United States	Region 8
Environmental Protection	1860 Lincoln Street
Agency	Denver, CO 80295
September
1980
&EPA Energy Project
Review and Permitting
Status Report
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

-------
d3^ \
6(CC
<--\
&
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
1 860 LINCOLN STREET
DENVER. COLORADO 80295
EPA 9
DEC 24 1980'
0\<\
Ref: 8EA
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 WK 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 second "Energy Project Review and Permitting Status Report" prepared
by EPA Region VIII. This report provides information on our regulatory
activities taken during the second quarter of this calendar year.
You will note that the Region took 35 regulatory actions regarding energy
projects in the quarter. This represents one energy regulatory action every
other working day. The environmental benefits of the regulatory process are
highlighted for key decisions made during the quarter.
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.
/qer //Williams
egionaT Administrator
u S F:P/\ Rcoion 8 ! ib
80C-L
aiy
999 18!h Si , Si.nlo 500
Denver. CO S0OQ>-;m5m

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pase
Purpose/Scope of Report - Summary and Highlights	1
List of Tables
1	Regulatory Actions - Energy Facilities	5
2	Summary of Energy EIS Actions	6
3	Suinnary of Energy PSD Permits Issued/Pending	7
4	Energy PSD Actions - Issued/Pending	8
5	Surmiary of NPDES Actions (Energy related)	9
6	NPDES Permits Issued/Pending (Energy related)	10
7	Sumnary of 404 Actions (Energy related)	11
8	404 Permit Concurrences by Category (Energy related) 12
9	Commercial Synthetic Fuel Activities	13
List of Appendices
1	Energy EIS Reviews	15
2	Energy PSD Actions	16
3	Energy NPDES Actions	18
4	Energy 404 Actions	23
GLOSSARY
Terms and abbreviations used in this report
24

-------
Energy Project Review and Permitting Report
(Volume I — No. 2)
EPA Region VIII
PURPOSE/SCOPE OF REPORT
This status report discusses energy project review and permitting actions
taken by EPA during the second quarter 1980 (April 1 to July 1) for the six
Region VIII States of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming. Actions include Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) review,
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 July 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. Finally, because
of the attention which synthetic fuels development has received, a project
sunmary is provided.
PROGRAM SUMMARIES
The Region made 35 regulatory decisions in the second quarter of 1980 - -
more than one every other working day. There were no denials or proposed
denials during the quarter. Table 1 repeats the summary information provided
in the first quarterly report (Volume I, No. 1) for calendar year 1978 and
1979.
The Region reviewed three draft and two final EIS' for energy projects
during the quarter. Table 2 summarizes these actions by State and Appendix 1
lists the specific project, the assigned EPA review rating, and an explanation
of EPA's rating system. EIS' which have action pending during the next
quarter are also listed.
A total of 14 PSD permit applications for energy projects were processed
during the quarter. Two of the applications resulted in non-applicability
determinations. Table 3 provides a summary by State and Appendix 2 lists the
specific projects. Also listed in the Appendix are PSD actions which are
pending. Table 4 provides additional detail on the type and size of projects
permitted.
There were 11 "major" energy project NPDES permits issued during the
quarter. The first quarterly report included figures on permits issued for
oil and gas wells. Since these are fairly routine non-complex permits it has
been decided to distinguish these from the more complex projects in
discussions on program summaries. Table 5 provides a sumnary by State.
Appendix 3 lists all specific permits issued and pending. Table 6 provides
additional details on the type of projects permitted and pending.

