xvEPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
            Region 8
            1860 Lincoln Street
            Denver. Colorado 80295
June. 1980
Energy Project
Review and Permitting
Status Report
           Colorado
           Montana
           North Dakota
           South Dakota
           Utah
           Wyoming

-------
United States                    Region 8                           Colorado Montana,
Environmental Protection            Suite 103                           North Dakota,
.„.„-„                        1860 Lincoln St.                      South Dakota,
 9  y                        Denver, CO. 80295                     Utah, Wyoming
 Ref:  SEA
 Dear Colleague:

     The six states  (Colorado,  Montana, North Dakota, South  Dakota,  Utah  and
 Wyoming) in EPA Region  VIII  have been experiencing increasing  energy resource
 development in recent years.   The future promises that this development  will
 increase even more  dramatically.  The development of these  resources will  play
 a vital role in the  Nation's  attempt to achieve energy self-sufficiency.
 These states are  also rich  in  high quality environment.   I  am  committed  to the
 protection of this  high  quality environment and to being  responsive to the
 Nation's energy self-sufficiency goal.  The EPA Region VIII Energy  Policy
 Statement reflects  this commitment.

     One of our commitments  is  to routinely provide regional  energy/environment
 information to interested persons.  I am pleased to provide you  with the first
 "Energy Policy Review and Permitting Status Report" prepared by  EPA Region
 VIII.  This report  will  be  updated quarterly.   It provides  information on  our
 regulatory activities during calendar year 1979 and first quarter 1980.

     You will note that  the  Region took ,162 regulatory actions  regarding  energy
 projects in 1979  and 34  in  the^f.irst quarter 1980.  This  is  an extremely heavy
 workload - more than one energy action every other working  day.  The environ-
 mental regulatory process produces environmental benefits,  some  of  which are
 described in this report.

     We hope you will find this  information useful.  If you  have  comments,
 questions, and/or suggestions  for improvement  please direct  them to Mr.  Terry
.Thoem, Director,  Energy  Policy  Coordination Office at 303/837-5914.
              j1

                                               Sincerely yours,
                                                        Williams
                                                    nal Administrator

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose/Scope.of Report - Summary and Highlights
                                                Page

                                                  1
List of Tables

    Table 1
    Table 2

    Table 3
    Table 4
    Table 5

    Table 6
    Table 7

    Table 8
    Table 9
    Table 10

List of Appendices
    Appendix
    Appendix
    Appendix
    Appendix 4

Glossary
Figures
    Figure I
    Figure II
    Figure III
    Figure IV
Regulatory Actions - Energy Facilities            5
Additional Impact on Regulatory Activities
  of an Induced Synfuels Program                  6
Summary of EIS Actions                            7
Sunmary of PSD Permits Issued/Pending             8
Energy PSD Activity Details - 1979 and
  1st Quarter 1980                                9
Summary of NPDES Actions                         11
Energy NPDES Activity Details - 1979 and
  1st Quarter 1980                               12
Surrmary of 404 Actions                           13
Permit Concurrences by Category                  14
Commercial Synthetic Fuel Activities             15
Energy EISs                                      16
PSD Actions                                      18
NPDES Actions                                    20
404 Actions                                      22
                      Terms and abbreviations used in this report page 24
Coal
Power Plant
Oil Shale
Uranium
Capacity
26
27
28
29

-------
                Energy Project Review and Permitting Report
                              (Vol.  I--  No.  1)

                              EPA Region VIII


    Purpose/Scope of Report
    This status report discusses energy project review and permitting
actions taken by EPA during calendar year 1979 and first quarter 1980
(January 1 to April 1) for the six Region VIII States of Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.  Actions include
environmental impact statement (EIS) reviews, prevention of  significant
deterioration (PSD) permits, National pollutant discharge elimination
system  (NPDES) permits, and Section 404 (dredge and fill permit)
reviews.  This report discusses actions taken in both delegated and
non-delegated program States.  As of April 1, 1980, the PSD  program had
been delegated to North Dakota and Wyoming.  The NPDES program has been
delegated to Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming.   This status
report  also discusses highlights of the review and permitting actions.
Projections of energy resource development and of Region VIII regulatory
actions which will be necessary in response to that development is
provided.  Finally, because of the attention which synthetic fuels
development has received, a project status and EPA regulatory status
report  is provided.

    Summary and Highlights

    The Region took 162 energy project regulatory actions in 1979 -more
than one every other working day.  Table  1 provides a breakdown of these
actions by program.  Comparisons to 1978  and projections for the 1980-85
time period are also provided.  The basis for calendar year  1981-85 is
the 1980 estimate plus additional projects resulting from an induced
synthetic fuels program.  Table 2 provides details.  Figures 1-4 show
energy  resource development past and projected in the Region VIII states.

