Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of Potential Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement for the W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2, 70429-70433 [2011-29333]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Notices
19. LTG William Phillips, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology),
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Acquisition, Logistics and
Technology).
20. Mr. Wimpy D. Pybus, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Policy and Logisitics,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology).
21. Mr. Craig R. Schmauder, Deputy
General Counsel (Installation,
Environment and Civil Works), Office of
the General Counsel.
22. Mr. Karl F. Schneider, Principal
Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs),
Office of Assistant Secretary of the
Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
23. Mr. Brian M. Simmons, Executive
Technical Director/Deputy to the
Commander, United States Army Test
and Evaluation Command.
24. Ms. Heidi Shyu, Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology), Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology).
25. Mr. Lawrence Stubblefield,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Diversity and Leadership), Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs).
26. MG Merdith B. W. Temple,
Deputy Commanding General, United
States Army Corps of Engineers.
27. LTG Dennis L. Via, Deputy
Commanding General, United States
Army Material Command.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–29272 Filed 11–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement and
Notice of Potential Floodplain and
Wetlands Involvement for the W.A.
Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture
and Sequestration Project,
Southeastern TX
Department of Energy.
Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement and
Notice of Potential Floodplain and
Wetlands Involvement.
AGENCY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) announces its intent to
prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:40 Nov 10, 2011
Jkt 226001
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the
Council on Environmental Quality’s
(CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts
1500–1508), and DOE’s NEPA
implementing procedures (10 CFR part
1021), to assess the potential
environmental impacts of providing
financial assistance for a project
proposed by NRG Energy, Inc (NRG).
DOE selected NRG’s proposed W.A.
Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture
and Sequestration Project (Parish PCCS
Project) for a financial assistance award
through a competitive process under the
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)
program. NRG would design, construct
and operate a commercial-scale carbon
dioxide (CO2) capture facility at its
existing W.A. Parish Generating Station
(Parish Plant) in Fort Bend County,
Texas; deliver the CO2 via a new
pipeline to the existing West Ranch oil
field in Jackson County, Texas for use in
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations;
and demonstrate monitoring techniques
to verify the permanence of geologic
CO2 storage.
The project would use an aminebased post-combustion technology to
capture 90 percent (approximately 1.6
million tons) of the CO2 annually from
a 250-megawatt equivalent (MWe) flue
gas slip stream taken from the 617
megawatt (MW) Unit 8 at the Parish
Plant. Captured CO2 would be dried,
compressed, and transported about 80
miles in a new pipeline to an existing
oil field where it would be used for
EOR. The project would demonstrate an
integrated commercial-scale deployment
of post-combustion CO2 capture
technology for use in EOR operations
and long-term geologic storage. DOE
selected this project to receive a
financial assistance award through a
competitive process under Round 3
(second selection phase) of the CCPI
program.
The EIS will further inform DOE’s
decision on whether to provide
financial assistance to NRG for the
Parish PCCS Project. DOE proposes to
provide NRG with up to $355 million of
the overall project cost, which would
constitute approximately 42 percent of
the estimated $845 million total (in
2010 dollars). The project would further
a specific objective of Round 3 of the
CCPI program by demonstrating
advanced coal-based technologies that
capture and sequester, or put to
beneficial use, CO2 emissions from coalfired power plants.
The purposes of this Notice of Intent
(NOI) are to: (1) Inform the public about
DOE’s proposed action and NRG’s
proposed project; (2) announce the
public scoping meetings; (3) solicit
comments for DOE’s consideration
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70429
regarding the scope and content of the
EIS; (4) invite those agencies with
jurisdiction by law or special expertise
to be cooperating agencies in
preparation of the EIS; and (5) provide
notice that the proposed project may
involve potential impacts to floodplains
and wetlands.
DOE does not have regulatory
jurisdiction over the Parish PCCS
Project, and its decisions are limited to
whether and under what circumstances
it would provide financial assistance to
the project. As part of the EIS process,
DOE will consult with interested
federal, state, regional and local
agencies and Native American tribes.