-------
There were 5 actions taken on 404 concurrences during the quarter. Table
7 summarizes these actions by State and Appendix 4 lists the specific
project. Appendix 4 also lists pending actions. Table 8 provides additional
project detail.
Due to the attention which the development of synthetic fuels has
received, Table 9 provides a listing of the known commercial size projects
proposed for Region VIII states. Also shown is the project status. If all of
the synthetic fuels projects were constructed and operated at full capacity a
total of 1.4 million BPD of oil equivalent would be provided. This represents
a significant portion of the 2 million BPD goal by 1992 established in the
Energy Security Act (S.932).
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
Several regulatory actions taken during the quarter deserve special
mention. These fall into the categories of projects which exhibit a uniquely
effective environmental control system, those projects for which a higher
degree of control was prescribed in the permit than initially proposed in the
application, and pending permit applications which may represent an
environmentally unfavorable project (i.e., may result in permit denial).
Also highlighted are pertinent regulatory actions taken by EPA which are
examples of coordinated, responsive, and effective government.
EIS	
The five EIS reviews were relatively routine. Although we expressed
environmental reservations concerning the MAPCO pipeline project and expressed
concerns about the adequacy of the final EIS for the Superior Oil Shale
project, neither of the EIS' nor the project represented noteworthy concern.
PSD	
Air PSD permits were issued for 3 power plants totalling 4050 MWe
electrical generating capacity. The IPP plant (3000 MWe) will be located in
West Central Utah and is designed to burn low sulfur bituminous coal. A
comparison of the permit limits for the plant with the EPA promulgated New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are shown below:
NSPS	IPP
SO2, % removal	70.	90.
Particulate, pounds per million BTU	0.03	0.02
N0X, pounds per million BTU	0.6	0.55
EPA prescribed the lower N0X emission rate because it was felt that
combustion of low sulfur bituminous Western coal would not experience the same
degree of slagging and corrosion that would be experienced with a high sulfur
bituminous Eastern coal. The limit for subbituminous coal is 0.5 pounds per
million BTU. It was judged that Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
would not be able to meet the subbituminous N0X limit because of a limited
amount of corrosion that would occur by operating the boiler at conditions
necessary to meet 0.5 pounds per million BTU.
-2-

-------
The Hunter Power Plant Units 3 and 4 (800 MWe) will be constructed in
Central Utah. It is designed to achieve 90% SO? control, 0.55 pounds N0X
per million BTU, and 0.03 pounds particulate per million BTU. The plant will
utilize a baghouse for particulate control.
PSD permit applications have been received for four facilities which may
be difficult to approve. Three of these projects are located in Central North
Dakota. PSD permits have been issued to three coal fired power plants with a
total generating capacity of 2320 We and a 250 million SCFD coal gasification
plant. Gas production with associated sulfur recovery plants also exist in
the general vicinity. Air quality modelling performed by North Dakota has
shown that Class I SO2 PSD increments for the North and South Units of
Theodore Roosevelt National Park have been completely consumed. PSD
applications have been filed for a 550 We coal fired power plant, a 48,000
BPD coal to methanol plant and a gas sweetening plant in the same area. The
question is obvious	how can these facilities be permitted if the Class I
increment is exhausted? Extensive efforts are necessary to confirm existing
or to develop new long distance cumulative modelling capability appropriate
for this area. It is also anticipated that permit applications will be
received for additional power generating facilities and synthetic fuels
projects in the same area.
The fourth project which may have difficulty receiving a PSD permit is
the 500 MWe Warner Valley power plant proposed for Southwestern Utah.
Preliminary air quality modelling shows Class I ¦ SO? violations at Zion
National Park which is about 15 miles from the proposed site. An estimated
date for decision is by October 1, 1980.
NPDES	
An important note to potential NPDES applicants is that the NPDES portion
of the May 19, 1980 Consolidated Permit Regulations is now being implemented.
Application Forms 1 and 2c will be required for the renewal of existing NPDES
permits. These forms are more extensive than the old forms and have new
analytical requirements. Revised forms for new dischargers have not been
completed. Until these new forms are available new applicants will use the
old forms.
The Northern Border Pipeline Project represents an example of successful
efforts to coordinate NPDES permits issued by 4 States and 2 EPA Regional
Offices. The NPDES permit for InterNorth, Inc. (SD-0025429) is being modified
to include both discharges from hydrostatic testing of pipelines and
dewatering of excavations from the company's operations in South Dakota. The
modifications will allow the company greater flexibility in dealing with the
various conditions that may be encountered during pipeline construction and
repairs, yet require adequate environmental controls of the discharges.
Permit conditions and the general approach of the permit were coordinated with
the States of Iowa, Montana, and North Dakota, and the Region VII office of
the EPA with the objective of having similar permits being issued for the
project in all four states.
-3-