    Of  particular significance is the fact that of the  162 regulatory
actions in 1979, there was one denial and one proposed denial.  Both
projects resubmitted permit applications  (PSD) demonstrating increased
air pollution control technology and were subsequently approved.  Energy
project review and permitting resulted in a number of environmentally
improved projects during  1979.  A summary discussion of the  major
"environmental success stories" is provided by program below.  The
Appendix to this report provides a listing of all EIS, PSD,  NPDES, 404
project reviews.

    o   In conjunction with efforts by the State of Utah and  the DOI, EPA
        activities via the EIS process aided in the relocation of the 3000
        MWe Intermountain  Power Plant project.  The proposed  site was
        located within 12  miles of Capitol Reef National Park.  Concern

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20,  1980


       was expressed by EPA over the potential violation of PSD Class  I
       air quality increments.  Relocation to Western Utah, near Lyndyl,
       has allowed EPA to propose to issue the PSD permit.

    o  EPA has been concerned with the quality of past Regional EISs
       prepared for coal development.  The fEIS describing the new
       Federal Coal Management Program sets forth a good framework for
       future coal leasing.  We anticipate that future Regional coal EISs
       will be of high quality.

    o  The revised permit application for the 1556 MWe Colstrip power
       plant was approved.  Provisions for 94.8 percent S02 control
       make it the best controlled power plant in the U.S.  The permit
       also stipulates the need to perodically reassess the
       practicability of retrofit technology for additional NOx control.

    o  Sulfur removal from the retort off-gas stream was increased to
       97.9 percent via the review of the permit application for Union
       Oil Company's proposed oil shale facility.

    o  Provision of extremely stringent controls for both S0£  (99.6
       percent from retort gas) and particulate (about 99.7 percent)
       allowed the permitting of Colony's proposed 47,000 BPD  commercial
       oil shale facility.  Emissions will be compatible with  both the
       PSD Class II increments and with the PSD Class I increments for
       the nearby (60 km) Flat Tops Wilderness Area.

    o  Several major new steam electric power plants in the Region are
       designed to meet the National objective of no discharge of
       pollutants to waters of the United States.  These include the
       Public Service Company of Colorado Pawnee Plant and the new Basin
       Electric Plant near Wheatland, Wyoming.

    o  AMOCO Refinery at Mandan, North Dakota has created a wastewater
       treatment system that provides better than nationally required
       treatment levels while being the heart of a several hundred acre
       wildfile refuge.  This system of controlled ponds, shelter belts
       and irrigated farmland provides habitat for fish, pheasants, wild
       turkey, geese, ducks, antelope, deer, plus numerous other species.
       All the effluent from the 50,000 barrel per day refinery passes
       through this refuge and provides it with its only constant source of
       water.

    o  Achieved better control than Best Practical Treatment (BPT) through
       Best Engineering Judgement case-by-case determinations  for most coal
       mines, and the majority of uranium mines and oil and gas wells.

    The principle environmental improvements resulting from 404 actions were
    better location and scheduling of pipeline crossings so as not to
    interfere with critical spawning areas, minimizing wetland fill,
    revegetation of disrupted areas, pipeline construction techniques  which
    minimized wetland losses, and reduced stream channelization.

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980


    Program Summaries

       EPA Region VIII performed reviews of 21 final and 20 draft EISs  in
1979.  Nine projects had both a draft and a final EIS.  Therefore, a  total of
32 energy projects received EIS review.  Only four energy project EISs  were
received for review in the first quarter 1980.  Table A-l in the Appendix
lists the EIS, the assigned EPA review rating, and an explanation of  EPA's
EIS rating system.  Table 3 provides a summary of these project reviews by
State where the project is proposed.  In addition to the formal EIS review, 8
pre-EIS liaison scoping meetings were attended and 6 scoping letters  were
sent in 1979.

       A total of 48 PSD permit applications for energy projects were
processed in 1979.  There were 20 PSD actions in first quarter 1980.  Table 4
provides a summary of the PSD permits issued by State.  Table 5 provides
additional detail on these regulatory actions.  Also provided are energy
capacity permitted and comparisons with past year PSD actions.

       There were 62 NPDES permits issued to energy projects in 1979.
EPA-delegated States issued 57 of the 62 in 1979.  A total of 62 "major"
energy NPDES permits will expire during 1980.  Table 6 provides a summary of
these actions and Table 7 provides additional details.

       There were eleven 404 actions taken on energy projects during  1979 and
two in first quarter 1980.  Table 8 provides a summary of these actions and
Table 9 provides additional detail.