DATES: DOE invites comments on the
proposed scope and content of the EIS.
Comments must be received within 30
days after publication of this NOI in the
Federal Register to ensure
consideration. In addition to receiving
comments in writing and by email [See
ADDRESSES below], DOE will conduct
public scoping meetings to provide
government agencies, private-sector
organizations and the general public
with opportunities to present oral and
written comments or suggestions with
regard to DOE’s proposed action,
alternatives, and the potential impacts
of NRG’s proposed project for DOE
consideration during development of
the EIS. The public scoping meetings
will be held at the Needville High
School, 100 Fritzella Road, in Needville,
Texas, on Wednesday, November 30,
2011; and at the Jackson County
Services Building, 411 North Wells
Street, in Edna, Texas, on Thursday,
December 1, 2011.
Oral comments will be heard during
the formal portion of the scoping
meetings beginning at 7 p.m. [See Public
Scoping Process.] The public is also
invited to informal sessions beginning at
5 p.m. at the same locations to learn
more about the project and the proposed
action. Representatives from DOE and
NRG will be present at the informal
sessions to discuss the proposed project,
the CCPI program, and the EIS process.
Displays and other information about
DOE’s proposed action and NRG’s
proposed project will also be available.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on
environmental concerns about the
project, overall scope of the EIS, or
requests to participate in the public
scoping meetings should be addressed
to Mr. Mark W. Lusk, U.S. Department
of Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road,
P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507–
0880. Individuals and organizations
who would like to provide oral or
electronic comments should contact Mr.
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
70430
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Lusk by postal mail at the above
address; telephone ((412) 386–7435, or
toll-free 1–(877) 812–1569); fax (304)
285–4403); or electronic mail
(Parish.EIS0473@netl.doe.gov.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information about this proposed
project, contact Mr. Lusk, as described
above. For general information on the
DOE National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process, contact Ms. Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585; telephone ((202)
586–4600); fax (202) 586–7031); or leave
a toll-free message (1–(800) 472–2756).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The CCPI program was established in
2002 as a government and private sector
partnership to increase investment in
clean coal technology. Through
cooperative agreements with its private
sector partners, the program advances
clean coal technologies to
commercialization. Congress established
criteria for projects receiving financial
assistance under this program in Title
IV of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(Pub. L. 109–58; EPAct 2005). Under
this statute, CCPI projects must
‘‘advance efficiency, environmental
performance and cost competitiveness
well beyond the level of technologies
that are in commercial service’’ (Pub. L.
109–58, Sec. 402(a)). On February 17,
2009, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–
5, 123 Stat. 115) appropriated $3.4
billion to DOE for Fossil Energy
Research and Development. DOE
intends to use a significant portion of
these funds to provide financial
assistance to CCPI projects.
The CCPI program selects projects for
its government-private sector
partnerships through an open and
competitive process. DOE issues
funding opportunity announcements
specifying the types of projects it seeks,
and invites submission of applications.
DOE reviews applications according to
the criteria specified in the funding
opportunity announcement; these
criteria include technical, financial,
environmental, and other
considerations. DOE selects projects
demonstrating the most promise when
evaluated against these criteria, and
enters into a cooperative agreement with
the selected applicants. These
agreements set out project objectives,
obligations of the parties, and other
features of the partnerships. Applicants
must agree to provide at least 50 percent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:40 Nov 10, 2011
Jkt 226001
of their project’s cost; and for most CCPI
projects, the applicant’s cost share is
much higher.
To date, the CCPI program has
conducted three rounds of solicitations
and project selections. Round 1 sought
projects that would demonstrate
advanced technologies for power
generation and improvements in plant
efficiency, economics, and
environmental performance. Round 2
requested applications for projects that
would demonstrate improved mercury
controls and gasification technology.