-------
404	
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.
-4-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
TABLE 1
Regulatory Actions - Energy Facilities
EPA Region VIII
Estimated
CY 1981-1985

CY 1978
CY 1979
CY 1980
EIS Reviews
9
41
35+
PSD Permits
28
48
40+
NPDES Permits
25
62
60+
404 Actions

11
30+
62	162	165 about 200 per year
Note 1	Actions reflect those taken both by EPA and delegated
states. EPA actions accounted for 100 of the 162 calendar
year 1979 total.
Note 2	PSD permit activity for 1980 may be less than 40+ with a
reduced number of mine applications due to the recent
Alabama Power decision.
Note 3	The 1981-1985 actions assume a 1980 base plus an induced
synthetic fuels and coal conversion energy program.
-5-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
TABLE 2
Summary of Energy EIS Actions
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Multi-State
TOTAL
1st Quarter
1980
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
2nd Quarter
1980
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
Pending
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
-6-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
TOTAL
TABLE 3
Summary of Energy PSD Permits Issued/Pending
1st Quarter
1980
2
0
1
0
0
5
2nd Quarter
1980
3
0
0
0
3
	6
12
Pending
8
3
3
0
4
	0
18
-7-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
TABLE 4
Energy PSD Actions - Issued/Pending
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 Plant	1	440 MWe
Steam Boiler	1	- - -
Compressor station	2	- - -
Coal preparation plant	1	- - -
IT
2nd Quarter 1980
1. PSD Actions
12 permits issued
2 non-applicability determinations
14
2. PSD permits issued by category
Uranium mine
Power plant
Refinery units
Compressor station
Gas Sweetening plant
Coal-fired industrial
1	1000 ton per day ore
3	4050 MWe
2	20,000 BPD
4		
1	520xl06scfd
1		
12
Permits Pending by Category
Power Plant
Compressor station
Coal-fired industrial
Oil shale
Oil/Gas
Coal liquefaction
Gas Sweetening plant
2
6
1
2
3
1
3
IE
1050 MWe
7000 BPD
48,000 BPD methanol
264xl0^scfd
-8-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September, 1980
TABLE 5
Summary of NPDES Actions
(Energy Related)
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
TOTAL
1st Quarter
1980
5
7
0
0
0
3
15
2nd Quarter
1980
1
2
1 (1)
0
6 (1)
	23 (20)
33 (22)
Pending
53 (7)
10 (3)
4
3 (2)
12
35 (34)
117 (46)
Note: Oil and gas wells are shown in parentheses. Their total is reflected
in the total.
-9-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
TABLE 6
A. NPDES Permits Issued
Delegated States*
EPA States**
Total
NPDES Permits Issued/Pending
(Energy Related)
1st Quarter 1980
New Renewed
7
0
15
8
0
2nd Quarter 1980
TTew Renewed
10
3
17
3
33
B. Permits Issued by Category
1st Quarter 1980
Uranium
Coal Mines
Power Plants
Refineries
Oil Shale
Oil & Gas
Total
0
6
6
0
0
_3
15
2nd Quarter 1980
1
8
2
0
0
22
33
C. Permits Pending by Category
Backlog
Additional Permits
Due to expire by~?-l-81
Uranium
10
8
Coal Mines
45
45
Power Plants
6
16
Refineries
8
13
Oil Shale
1
1
Oil & Gas
46
212
Natural Gas Liquids
1
0
Total
117
295
~Delegated states are Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming,
**EPA States are Utah and South Dakota.
-10-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Total
TABLE 7
Summary of 404 Actions
(Energy Related)
1st Quarter
1980
0
2
0
0
0
_0
2
2nd Quarter
1980
1
1
3
0
0
_0
5
Pending
1
0
0
0
0
_0
1
-11-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
TABLE 8
404 Permit Concurrences by Category
(Energy Related)
1st Quarter 2nd Quarter
1980	1980	Pending
Pipeline	12	0
Transmission	0	10
Fill/riprap	0	10
Mi ne	Oil
Erosion control	10	0
2	5	1
-12-