       One of the commitments made in the Energy Policy Statement regarded
expedited regulatory decision making.  The Statement commits the Region to on
time EIS reviews and permit processing six months from the time a completed
application is received.

       A number of PSD permits took longer than six months.  The statutory
requirement of one year and the Energy Policy Statement objective of  six
months represent a time period starting when the application is determined by
EPA to be "complete".    In looking back at past actions the date when  the
application was deemed "complete" was not always recorded.  However,  as a
general rule it has taken as long as six months to obtain a "complete"
application.  A tracking system which will be operational in the Region by
July 1, 1980 will allow a "better" discussion of time required for processing
PSD permits in future quarterly reports.

       A number of NPDES permits issued in less than six months also  deserves
special mention.  Half (20 of 39) of the permits which were issued  in less
than six months were renewals.  It is  likely that the renewal application was
received as much as six months before the expiration date.  Therefore,  some
of the 20 renewals may have taken longer than six months since the time
period was calculated from the expiration date.  Our tracking system  will
provide us better information on this aspect for subsequent reports.

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980


    Due to the attention which the development of synthetic fuels  has
received in the past year, Table 10 provides a listing of the known
commercial projects in Region VIII States.  Also shown is the project  status
and the status of EPA regulatory involvement.

    If all of the oil shale projects listed were developed, a total
production of about 375,000 BPD would result.  This may be compared  to the
President's and Congress1 goal of 400,000 BPD by 1992.  If all of  the  coal
gasification and coal liquification projects listed were developed,  a  total
production of about 440,000 BPDOE would result.  This represents about one
third of the 1 to 1.5 million BPDOE National goal from coal synfuels by  1992.

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20,  1980
                                    TABLE 1
                     Regulatory Actions - Energy Facilities

                                EPA Region VIII
EIS Reviews

PSD Permits

NPDES Permits

404 Actions
                      CY  1978
                         62
                            Estimated
          CY 1979      CY 1980     CY 1981-1985
9
28
25

41
48
62
11
35 +
40 +
60 +
30 +
            162
165 +
about 200 per year
Note i
Note 2
Note 3
Actions reflect those taken both by EPA and delegated
states.  EPA actions accounted for 100 of the 162
calendar year 1979 total.

PSD permit activity for 1980 may be less than 40 +
with a reduced number of mine applications due to the
recent Alabama Power decision.

The 1981-1985 actions assume a 1980 base plus an
induced synthetic fuels and coal conversion energy
program anticipated to become law.

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                    TABLE 2
Additional Impact on Regulatory Activities of an  Induced  Synfuels Program

A.  Facilities (estimated)
    Coal mines
    Coal synfuels
    Oil Shale
    Unconventional gas
B.  Regulatory Actions FY 81-85

    EIS (.draft and final)
    PSD (some phasing)
    NPDES (some phasing)
    RCRA (Resource Conservation
          and Recovery Act)
 14
 10
  7
  4
 35
 70
 40
 40
 17

167
180,000,000 tons per year (TPY)
    600,000 barrels per day (BPD)
    350,000 BPD
    200,000 barrels per day
            oil equivalent (BPDOE)
C.  Additional Regulatory Actions

    404 Reviews
    Regional Coal EISs
    Water-for-Energy Resource Projects
    Transportation systems
    Programmatic EISs
    Population induced power plants
    Population induced sewage treatment plants

    These could easily add up to 50 additional regulatory actions.

D.  Estimate of FY 81-85 Breakdown

    167 + 50 = 44 per year
       5
    1980
    Induced
     209 ++  actions per year
165
 44

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Multi State
       TABLE 3

Summary of EIS  Actions

          1st Quarter
    1979       1980      Pending
     620
     6          1          0
     200
     1          0          0
    10          0          0
    14          1          0
     2          0          1
    41          4          1

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                    TABLE 4


                     Sumnary of PSO Permits Issued/Pending


                                       1st Quarter
Colorado

Montana

North Dakota

South Dakota

Utah

Wyoming
1979
10
2
2
0
4
20
38
1980
2
0
1
0
0
5
8
Pending
5
2
-
0
7
_
14

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                    Table 5

            Energy PSD Activity Details - 1979 and 1st Quarter 1980
1.  PSD Actions (1976-1979)
         1976

    Energy
    Non-Energy
      Total

Total Permits(1976-1979)
        1977

          3
          0
          3
     1978

       7
       2
       9
1979

 28
 12
 40
48
23
71
2.  1979 Actions Energy
         56 energy issued
         25 non-energy issued
          1 energy denial
          1 energy proposed denial
         83
                                   38 permits
                                    7 non-applicability
                                    3 pre-application monitoring
                                   48~
    1979 Permits  Issued  by Category