Round 3, which DOE conducted in two
phases, sought projects that would
demonstrate advanced coal-based
electricity generating technologies,
coupled with the capture and
sequestration (or beneficial use) of CO2
emissions. DOE’s overarching goal for
Round 3 projects was to demonstrate
technologies at commercial scale in a
commercial setting that would: (1)
Operate at 90 percent capture efficiency
for CO2; (2) make progress towards
capture and sequestration at less than a
10 percent increase in the cost of
electricity for gasification systems and a
less than 35 percent increase for
combustion and oxy-combustion
systems; and (3) make progress towards
capture and sequestration of 50 percent
of the facility’s CO2 output at a scale
sufficient to evaluate full impacts of
carbon capture technology on a
generating plant’s operations,
economics, and performance. The
Parish PCCS Project was one of three
projects selected in the second phase of
Round 3. DOE entered into a
cooperative agreement with NRG on
May 7, 2010.
Purpose and Need for DOE Action
The purpose and need for DOE action
is to advance the CCPI program by
funding projects with the best chance of
achieving the program’s objectives as
established by Congress:
commercialization of clean coal
technologies that advance efficiency,
environmental performance, and cost
competitiveness well beyond the level
of technologies currently in commercial
service.
DOE Proposed Action
DOE’s proposed action is to provide
limited financial assistance through a
cooperative agreement with NRG for a
new post-combustion carbon capture
and compression system that would be
added to the existing W.A. Parish power
plant, with the captured CO2 piped to
an oil field for EOR. Under the original
cooperative agreement, DOE agreed to
provide approximately $167 million in
cost-shared funding, or about 50 percent
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the total estimated costs for a smaller
project (about 60 MWe). However, the
cooperative agreement also specified
that NRG would perform a screening
study to determine if a larger scale
system can be employed to improve
system economics and performance. As
a result, NRG recently proposed that the
technology be demonstrated at a larger
scale and requested an increase in DOE
funding to be applied to the total
estimated $845 million project cost.
DOE’s proposed action for purposes of
the EIS is to provide up to $355 million
in cost-shared funding for this project.
The W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2
Capture and Sequestration Project
NRG’s proposed project would
demonstrate the commercial feasibility
of a retrofit, commercial-scale CO2
capture and compression system,
coupled with use of CO2 for enhanced
oil recovery (EOR) and ultimate
sequestration. NRG would design and
construct a system that would capture
approximately 90 percent of the CO2 in
an up to 250 MWe flue gas slip stream
of the combustion exhaust gases from
the existing 617 MW coal-fired Unit 8 at
NRG’s Parish Plant. The captured CO2
(up to 5,475 tons per day) would be
transported an estimated 80 miles in a
new pipeline to be constructed by NRG.
The CO2 would be used for EOR and
ultimately sequestered at the existing
West Ranch oil field in Jackson County,
Texas.
Proposed Carbon Capture Facility: W.A.
Parish Generating Station
The proposed capture system would
be constructed on NRG’s 4,880-acre
W.A. Parish Plant in rural Fort Bend
County near the small town of
Thompsons, Texas. The plant site
includes four large pulverized coalfueled power generating units, four
smaller natural gas-fired units, and a
2,100-acre lake used for cooling water.
The proposed project would retrofit one
of the coal-fueled units (Unit 8) with a
post combustion CO2 capture system,
using space available on the plant site
immediately adjacent to the unit. The
CO2 capture system would use the Fluor
Corporation (Fluor) advanced
Econamine FG PlusSM technology, with
monoethanolamine as the basis for the
solvent. The project demonstration
period may also include tests of other
amine-based solvents. A new natural
gas-fired combined-cycle power plant,
estimated to be 80 MW in size, would
be constructed to produce the auxiliary
power needed to drive the compressors
and equipment of the capture system.
The exhaust gases from the new
combustion turbine would produce
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Notices
steam to provide heat for the solvent
regeneration process.
experimental techniques yet to be
developed.
CO2 Compression and Transport
Captured CO2 would be compressed
and transported in a new pipeline to
injection sites at the West Ranch oil
field, an estimated 80 miles from the
proposed capture facility. The pipeline
route would traverse parts of Fort Bend,
Wharton and Jackson counties. The
anticipated route includes mostly rural,
sparsely-developed agricultural lands.