-------
TABLE 9
Commercial Synthetic Fuel Activities
Summary
A. Oil Shale Projects
Approximate
Project
Size (BPD)
Status
State
White River
100,000
In courts
UT
Paraho
10,000
Demonstration Design
UT
TOSCO
50,000
Feasibility study
UT
Geokinetics
20,000
Limited Production
UT
Cathedral Bluffs
85,000
Module construction
CO
Colony
46,000
Construction
CO
Occi dental
1,000
Construction
CO
Rio Blanco
75,000
Pilot construction
CO
Superior
12,000
Demonstration design
CO
Union
9,000
Construction
CO
Chevron
100,000
Planning
CO
Exxon
60,000
Planning
CO
NOSR
50,000-
Planning
CO

200,000

Mob i 1
50,000
Planning
CO
Cities Service
50,000
Planning
CO
Equity
1,000
Limited production
CO
TOTAL BPD = 720,000
B. Coal Gasification Projects

Approximate



Project
Size (MMCFD)
Status

State
Great Plains
125
Construction
ND
Panhandle Eastern
250
Planning

WY
Peoples Gas
250
Planning

ND
Lake DeSmet
250
Feasibility
study
WY
Tenneco
250
PIanning
MT
Mountain Fuel
275
Planning

UT
Washington Energy
?
PIanni ng

MT
Rocky Mountain Energy 250
Feasibility
study
WY
Northern Resources,
Inc. 19
Preliminary
Feasibility



Study
MT
Utah International
125
PIanni ng

MT
TOTAL BPD OE = 350,000
-13-

-------
Synopsis (cont.)
C. Coal Liquefaction Projects
Size
Number
Proj ec t
(BPD methanol)
Status
State
1
Exxon
?
Long range Planning
WY
2-
Circle West
15,588
Feasibility Study
MT
3
W. R. Grace
35,833
Feasibility Study
CO
4
Wentworth Bros.
178,571
Planning
ND
5
Dunn Nokota
83,262
Feasibility Study
ND
6
Mobil
40,000(gaso.)
PIanning
WY
7
American Methyl
178,571
Planning
WY
8
Northern Natural




Gas
20-25,000
Planning
ND
S
Hampshire Energy
20,000 (gaso.)
Planning
WY
TOTAL
BPD OE = 250,000



D. Tar Sands Projects



Number
Project
Size (BPD)
Status
State
1
Asphalt Ridge
25,000
Pilot design
UT
2
Great Nat. Corp.
8-25,000
Pilot planning
UT
3
Standard Oil
50,000
Feasibility study
UT
TOTAL
BPD = 100,000



TOTAL SYNTHETIC FUELS = 1,420,000 BPD OE
-14-

-------
APPENDICES
1	EIS Reviews
2	PSD Actions
3	NPDES Actions
4	404 Actions

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
APPENDIX 1
Energy EIS Reviews




