water in the proposed cooling reservoir would meet applicable FDEP Class G-II standards, with only exceedances of secondary drinking water standards for iron and color. However, the concentrations of iron and color are below ambient levels in the surficial aquifer. Biological Resources Approximately 1,090 acres of land would be affected by construction of the power plant, cooling water reservoir, and other associated power facilities. Most of these facilities would be located on mined or highly disturbed lands. Approximately 253 acres of USACOE jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced by the construction of the power facilities. Potential adverse effects to local or regional terrestrial and wetland vegetation resulting from Polk Power Station operation are not anticipated, since air emissions and water discharges would be in compliance with applicable ambient air quality standards and water quality standards. Groundwater withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer are not expected to result in drawdown of the surficial aquifer and, therefore, would not cause changes to terrestrial or wetland habitats. Construction of the Polk Power Station is not expected to affect regional populations of any endangered, threatened, or special concern species, which was confirmed by coordination letters and a site inspection by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed plant construction and operation are not expected to affect biodiversity on a local or regional scale. Project mitigation for the loss of USACOE jurisdictional wetlands, including FDEP-required reclamation measures, would be implemented for the site. TEC's wetland mitigation/reclamation plan for the proposed Polk Power Station site has been approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Implementation of this plan would result in 799 acres of wetlands after reclamation of the site is completed. The 799 acres of wetlands represent an increase of 187 acres of wetlands relative to site pre-mining conditions. Noise Construction noise modeling was performed to determine the effects at the nearest residential receptor. Because of the distance of 1.6 miles between the Polk Power Station site and the nearest residence, construction noise levels would only have minor and temporary effects on the noise environment around the plant site. Average noise levels associated with Polk Power Station operation would be at or below the existing ambient noise levels at the nearest residence. However, instantaneous noise levels, such as from steam line blowout, flare stack operation, or coal trucks, would be noticeable. Construction noise would be mitigated by operating construction machinery according to design specifications and only within daylight hours. Operation noise would be mitigated through use of a vegetative buffer. In addition, TEC would evaluate additional noise reduction measures, such as combustion turbine air intake silencers, in its detailed plant design. Cultural Resources Based on a cultural resource assessment conducted for the site and confirmation of the results by the Florida Division of Historical Resources and the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, Polk Power Station construction is not expected to affect any known archaeological or historical feature listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or any other known cultural resources. No mitigation is necessary. Socioeconomics Proposed Polk Power Station construction and operation would have positive socioeconomic effects. Plant construction would begin in 1994 and extend through 1996. About 600 contract construction workers would be employed at the peak of construction activity. About 130 persons would be employed for Polk Power Station Unit 1 operations and maintenance, the majority of which are expected to be drawn from the local labor pool. The total cumulative annual operational financial effect is estimated to be approximately $109 million (in 1992 dollars) from 1995 to 2010. Ad valorem taxes to Polk County expected to be generated by the project would increase from $1.9 million in 1996 (Unit 1 only) to $19.6 million in 2011 (complete 1,150 MW). Operation of the proposed project would not unduly impact any community services or facilities, including community water or wastewater systems or local roads. Visual buffering between the main operating facilities and surrounding land use has been incorporated into the design of the project to reduce any potentially negative aesthetic impacts. Hazardous and Nonhazardous Wastes Hazardous waste generated by the facility would be minimized through the use of source reduction techniques, such as product substitution, and waste reduction techniques, such as recycling and regeneration. Hazardous wastes and nonhazardous wastes would be managed onsite and shipped offsite by licensed handlers to permitted waste disposal or recycle facilities, in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Consequently, these wastes are not expected to cause adverse environmental effects. Human Health and Risk to Wildlife No significant adverse human health effects are anticipated as a result of the direct inhalation of the proposed Polk Power Station emissions. Projected air emission levels would not significantly degrade ambient air, and all regulated air toxics emissions would be at concentrations below Florida No-Threat Levels developed to protect human health. Potential impacts to wildlife from particulate deposition relate to toxic effects from metals. However, based on the air modeling analysis, the maximum levels of metals expected from particulate deposition, even at completion of the station, are expected to be below the threshold limits for wildlife. No Action Alternative The no-action alternative would result if DOE does not provide cost-shared financial assistance under the DOE CCT Demonstration Program for Polk Power Station Unit 1. TEC is expected to build the Polk Power Station without the IGCC unit using more conventional technology as an alternate means of implementing the project. Without DOE cost-shared financial assistance, TEC's Proposed Project (Preferred Alternative with DOE Financial Assistance) was compared to TEC's Alternative Power Resource Proposal (Without DOE Financial Assistance) relative to potential environmental impacts. Under the Alternative Power Resource Proposal, the proposed 260 MW IGCC unit and two 75 MW combustion turbines would be replaced by a 500 MW pulverized coal with flue gas desulfurization generating unit. Primarily because of the resource requirements and effectiveness of pollution control and minimization measures associated with the proposed IGCC unit, the alternative proposal would be expected to create greater negative environmental impacts than the proposed project. Disadvantages of the Alternative Power Resource Proposal include the need for more land area for the main plant facilities and coal and by-product storage; a larger cooling reservoir area and greater groundwater makeup and surface water discharge requirements; increased sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter air emissions; less generation flexibility in relation to load growth; and increased coal usage which, in turn, would require more frequent truck/train deliveries. Decision DOE will implement the proposed action of providing approximately $130 million in cost-shared federal funding support for the construction and operation of Polk Power Station Unit 1 to demonstrate the IGCC clean coal technology. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from this alternative have been adopted. DOE has determined that the Congressionally-mandated goals and objectives of demonstrating clean coal technologies would be achieved through the construction and operation of Polk Power Station Unit 1. The Polk Power Station would demonstrate the integrated performance of HGCU and CGCU, and an advanced gas turbine with oxides of nitrogen control. The IGCC project would successfully demonstrate a promising technology ready to be commercialized in the 1990s. The project is expected to generate sufficient data from design, construction, and operation to allow private industry to assess the potential for commercial application of these technologies to new or existing generating facilities. In addition, no unacceptable adverse impacts are expected from the construction or operation of the proposed Polk Power Station Unit 1. The decision to provide cost-shared funding for the proposed Polk Power Station Unit 1 was made after careful review of the potential environmental impacts analyzed in the EIS, consideration of the public's concerns, and after consultation with Federal and State regulatory agencies. Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 1994. Patricia Fry Godley, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. [FR Doc. 94-20824 Filed 8-23-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P