NRG is currently evaluating potential
pipeline routes; and plans to use
existing rights-of-way and avoid
sensitive resources to the greatest extent
practical. Potential pipeline routes will
be considered as part of the NEPA
process.
Proposed Project Schedule
The project proposed by NRG
includes three phases: (1) Planning and
conceptual design; (2) detailed
engineering, procurement and
construction; and (3) three years of
demonstration and monitoring. NRG
plans to start construction in November
2012 and begin commercial operations
(demonstration phase) by 2015. The
schedule is contingent on NRG
receiving the necessary permits and
regulatory approvals, as well as
financial closing on all the necessary
funding sources, including DOE’s
financial assistance. DOE’s decision to
provide financial assistance for detailed
design, procurement of equipment,
construction, and operations is
contingent on completion of the NEPA
process.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
CO2 Sequestration via Enhanced Oil
Recovery
The proposed project would deliver
up to 1.6 million tons of CO2 per year
to the West Ranch oil field, located in
Jackson County near the central Gulf
Coast of Texas, to be used for EOR. The
oil field has operated since 1938 and is
well-characterized. However, CO2 floods
have not been previously demonstrated
in this field. A joint venture between
NRG and Hilcorp Energy Company
would conduct the EOR operations.
Project activities eligible for costsharing would include: engineering and
design, permitting, equipment
procurement, construction, startup and
demonstration. Infrastructure
investments in the oil field by NRG and
the costs of EOR operations would not
be cost-shared by DOE and are not
included in the total project cost
estimates. DOE would, however, costshare in monitoring, verification, and
accounting (MVA) activities at the EOR
site to demonstrate the permanence of
CO2 sequestration through EOR.
Following the DOE cost-shared
demonstration phase, the system would
likely continue long-term commercial
operations, without further DOE
funding.
CO2 Monitoring, Verification, and
Accounting Program
NRG would implement a MVA
program to monitor the injection and
migration of CO2 within the geologic
formations. The MVA program must
meet regulatory and CCPI program
requirements and may consist of the
following components: (1) Injection
system monitoring; (2) containment
monitoring (via monitoring wells,
mechanical integrity testing, and other
means); (3) CO2 plume tracking via
multiple techniques; (4) CO2 injection
simulation modeling; and (5)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:40 Nov 10, 2011
Jkt 226001
Connected and Cumulative Actions
Under the cooperative agreement
between DOE and NRG, DOE would
share in the cost of the carbon capture
and supporting facilities at the power
plant site, pipeline construction,
development of monitoring wells and
related facilities at the EOR site, and
some of the operational costs (e.g., MVA
activities) during the three-year
demonstration phase. DOE will consider
the potential impacts associated with
connected actions, such as potential
development of additional support
facilities or infrastructure that would be
anticipated for the proposed project.
DOE will also consider the
cumulative impacts of the proposed
project along with any other connected
actions, including those of third parties.
The cumulative impacts analysis will
include an assessment of pollutant
emissions (including greenhouse gas
emission reductions) and other
incremental impacts that, when added
to past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future impacts, may have
significant effects on the human
environment.
Alternatives, Including the Proposed
Action
NEPA requires that an EIS evaluate
the range of reasonable alternatives to
an agency’s proposed action. The range
of reasonable alternatives encompasses
those alternatives that would satisfy the
underlying purpose and need for agency
action. The purpose and need for DOE
action is to advance the CCPI program
by providing cost-shared funding for
selected projects that have the best
chance of achieving the program’s
objectives as established by Congress:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70431
the commercialization of clean coal
technologies that advance efficiency,
environmental performance, and cost
competitiveness well beyond the level
of technologies currently in service.
DOE’s NEPA implementing
procedures include a process for
identifying and analyzing reasonable
alternatives in the context of providing
financial assistance through the
competitive selection of projects
proposed by entities outside the Federal
Government. The range of reasonable
alternatives in competitions for grants,
loans, loan guarantees and other
financial support is defined initially by
the range of responsive proposals
received by DOE. Unlike projects
undertaken directly by the federal
government, DOE cannot mandate what
outside entities propose, where they
propose their project, or how they
propose to do it, beyond expressing
basic requirements in the funding
opportunity announcement; and these
express requirements must be limited to
those that further the program’s
objectives. DOE’s decision is then
limited to selecting projects from the
applications that meet the CCPI
program’s goals.