Title
Draft
Final
Rati ng*
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

X
1
MT

4. Yampa Project Transmission line

X
1
CO

2nd Quarter 1980





1. Supplement V to Libby Dam and





Lake Koocanusa
X

LO-2
MT

2. MAPCO's Rocky Mtn. Liquid





Hydrocarbons Pipeline
X

ER-2
CO,





UT,
WY
3. Superior Land Exchange and





Oil Shale Development

X
2
CO

4. Trailblazer gas pipeline
X

LO-2
CO,
WY
5. Emery Station Unit 2

X
1
UT

PENDING





TITLE
DRAFT
FINAL
EST. DATE
STATE

1. Kootenai River Hydroelectric

X
?
MT

2. Green River-Hams Fork -





regional coal leasing '
X

7/8/80
CO,
WY
3. Libby Dam and Lake





Koocanusa

X
7/28/80
MT

4. Rocky Flats Plant Site
X

1
CO

5. Allen Warner Valley
X

8/22/80
UT

*EPA EIS Rating System
- Draft EIS
LO
ER
EU
Final EIS
Environmental Impact of Action
-	Lack of Objections
-	Environmental Reservations
-	Environmentally Unsatisfactory
Adequacy of EIS Information
T! Adequate description
2.	Insufficient information
3.	Inadequate
Environmental Impact of Action
Ti No comment
2.	Comments sent/Final EIS is satisfactory
3.	Environmental reservations sent to agency
4.	Environmentally unsatisfactory - CEQ referral
-15-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
APPENDIX 2
Energy PSD Actions
1st	Quarter 1980
1.	Colorado Ute
2.	Colorado Interstate Gas
3.	Energy Transportation Co.*
4.	FMC Skull Point Mine*
5.	Shell Oil*
6.	University of WY*
7.	Colorado Interstate Gas*
8.	Knife River Coal Co.*
2nd	Quarter 1980
1.	Colorado Interstate Gas
2.	Platte River Power Authority
3.	Hunter Units 3 and 4
4.	Panhandle Eastern
5.	Martin Marietta
6.	Intermountain Power Project
7.	Cotter Corporation
8.	Marathon Pipeline Co.
9.	Glenrock Refinery
10.	Natural Gas Pipeline Co.
11.	Mountain Fuel Supply
12.	Chevron, USA
*State issued permit
Type	State
Power plant	CO
Compressor station	CO
Coal preparation plant	WY
Coal mine	WY
Coal mine	WY
Steamboiler	WY
Compressor station	WY
Coal mine	ND
Compressor station	CO
Power plant	CO
Power plant	UT
Compressor station	CO
Coal-fired cement complex	UT
Power plant	UT
Uranium Mine	WY
Crude Oil Tank	WY
Crude Topping Unit	WY
Compressor Station	WY
Compressor Station	WY
Gas Sweetening Plant	WY
-16-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
Pendi ng
Project
1.	Warner Valley
2.	Gary Refining
3.	Shell Oil Co.
4.	High Prairie Energy
5.	WESRECO
6.	AMOCO Prod. Co.
7.	CO Interstate Gas
8.	CO Interstate Gas
9.	CO Interstate Gas
10.	CO Interstate Gas
11.	CO Interstate Gas
12.	CO Interstate Gas
13.	Geokinetics
14.	Paraho
15.	Malmstrom AFB
16.	Antelope Valley
17.	Nokota
18.	Warren Petroleum
APPENDIX 2 (continued)
Energy PSD Actions

Estimated

Type
Decision Date
State
Power plant
10/1/80 proposed
UT
Refinery modification
1
CO
Gas processing plant
1
MT
Gas sweetening
7/17/80 proposed
MT
Refinery modification
6/27/80 proposed
UT
Gas processing
" ?
UT
Compressor expansion
7/31/80 proposed
CO
Compressor station
7/31/80 proposed
CO
Compressor expansion
7/31/80 proposed
CO
Compressor expansion
7/31/80 proposed
CO
Compressor expansion
7/31/80 proposed
CO
Compressor station
7/31/80 proposed
CO
Oil Shale
10/80 proposed
UT
Oil Shale
On hold
CO
Heating Plant
On hold
MT
Power Plant
?
ND
Coal liquefaction
?
ND
Gas sweetening Plant
?
ND
-17-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
APPENDIX 3
Energy NPDES Actions
2nd Quarter 1980


RENEWAL (R)

COMPANY
TYPE
NEW APPLICATION (N)
STATE
1. G.E.C. Minerals Inc.
Coal Mine
N
C0-00366 92
2. Beartooth Coal Co.
II
N
MT-0025011
3. Westmoreland Resources
II
N
MT-0025127
4. AMCA Coal Leasing
II
N
UT-0023507
5. U.S. Steel-Geneva
II
R
UT-0022926
6. Western States Mineral



