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 ------- |