DOE prepared an environmental
critique (see 10 CFR § 1021.216) that
assessed the environmental impacts and
issues relating to each of the proposals
received in CCPI Round 3 that met the
basic eligibility requirements. The DOE
selecting official considered these
impacts and issues, along with other
aspects of the proposals (such as
technical merit and financial ability)
and the program’s objectives, in making
awards. After DOE selects a project for
an award, the range of reasonable
alternatives becomes the project as
proposed by the applicant, any
alternatives still under consideration by
the applicant or that are reasonable
within the confines of the project as
proposed (e.g., the locations of the
processing units, pipelines, and
injection sites on land proposed for the
project) and a ‘‘no action’’ alternative.
DOE currently plans to evaluate the
project as proposed by NRG (with and
without any mitigating conditions that
DOE may identify as reasonable and
appropriate), alternatives to NRG’s
proposal that it is still considering (e.g.,
CO2 capture rates and solvents, power
and steam supply options, locations of
alternative pipeline routes, and
locations of injection and monitoring
wells), and the no action alternative.
The EIS may also analyze other
reasonable project-specific alternatives
identified by DOE (in consultation with
NRG) or the public (as part of the public
scoping process).
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
70432
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Notices
Under the no action alternative, DOE
would not provide funding to NRG. In
the absence of financial assistance from
DOE, NRG could reasonably pursue two
options. It could build the project
without DOE funding; the impacts of
this option would be essentially the
same as those of NRG’s proposed
project, except any DOE-required
mitigations would not be imposed.
Alternatively, NRG could choose not to
pursue its project, and there would be
no impacts from the project. This latter
option would not contribute to the goal
of the CCPI program, which is to
accelerate commercial deployment of
advanced coal technologies that provide
the United States with clean, reliable,
and affordable energy. However, as
required by NEPA, DOE analyzes this
option as the no action alternative for
the purpose of making a meaningful
comparison between the impacts of DOE
providing financial assistance and
withholding that assistance.
Alternatives being considered by NRG
related to specifics of the proposed
project will also be discussed in the EIS.
NRG and its partners are considering
locations for the injection and
monitoring wells and the pipeline
corridors necessary for transportation of
the CO2.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Floodplains and Wetlands
The footprint of the proposed capture
facilities and related infrastructure that
would be constructed at the existing
Parish Plant would be located to avoid
or minimize potential impacts to
wetlands or floodplains. Wetland and
floodplain impacts, if any, would likely
only be associated with installation of
monitoring and injection wells, or the
construction of CO2 pipelines or other
linear features required for this project.
The CO2 pipeline would likely need to
cross the Colorado, Navidad and Lavaca
rivers, as well as smaller streams along
the route. DOE will identify such
impacts during preparation of the EIS
and, if any are identified, DOE will
prepare a floodplain and wetland
assessment in accordance with its
regulations (10 CFR Part 1022) and
include the assessment in the EIS.
