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
------- |