    Uranium mine/mill      8
    Coal mine
    Power Plants
    Refineries
    Oil Shale
    Gas Plant
                 Total
20
 2
 2
 3
_3
38
4500 tons per day (TPD)mill;
1,415,000 TPY mine
114,000,000 TPY
1616 MWe
29,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD)
60,000 BPSD
465,000,000 standard cubic feet per day (SCFD)
4.  Total  (1976-1979)  Energy Permits  Issed by Category
    Uranium mine/mill

    Coal mine
    Power plant
    Refineries
    Oil  Shale
    Coal plant
    Gas  plants
         Total
      10

      22
       6
       4
       5
       3
       6
      56
   4500 TPD mi 11;
   1,795,000 TPY mine
   125,000,000 (TPY)
   5110 megawatts, electricity (MWe)
   49,000 BPSD
   66,000 BPSD

   522,000,000 SCFD

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20,  1980
                                Table  5  continued
5.   Comparison of PSD Permitted Capacity (1979) with Existing Production  (1978)

        Coal Mines
        1978 production                   100 million tons per year
        PSD permitted in 1979             114
           Total                          2H

        Power plant capacity
        1978 production                19,100 MWe
        PSD permitted in 1979           1,610
           Total                       20,710
        Uranium activity
        1978 production                 8,000 tons per year
        PSD permitted in 1979           2,500
           Total                       10,500


                       Energy  PSD  Actions  1st  Quarter  1980

1.  PSD Actions

      8 permits issued
     _12 non-applicability determinations
     20

2.  PSD Permits issued by category

    Coal mine                                 3            4.2 million tpy

    Power plants                              2            440 MWe

    Compressor station                        2             —

    Coal preparation plant                    1
                                     10

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
Colorado

Montana

North Dakota

South Dakota

Utah

Wyoming
                                     TABLE  6
                            Summary of NPDES Actions
1979

 19

  4

  4

  1

  4

 30

 62
1st Quarter
    1980

      5

      7

      0

      0

      0

     _3

     15
Pending

  23

   4

   1

   1

  12

  J.

  42
                                     11

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                     TABLE 7

            Energy  NPDES  Activity Details - 1979 and 1st Quarter 1980
    NPDES Permits Issued
                                        1979
      Delegated States*
      EPA States**
        Total

      Permits Issued by category
New

 35
  4
      Uranium
      Coal Mines
      Power plants
      Refineries
      Oil Shale
      Oil and gas
        Total

      Permits Pending by category
      Uranium mines
      Coal mines
      Power plants
      Refineries
      Oil Shale
      Oil and gas
        Total
"Renewed

     22
      1
Isr Quarter 1980
New      Renewed
       62
        1979

           7
          19
          17
           3
           2
          14
          62
       Backlog

            8
           23
            1
            1
            2
           _7
           42
   7
   0
8
0
                        15
                  1st Quarter 1980

                           0
                           6
                           6
                           0
                           0
                           3_
                          15
              Additional Permits
           Due to expire by 10-1-80

                      0
                      7
                      4
                      4
                      0
                    177 (oil  wells)
                    T92
*Delegated States are Colorado, Montana, North Dakota  and  Wyoming

**EPA States are Utah and South Dakota
                                     12

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20,  1980
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
    Total
                                     TABLE  8
                             Summary of 404 Actions
1979
I
4
3
1
0
_2
11
1st Quarter
1980
0
2
0
0
0
_0
2
Pending
0
4
1
0
1
_g
6
                                     13

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                     TABLE 9


                         Permit Concurrences by Category
Pipeline

Transmission

Fill/rip rap

Mine

Erosion control

Pumpstation/intake
  TOTAL
1979
3
3
3
1
0
1
11
1st Quarter
1980
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
Pending
3
1
2
0
0
0
6
                                     14

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                    TABLE 10
                      Commerical Synthetic Fuel Activities
A.  Oil Shale

    Project

    Co 1 ony
    Union
    C-b tract
    C-a tract
    Paraho
    Chevron
    Exxon
    Superior
    NOSR

    Geokinetics
    C-b tract

B.  Coal Gasification

    Great Plains Project
    Texaco
    Tenneco
    Exxon
    Washington Energy Co.
    Northern Resources
    Mountain Fuel
    Panhandle Eastern
    Rocky Mtn Energy
C.  Coal Liquefaction

    Nokota
    W.R. Grace
    Dreyer Bros.,Inc.
    Minnkota
    Size

 47,000 BPD
  9,000 BPD
  5,000 BPD
  1,000 BPD
  5,000 BPD
100,000 BPD
 60,000 BPD
 17,000 BPD
 50,000 to
200,000 BPD
  2,000 BPD
 85,000 BPD
Regulatory Status