Preliminary Identification of
Environmental Issues
DOE intends to address the issues
listed below when considering the
potential impacts resulting from the
construction and operation of NRG’s
proposed project and any connected
actions. This list is neither intended to
be all-inclusive, nor a predetermined set
of potential impacts. DOE invites
comments on the list of important issues
to be considered in the EIS. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:40 Nov 10, 2011
Jkt 226001
preliminary list of potentially affected
resources or activities and their related
environmental issues includes, but is
not limited to:
• Air quality resources: potential air
quality impacts from emissions during
construction and operation of the
proposed project on local sensitive
receptors, local environmental
conditions, and special-use areas,
including impacts to smog and haze,
impacts from dusts, and impacts from
amine and greenhouse gas emissions;
• Water resources: potential impacts
from water utilization and consumption,
plus potential impacts from wastewater
discharges;
• Infrastructure and land use:
potential impacts associated with
delivery of feed materials and
distribution of products (e.g., access
roads, pipelines);
• Visual resources: potential impacts
to the viewshed, scenic views (e.g.,
impacts from the injection wells,
pipelines, and support facilities for the
injection wells and pipelines), and
internal and external perception of the
community or locality;
• Solid wastes: pollution prevention
and waste management (generation,
treatment, transport, storage, disposal or
use), including hazardous materials;
• Ecological resources: potential onsite and off-site impacts to vegetation,
wildlife, threatened or endangered
species, and ecologically sensitive
habitats;
• Floodplains and wetlands: potential
wetland and floodplain impacts from
construction of project facilities and
pipelines;
• Traffic: potential impacts from the
construction and operation of the
facilities, including changes in local
traffic patterns, deterioration of roads,
traffic hazards, and traffic controls;
• Historic and cultural resources:
potential impacts related to land
disturbance and development associated
with new linear facilities (pipelines,
etc.);
• Geology: potential impacts from the
injection and storage of CO2 on
underground resources such as ground
water supplies, mineral resources, and
fossil fuel resources;
• Fate and stability of CO2 being
sequestered by its use for EOR;
• Health and safety issues: potential
impacts associated with use, transport,
and storage of hazardous chemicals
(including ammonia), and CO2 capture
and transport to the sequestration
site(s);
• Socioeconomic impacts, including
the creation of jobs;
• Disproportionately high and
adverse human health and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
environmental impacts on minority and
low-income populations;
• Noise and light: potential impacts
from construction, transportation of
materials, and facility operations;
• Connected actions: potential
development of support facilities or
supporting infrastructure (e.g., facilities
and utilities anticipated for EOR
operations);
• Cumulative effects: incremental
impacts of the proposed project when
added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects;
and
• Compliance with regulatory and
environmental permitting requirements.
Public Scoping Process
This NOI initiates the public scoping
process under NEPA, which will assist
in the development of the draft EIS. To
ensure identification of issues related to
DOE’s proposed action and NRG’s
proposed project, DOE seeks public
input to define the scope of the EIS. The
public scoping period will end 30 days
after publication of this NOI in the
Federal Register. Interested government
agencies, tribal governments, privatesector organizations, and individuals are
encouraged to submit comments or
suggestions concerning the content of
the EIS, issues and impacts that should
be addressed, and alternatives that
should be considered. Scoping
comments should clearly describe
specific issues or topics that the EIS
should address. Written, emailed, or
faxed comments should be received
within 30 calendar days of this notice
(see ADDRESSES).
DOE will conduct public scoping
meetings at the Needville High School,
100 Fritzella Road, in Needville, Texas,
on Wednesday, November 30, 2011; and
at the Jackson County Services Building,
411 North Wells Street, in Edna, Texas,
on Thursday, December 1, 2011. The
public is invited to learn more about the
project at informal sessions at these
locations beginning at 5 p.m. DOE will
begin the formal meetings with an
overview of NRG’s proposed project.
Oral comments will be heard during the
formal portion of the scoping meetings
beginning at 7 p.m. DOE requests that
anyone wishing to speak at the public
scoping meetings should contact Mr.
Lusk, either by phone, email, fax, or
postal mail (see ADDRESSES). Those who
do not make advance arrangements may
register at the meetings (preferably at
the beginning of the meeting) and may
be given an opportunity to speak after
previously scheduled speakers.
Speakers will be given approximately
five minutes to present their comments.
Speakers wanting more than five
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Notices
minutes should indicate the length of
time desired in their requests.
Depending on the number of speakers,
DOE may need to limit all speakers to
five minutes initially and provide
second opportunities as time permits.
Oral and written comments will be
given equal consideration.