(J.B. King Coal Mine)
II
N
UT-0023515
7. Carter Mining
II
R
WY-0025755
8. Glenrock Coal Co.
II
N
WY-0028525
9. Provo City Power
Power Plant
R
UT-0022543
10. Utah Power & Light
II
R
WY-0020311
11. Energy Reserves Group
Petro., Nat.
Gas R
UT-0000124
12. Shell Oil Company
II
R
ND-0000272
13. Atlantic Richfield
II
R
WY-0000671
14. Atlantic Richfield
II
R
WY-0020837
15. Banks Operating
II
R
WY-0028592
16. Brinkerhoff Drilling
II
R
WY-0025291
17. Conoco, Inc.
II
N
WY-0028649
18. Husky Oil
II
R
WY-0000353
19. Husky Oil
II
N
WY-0028606
20. Juniper Petroleum
11
R
WY-0028584
21. Marathon Oil
II
R
WY-0001732
22. Marathon Oil
II
N
WY-0001970
23. Morsey Wells Oil & Gas
II
R
WY-0025887
24. Olds Oil Co.
II
N
WY-0028614
25. Leonard D. Pearce
11
N
WY-0028631
26. PBM Oil Co.
II
R
WY-0023485
27. Sohio Petroleum Co.
II
R
WY-0000493
-18-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
APPENDIX 3 (continued)
Energy NPDES Actions
2nd Quarter 1980
STATE
WY-0000507
WY-0002267
WY-0002364
WY-0001180
RENEWAL (R)
COMPANY	TYPE	NEW APPLICATION (N)
28.	Sohio Petroleum Co.	"	R
29.	Texaco, Inc.	"	R
30.	Texaco, Inc.	"	R
31.	Union Oil Co.	"	R
32.	Allied Mission Oil
33.	Halliburton Services
Uranium/radium/
vanadium	N
Oil & Gas Field
Services	N
UT-0023442
WY-0028550
NPDES Permits Pending
COMPANY	TYPE
1.	Anchor Coal Co.	Coal
2.	Arness & McGriffin Coal
3.	Bear Coal Co., Inc.
4.	C&F Coal Co., Inc.
5.	Colorado Coal Mining
6.	Delagua Coal Co.
7.	Delagua Coal Co.
8.	Dorchester Colomine Coal
9.	Dorchester Colomine Coal
10.	Empire Energy
11.	Energy Fuels Corp.
12.	GEX Colorado Inc.
13.	Henry Bendetti Coal
14.	Kerr Coal Co.
15.	Lackey-William & Assoc.
16.	Louis Bendetti Coal
17.	Macar Mining Corp.
18.	Newlin Creek Mine Ltd
19.	Northern Coal Co.
20.	Palisade Mining Co.
21.	Peabody Coal
RENEWAL (R)
NEW APPLICATION (N) STATE
Mine	N	C0-0036323
N	C0-0037150
N	C0-0036943
N	C0-0037125
N	C0-0037214
N	C0-0036641
N	C0-0037303
R	C0-0036609
N	C0-0036960
R	C0-0034142
N	C0-0025584
N	C0-0035467
N	CO-0036871
N	C0-0036820
N	C0-0037231
N	C0-0036889
N	C0-0037605
N	C0-0037141
N	C0-0037354
N	C0-0036625
R	C0-0000213
-19-