PSD permit (7-11-79)
PSD permit (7-31-79)
PSD permit (12-15-77)
PSD permit (12-15-77)
PSD inactive
preliminary meeting
preliminary meeting
preliminary meeting
preliminary meeting

preliminary meeting
preliminary meeting
125,000,000 SCFD
250,000,000 SCFD
250,000,000 SCFD

250,000,000 SCFD
nc 5,000,000 SCFD
250,000,000 SCFD
250,000,000 SCFD
125,000,000 SCFD
48,000 BPD methanol
35,000 BPD methanol
30,000 BPD fuel oil
20,000 BPDOE,60%gas,
40% methanol
PSD Permit (11/78)
feasibility study
feasibility study
feasibility study
feasibility study
preliminary meeting
preliminary meeting
preliminary meeting
preliminary meeting
announced plans
preliminary meeting
preliminary meeting

feasibility study
State

 CO
 CO
 CO
 CO
 CO
 CO
 CO
 CO
 CO

 UT
 CO
                                              ND
                                              WY
                                              MT
                                              WY
                                              MT
                                              MT
                                              UT
                                              WY
                                              WY
                                              ND
                                              CO
                                              MO
                                              ND
                                     15

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                        Appendix 1

                 Energy EIS Reviews - 1979, 1st Quarter  1980,  and  Pending
    1979
                                   Title     Draft



1.  Development of Coal Resources in           X
    South Central Wyoming
2.  Development of Coal Resources in           X
    Central Utah
3.  Eastern Powder River Basin Region          X
    of Wyomi ng
4.  Split Rock Uranium Mill                    X
5.  Highland Uranium Solution Mining
6.  Big Sky Mine-Peabody Coal                  X
7.  Federal Coal Management Program            X
8.  Colstrip Project                           X
9.  Gas Hills Uranium Mill                     X
10. Edgemont Uranium Mine                      X
11  Moab Uranium Mill
12. Coal Creek Mine
13. White Mesa Uranium Mill                    X
14. North Dakota-Saskatchewan Intertie         X
15. Transmission line-Lake City to Creede
16. Shooter ing Canyon Uranium Mill             X
17. Proposed Coal Leasing-Carbon Basin         X
18. Spring Creek Mine-Big Horn Co.
19. Morton Ranch Uranium Mill
20. Development of Coal Resources
    in Southcentral Wyoming
21. Pronghorn Mine -Consolidated Coal Co.
22. Eastern Powder River Basin Coal Region
23. Yampa Project Transmission Line            X
24. West Central Colorado Coal
25. Homestake Mining -Pitch Project
26. Federal Coal Management Program
27. Development of Coal Resources in
    Southern Utah
28. Development of Coal Resources in Central
    Utah
29. Superior Oil Co. Land Exchange             X
30. Craig Unit 3                               X
31. Northern Powder River Basin Coal           X
    and Pearl Mine
32. Intermountain Power Project                X
33. Emery Power Plant, Units 3 and 4           X
34. C&NW Coal Line Project                     X
35. Proposed Coal Leasing-Carbon Basin
                                                      Final     Rating*    State
                                                        X
                                                        X
                                                         X
                                                         X
                                                         X

                                                         X
                                                         X

                                                         X
                                                         X
                                                         X
                                                         X
                                                                  ER  2

                                                                  ER  2

                                                                  ER  2
                                                                  ER
                                                                  LO
                                                                  ER

                                                                  LO
                                                                  ER
                                                                  EU
                                                                  2
WY

UT
WY
ER 3
1
EU-1
ER 2
EU 1
LO 2
LO 2
1
1
ER 2
LO 2
1
ER 2
ER 2
1
1
2
1
2
LO 2
2
2
2
2
WY
WY
MT
Regional
MT
WY
SD
UT
WY
UT
ND
CO
UT
WY
MT
WY
WY
WY
WY
CO
CO
CO
Regional
UT
UT

CO
CO
MT

UT
UT
WY
WY
                                     16

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                  Appendix 1 (Continued)
36. Col strip Project                                   XI           MT
37. Caballo Mine-Campbell Co.                             X         1           WY
38. Big Sky Mine - Rosebud Co                             X         1           MT
39. North Dakota -Saskatchewan Intertie                   X         1           ND
40. Emery Power Plant, Units 3 and 4                      X         2           UT
41. Intermountain Power Project                           X         2           UT

    Title                                    Draft      Final       Rating*     State

    1st Quarter 1980
1.  Missouri Basin Power Project - Laramie
      River Power Plant                                   X         2           WY
2.  Craig Station - Unit 3                                X         1           CO
3.  Northern Powder River Basin Coal                      XI           MT
4.  Yampa Project Transmission line                       XI           CO


Pending

Title                                        Draft      Estimated  Date         State

1.  MAPCO - pipeline                           X        5-30-80                CO
                                                                               UT
                                                                               WY
*EPA EIS Rating System
o  Draft EIS

               Environmental  Impact of Action         Adequacy of  EIS  Information
               LO - Lack of Objections                1.  Adequate  description
               ER - Environmental Reservations        2.  Insufficient  information
               EU - Environmentally Unsatisfactory    3.  Inadequate
o  Final EIS
               Environmental  Impact of Action
               "TNo  comment
               2.  Comments sent/Final EIS  is satisfactory
               3.  Environmetal  reservations sent  to  agency
               4.  Environmentally unsatisfactory  - CEQ  referral
                                     17

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                        Appendix  2

                     PSD Actions - 1979, 1st Quarter 1980, and Pending
project Name

1979

1.  Cotter Corp.
2.  Wymo Fuels, Inc.
3.  Consol/MobilPronghorn
4.  PROCON
5.  Uranium Resources and Development  Co.
6.  Delzer
7.  Pioneer Nuclear, Inc.
8.  Northern Energy  Resources Co.
9.  Kerr McGee
10. Colowyo Coal Co.
11. U. S. Steel
12. Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
13. Sheridan Enterprises
14. Colony Development
15. Union Oil Co.
16. Shell Oil Co. Buckskin
17. Peabody Coal Co.
18. Chevron Oil Co.
19. ARCO
20. Great Plains Resources
21. Mobil Oil Co.
22. Montana Power Co.
23. Little America Refinery Co.
24. Occidental Oil Shale
25. United Nuclear Corp.
26. Pioneer Uravan
27. Pacific Gas &  Electric
28. Carter Mining Co
29. Carter Mining Co
30. Capstan Mining Co
31. Coastal States Energy
32. Energy fuels
33. Western Gas Processors*
34. United Power Assoc*
35. Gulf Oil*
36. Continental Oil  Co*
37. Centurion Nuclear Inc*
38. AMOCO*
  Type                  State
Uranium mill              CO
Coal Mine                 WY
Coal Mine                 WY
Refinery modification     CO
Uranium mine              UT
Coal Mine                 WY
Uranium Mine              WY
Coal Mine                 MT
Coal Mine                 WY
Coal Mine                 CO
Coal Mine                 CO
Uranium Mill              UT
Coal Mine                 WY
Oil Shale                 CO
Oil Shale                 CO
Coal Mine                 WY
Coal Mine                 WY
Refinery modification     WY
Coal Mine                 WY
Coal Mine                 WY
Coal Mine                 WY
Power Plant               MT
Refinery modification     WY
Oil Shale                 CO
Uranium mine and mill     WY
Uranium mill              CO
Coal mine                 UT
Coal mine                 WY
Coal mine                 WY
Coal mine                 CO
Coal mine                 UT
Coal Mine                 CO
Gas plant                 ND
Power plant               ND
Coal mine                 WY
Coal mine                 WY
Uranium mine              WY
Gas plant                 WY
                                     18

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                  Appendix  2  (Continued)
1st Quarter 1980

1.  Colorado Ute
2.  Colorado Inter state Gas Co
3.  Energy Transp. Co.*
4.  FMC Skull Point Mine
5.  Shell Oil*
6.  Univ. of WY*
7.  CO Interstate Gas*
8.  Knife River  Coal Co.*
       Power plant
       Comp. station
       Coal prep, plant
       Coal mine
       Coal mine
       Power plant
       Compressor sta.
       Coal mine
          CO
          CO
          WY
          WY
          WY
          WY
          WY
          ND
PENDING

Project

1.  Warner Valley
2.  Emery 3 and 4
3.  Paraho
4.  Gary Refinery
5.  Intermountain Power
6.  Colorado Interstate Gas
7.  Platte River Power Authority
8.  Malmstrom Air Force Base
9.  AMOCO
10. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co.
11. WESRECO
12. Shell Oil Co
13. Martin Marietta
14. Deseret Transmission  Inc.
   Type

Power plant
Power plant
Oil shale
Refinery modification
Power plant
Compressor Station
Power plant
Power plant industry
Refinery modification
Compressor station
Refinery modification
Gas plant
Power pi ant-industry
Power plant
  Estimated
Decision Date       State

  10/31/80            UT
  02/15/80            UT
  On hold             CO
  ?                   CO
  12/13/70 proposed   UT
  03/31/80 proposed   CO
  02/20/80 proposed   CO
  05/1/80  target     MT
  On hold             UT
  4/80/80 proposed    CO
  3/21/80 proposed    UT
  ?                   MT
  5/1/80 target       UT
  ?                   UT
*State Issued Permit
                                     19