-------
APPENDIX 3 (continued)
Energy NPDES Actions
NPDES Permits Pending
RENEWAL (R)
COMPANY TYPE
NEW APPLICATION (N)
STATE
22.
Peabody Coal
II
R
CO-0000221
23.
Pittsburg & Midway Coal
11
N
C0-0032638
24.
Quinn Coal
II
R
CO-0035807
25.
Snownass Coal Co.
II
N
C0-0037567
26.
Sun Coal Co., Inc.
II
R
CO-0036030
27.
Sunland Mining Corp.
II
N
C0-0036668
28.
Twin Pines Coal Co.
II
N
C0-0037541
29.
U.S. Steel Corp.
II
R
C0-0000132
30.
Utah International, Inc.
II
N
C0-0036269
31.
Utah International, Inc.
II
N
C0-0036340
32.
Utah International, Inc.
11
R
C0-0032115
33.
Viking Coal Co.
II
N
C0-0037419
34.
Western Slope Carbon
M
R
C0-0033146
35.
Coal Creek Mining
1!
N
MT-0025101
36.
Peabody Coal Co.
II
R
MT-0000884
37.
Western Energy Co.
II
N
MT-0023973
38.
Consolidated Coal Co.
II
R
ND-0000078
39.
C&W Mine No. 1
II
N
UT-0023761
40.
Consolidation Coal Co.
II
R
UT-0022616
41.
Soldier Creek Coal
II
N
UT-0023701
42.
Soldier Creek Coal
II
N
UT-0023680
43.
Trail Mountain Coal
II
N
UT-0023728
44.
UNC Plateau Mining
II
N
UT-0023736
45.
Utah Power & Light Co.
II
R
UT-0022896
46.
Chandler & Assoc., Inc. Pet.
Nat.
Gas N
C0-0037362
47.
Chevron Shale Oil.
II
N
C0-0037222
48.
Exxon Coal Resources
II
N
C0-0037524
49.
Mechalke-Joe D.
II
N
C0-0032140
50.
Rio Blanco Oil Shale
II
N
C0-0035637
51.
Terra Resources
II
R
C0-0001660
52.
Terra Resources
U
R
CO-0001325
53.
Petroleum Eng. & Mgt. Corp.
II
R
MT-0024350
54.
Soap Creek Assoc., Inc.
II
R
MT-0023183
55.
Chinook Resources, Inc.
II
N
SD-0025658
56.
Chinook Resources, Inc.
II
N
SD-0025607
-20-

-------
APPENDIX 3 (continued)
Energy NPDES Actions
NPDES Permits Pending
RENEWAL (R)
COMPANY	TYPE	NEW APPLICATION (N) STATE
57.
Agnew-Sullivan, Inc. "
N
WY-0028151
58.
Amoco Production "
R
WY-0025437
59.
Amoco Production "
R
WY-0025445
60.
Atlantic Richfield "
R
WY-0025488
61.
Continental Oil Co. "
R
WY-0024236
62.
Continental Oil Co. "
R
WY-0000965
63.
Continental Oil Co. "
R
WY-0001023
64.
Diamond B Industries "
R
WY-0027979
65.
Dreiling Ltd "
R
WY-0027642
66.
Elk Oil & Gas
R
WY-0028011
67.
Energy Reserves "
R
WY-0025704
68.
Gary Operating "
R
WY-0024546
69.
Gary Operating "
R
WY-0024554
70.
Inexco Oil Co. "
R
WY-0026522
71.
National Coop Refinery "
R
WY-0001643
72.
National Coop Refinery "
R
WY-0001686
73.
Olds Oil Company "
N
WY-0028614
74.
Petro-Lewis Corp. "
R
WY-0024040
75.
Powder River Oil Co. "
N
WY-0028495
76.
Terra Resources "
R
WY-0001091
77.
Terra Resources "
R
WY-0002542
78.
Terra Resources "
R
WY-0002623
79.
Texaco, Inc. "
R
WY-0002437
80.
Texaco, Inc. "
R
WY-0002356
81.
Texaco, Inc. "
R
WY-0002275
82.
Texaco, Inc. "
R
WY-0002241
83.
Toco Corp. "
R
WY-0001406
84.
Union Oil Co. "
R
WY-0001198
85.
Union Oil Co. "
R
WY-0027189
86.
Union Oil Co. "
R
WY-0027162
87.
Union Tex Pet "
R
WY-0020508
88.
Dale Weaver, Inc. "
N
WY-0028339
89.
Dale Weaver, Inc. "
N
WY-0028355
90.
Dale Weaver, Inc. "
N
WY-0028347
91.
Cotter Corp. Uranium
N
C0-0036285
92.
Cyprus Mines Corp. "
N
C0-0036510
93.
Energy Fuels Corp. "
R
C0-0035378
94.
Martin-Trost Assoc. "
R
C0-0037133
95.
Union Carbide "
R
C0-0027588
96.
Union Carbide "
R
C0-0000515
97.
Urania Exploration "
R
C0-0037575
-21-