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                         Appendix  3

                         NPDES Actions - 1979 and 1st Quarter  1980
COMPANY
1979

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Cotter
Capstan
Chimney Rock
H-G Coal
Northern
Palisade
Roadside
Rockcastle
Sun Coal
Sunlight
Occidental

Occidental
Gary Western
COLO Ute
COLO Ute
Public Service
S. COLO Power
S. COLO Power
Trinidad City
Decker
Spring Creek
MT Power
USB OR
West land Oil
Basin Electric
United Power
USCOE
USCOE(Ft.Randall)
Energy  Fuels
URADCO
Price River
Husky Oil
Centurion Nuc.
Cotter Corp.
Pathfinder
Pioneer-Bear Cr.
Amax - Belle Ayr
Arch - Semi nole #2
Atlantic Richfield
Kerr McGee
Medicine Bow
Shell
                             TYPE
                               RENEWAL  (R)
                          NEW  APPLICATION  (N)
uranium/radium/vanadium(U-RA-V)
Coal Mine
Coal Mine
Crude Petroleum
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Petroleum Refining
Power Plant
Coal Mine
Coal Mine
Power Plant
Power Plant
Petroleum Refining
Power Plant
Power Plant
U-RA-V
   a
Coal
Petroleum Refining
U-RA-V
Coal Mine
Coal Mine
N
N
N

N
N
N
R
N
N
R

N
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
N
R
R
R
R
R
R

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
R
R
N
N
R
N
               STATE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
GO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
MT
MT
MT
MT
ND
NO
ND
ND
SD
UT
UT
UT
UT
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
                                     20

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980


                                  Appendix 3  (Continued)


1979 Continued

43. Wyodak Resources                  "                    R                 WY
44. Agnew-Sullivan                Pet.,Nat. Gas           N                 WY
45. Amer-Beryllium                    "                    N                 WY
46. Ant Hills                         "                    N                 WY
47. Beren                             "                    N                 WY
48. RG(Berry)                         "                    N                 WY
49. Buttes                            "                    N                 WY
50. Diamond B                         "                    N                 WY
51. Exeter                            "                    N                 WY
52. Fenix & Scisson                   "                    N                 WY
53. Grace                             "                    N                 WY
54. McMurray                          "                    R                 WY
55. Shell                             "                    N                 WY
56. Terra Resources                   "                    N                 WY
57. Texas American                    "                    N                 WY
58. Basin  Electric               Power Plant             R                 WY
59. USBOR (Glendo)                    "                    R                 WY
60. USBOR (Guernsey)                  "                    R                 WY
61. USBOR(Seminole)                   "                    R                 WY
62. USBOR (Shoshone)                  "                    R                 WY

1st Quarter 1980

1.  Dorchester                    Coal Mine               N                 CO
2.  National King                     "                    N                 CO
3.  Sackett                           "                    N                 CO
4.  Sewantee                          "                    N                 CO
5.  Sun  Coal                         "                    N                 CO
6.  Westmoreland                      "                    R                 MT
7.  Montana Power                 Power Plant             R                 MT
8.  Montana-Dakota                    "                    R                 MT
9.  USBOR                             "                    R                 MT
10. USBOR                             "                    R                 MT
11. USCOE                             "                    R                 MT
12. USCOE                             "                    R                 MT
13. Buttes                        Petr., Nat.  Gas         N                 WY
14. Buttes                            "                    N                 WY
15. Exxon                             "                    R                 WY
                                     21

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, i960
Project

1.  Northern Tier Pipeline  (3)
                                        Appendix 4

                   404 Actions - 1979 and 1st Quarter  1980,  and Pending

                                                                         State
                                                                          CO
                                                                          MI-
                                                                          NT
                                                                          MT
                                                                          MT
                                                                          ND
                                                                          ND
                                                                          ND
                                                                          SD
                                                                          WY
                                                                          WY
                                                                          MT
                                                                          MT
                          Estimated
                       Decision Date

                              5/80
Project
1979
1. Western Slope Carbon Hawks Nest Mine
2. MT Power Co
3. MT Power Co
4. Great Falls Gas
5. Great Falls Gas
6. Ottertail Power
7. Basin Electric Power
8. United Power Association
9. Electric Power Corporation
10. Tenneco Oil
11. Northern Rockies Pipeline Company
1st Quarter 1980
1. Shell Oil Co
2. Montana Dakota Utilities
PENDING
Type

Mine
Overhead Transmission Line
Overhead Transmission Line
Gas line
Gas line
Fill, riprap
Fill
Hardpoint
Transmission Line
Pump Station, Intake
Pipeline