-------
APPENDIX 3 (continued)
Energy NPDES Actions
NPDES Permits Pending


RENEWAL (R)

COMPANY
TYPE
NEW APPLICATION (N)
STATE
S8. Silver King Mines, Inc.
II
N
SD-0025356
99. Rio Algon Corp.
II
R
UT-0000311
100. Union Carbide Corp.
II
N
UT-0023779
101. Gary Western
Ref., Petro
R
C0-00000078
102. Banks Enterprises
II
R
MT-0020320
103. Conoco, Inc.
II
R
MT-0000256
104. Thunderbird Resources
II
R
MT-0023591
105. Amoco Oil Company
II
R
ND-0000248
106. Phillips Petroleum
II
R
UT-0000507
107. Plateau, Inc.
II
R
UT-0022527
108. Hermes Product, Inc.
II
R
WY-0001163
109. Morgan-Kelly Corp.
Nat. Gas Liq.
N
MT-0024040
110. Rio Blanco Oil Shale
Oil Shale
R
C0-0034045
111. Public Service Co.
Power Plant
R
CO-0001091
112. Public Service Co.
11
R
C0-0001104
113. Public Service Co.
II
R
C0-0001139
114. Mont-Dak Utilities
II
R
ND-0000264
115. United Power Assoc.
II
R
ND-0000299
116. Deseret Gener. & Trans
II
N
UT-0023744
117. Atlantic Richfield
Pet., Nat. Gas R
MT-0000337
-22-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
September 1980
APPENDIX 4
Energy 404 Actions - 1st Quarter, 2nd Quarter and Pending
Project	Type	State
1st Quarter 1980
1.	Shell Oil Co.	Submerged pipeline MT
2.	Montana Dakota Utilities	Erosion control	MT
2nd Quarter 1980
1.	Northern Tier Pipeline Co.	Pipeline	MT
2.	Minnkota Power Coop	Transmission	ND
3.	Northern Tier Pipeline Co.	Pipeline	ND
4.	Basin Electric Power Coop	Fill/riprap	ND
5.	Empire Energy Corp.	Mine	CO
Pendi ng
Estimated
Project Type	Decision Date	State
1. Kerr Coal Co.	Mine	7/23/80	CO
-23-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
GLOSSARY
BEJ
BPDOE
BPSD
BPT
Delegated
best engineering judgment ~ a
best hazardous waste disposal
determination of the
DO I
EIS
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
-24-

-------
Energy Project Review
and Permitting Report
Induced Synfuels
Industry
MWe
NOx
NPDES permits
Population-induced
power plants
Population-induced
sewage treatment
pi ants
PSD review
SCFD
S02
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. Measures as N02 in ambient air . . . as
Nox in stack emissions.
permits to discharge wastewater into the waters of the
U.S., regulated under the National Pollutant Dischrage
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
to work at a synthetic fuel facility or to provide
comnunity 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
conmunity 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 approximtely 80 percent of
SO2 emissions nationally.
-25-

-------
TPD
TPY
U-RA-V
USBOR
USCOE
404
tons per day — common measure of mining production
tons per year — common measure of mining production
Uranium-radium-vanadium ~ in this report, term
indicates mine which may produce any of these closely
associated elements.
United States Bureau of Reclamation, now called the
U.S. Water and Power Resource Service
United States Army Corps of Engineers,
project construction responsibilities,
enforcement of Clean Water Act section
In addition
shares
404 with EPA.
to
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.
-26-

-------