Submerged Pipeline
Erosion Control

  Type

Crude Oil Line
Stat

 MT
4.  Hill County Electric Corporation.
5.  Empire Energy
6.  United Power Assoc
Transmission Line
Riprap
Riprap
                             5/80
                             5/80
                             5/80
 MT
 UT
 ND
                                     22

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
                                    GLOSSARY
BEJ


BPDOE



BPSD


BPT



Delegated
DO I

DIS
best engineering judgment — a determination of the best
hazardous waste disposal

barrels per day, oil equivalent ~ a measure of
production for synthetic fuels expressed in terms of
petroleum

barrels per stream day — a measure of the daily
production of oil from a particular facility

best practical treatment — a determination of the best
wastewater pollution control technology which is
reasonably applied to an existing facility

delegated, non-delegated — most EPA programs are
designed to be managed by the States.  States which
request delegation and which have the needed authorities
to run a program "equivalent" to the Federal program may
receive delegation.

Department of the Interior

environmental impact statement

review — National Environmental Policy Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate impact of their actions on
the environment, sometimes requiring preparation of a
full-blown EIS which is then reviewed in draft form by
Federal, State and local agencies with appropriate
expertise.  Comments of reviewing agencies must be
addressed in final EIS.

dEIS — draft

fEIS — final

Pre-EIS scoping — meeting or communications among
agencies, project sponsors and others before a draft EIS
is prepared.  Aim is to "red-flag" potential trouble
areas in EIS to avoid prolonged conflicts among agencies
and others over particulars in an impact statement.

Programmatic EIS — covers a nationwide program; is not
site- or project-specific
                                     23

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20, 1980
Induced Synfuels
Industry
MWE
NOx
NPDES permits
PopuTat ion-induced
power plants
Population-induced
sewage treatment
plants
PSD review
SCFD

S02




TPD

TPY
an industry consisting of plants which produce oil
and gas from coal and/or oil shale.  The  industry
receives economic subsidies.

megawatts, electricity — a measure of the power
generation capacity of power plants

nitrogen oxides — a criteria pollutant subject to
National standards.  Power production and heating account
for approximately 56 percent of NOx emissions
nationally.  Measured as N0£ in ambient air.  . . as  NOx
in stack emissions.

permits to discharge wastewater into the waters of the
U.S., regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System of the Clean Water Act.  System limits
amount of various pollutants which can be discharged,
carries monitoring requirements and penalities for
violations.

power plants which are constructed to supply  electricity
to the people who move to an area either  work at a
synthetic fuel facility or to provide community services

sewage treatment plants which are constructed to treat
the' wastewater for the people who move to an area to
either work at synthetic fuel facilities or to provide
community services.

pre-construction review of new sources seeking to locate
in areas where air is already cleaner than required  by
National standards.  Pollution limits (increments) are
far more stringent than National standards since they are
designed to "prevent significant deterioration" of air
quality.  Class I is the most restrictive, Class III the
least.  All classes are more protective of air quality
than the secondary National Standards.

standard cubic feet per day ~ a measure of gases

sulfur dioxide ~ a criteria pollutant subject to
national standards and PSD review.  Power production and
heating account for approximately 80 percent of S02
emissions nationally.

tons per day — common measure of mining production

tons per year — common measure of..mining production
                                     24

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
June 20,  1980


U-RA-V               Uranium-radium-vanadium — in this report, term  indicates
                     mine which may produce any of these closely associated
                     elements.

USBOR                United States Bureau of Reclamation,  now called  the  U.S.
                     Water and Power Resource Service

USCOE                United States Army Corps of Engineers.   In addition  to
                     project construction responsibilities, shares enforcement
                     of Clean Water Act section 404 with EPA.

404                  Section of the Clean Water Act — regulates dredging of
                     waterways and disposal of dredge materials.  Also
                     regulates placement of fill material  on or near
                     waterways.  Permits are issued by Corps of Engineers with
                     EPA review.
                                     25

-------
              Coal
             140
CD
cr
TO
m
60
                     46
                                   125
                   14


                  1975
             15


            1980


           Million Tons
                                             330
                                                285
                                              3O%

-------
       Power Plant
       Capacity
              MW
cr>
^6
m
i
to
i
1975
                3%
              32,000
1980
1985
                                   32,000
             5%

-------
                Uranium
                 Tons

                 U3°8
CD
cr
^o
m

i
                      1975
           '24,000
1980
1985
                   55%
       60%

-------
                             Industry
2
fc^ —


3


4

            Oil  Shale
                                      President k
1



2



3



4

CT)
cr
^o
m

i

-Cr

I
1979
1990
                       750,000
                                                   Oil
                                                 Conventioi

-------