The meetings will not be conducted
as evidentiary hearings and speakers
will not be cross-examined. However,
speakers may be asked clarifying
questions to help ensure that DOE fully
understands the comments or
suggestions. A presiding officer will
establish the order of speakers and
provide any additional procedures
necessary to conduct the meetings. A
court stenographer will record the
proceedings, including all oral
comments received. Individuals may
also provide written materials in lieu of,
or to supplement, their oral comment.
Issued in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, this 4th
day of November 2011.
Anthony V. Cugini
Director, National Energy Technology
Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2011–29333 Filed 11–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 12790–001]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Andrew Peklo III; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing with the
Commission, Intent to Waive Scoping,
Soliciting Motions to Intervene and
Protests, Ready for Environmental
Analysis, Soliciting Comments, Terms
and Conditions, Recommendations,
and Prescriptions, and Establishing an
Expedited Schedule for Processing
Take notice that the following
hydroelectric application has been filed
with the Commission and is available
for public inspection.
a. Type of Application: Exemption
From Licensing.
b. Project No.: 12790–001.
c. Date filed: February 16, 2011.
d. Applicant: Andrew Peklo III.
e. Name of Project: Pomperaug Hydro
Project.
f. Location: On the Pomperaug River,
in the Town of Woodbury, Litchfield
County, Connecticut. The project would
not occupy lands of the United States.
g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16
U.S.C. 2705, 2708.
h. Applicant Contact: Andrew Peklo
III, 29 Pomperaug Road, Woodbury, CT
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:40 Nov 10, 2011
Jkt 226001
06798, (203) 263–4566,
themill@charter.net.
i. FERC Contact: Steve Kartalia, (202)
502–6131 or Stephen.kartalia@ferc.gov.
j. Deadline for filing motions to
intervene and protests, comments, terms
and conditions, recommendations, and
prescriptions: Due to the small size and
particular location of this project and
the close coordination with state and
federal agencies during the preparation
of the application, the 60-day timeframe
in 18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing comments,
terms and conditions,
recommendations, and prescriptions is
shortened. Instead, comments, terms
and conditions, recommendations, and
prescriptions will be due 30 days from
the issuance date of this notice. Further,
the date for filing motions to intervene
and protests will be due 30 days from
the issuance date of this notice. All
reply comments must be filed with the
Commission within 45 days from the
date of this notice.
All documents may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission’s Web
site https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end
of your comments. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll
free at 1–(866) 208–3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502–8659. Although the
Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and seven copies to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission’s Rules of Practice
require all intervenors filing documents
with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the
official service list for the project.
Further, if an intervenor files comments
or documents with the Commission
relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must
also serve a copy of the document on
that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted
for filing and is now ready for
environmental analysis.
l. Project Description: The Pomperaug
Hydro Project would consist of: (1) the
existing 90-foot-long, 15-foot-high
Pomperaug River dam equipped with
three existing gates; (2) an existing 0.1-
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70433
acre impoundment with a normal water
surface elevation of 226 feet above mean
sea level; (3) an existing 40-foot-long,
42- to 50-inch-diameter penstock; and
(4) an existing powerhouse integral to
the dam, containing one new 76kilowatt turbine generating unit. Project
power would be transmitted through a
new 24-foot-long, 208-volt underground
transmission line. The proposed project
is estimated to generate an average of
300,000 kilowatt-hours annually.
The applicant proposes to: (1)
Rehabilitate the existing gates including
constructing a new intake structure with
a trashrack; and (2) construct a new fish
passage facility adjacent to the existing
powerhouse.
m. Due to the project works already
existing and the limited scope of
proposed rehabilitation of the project
site described above, the applicant’s
close coordination with Federal and
State agencies during the preparation of
the application, completed studies, and
agency recommended preliminary terms
and conditions, we intend to waive
scoping, shorten the notice filing period,
and expedite the exemption process.
Based on a review of the application,
resource agency consultation letters
including the preliminary terms and
conditions, and comments filed to date,
Commission staff intends to prepare a
single environmental assessment (EA).
Commission staff determined that the
issues that need to be addressed in its
EA have been adequately identified
during the pre-filing period, which
included a public meeting and site visit,
and no new issues are likely to be
identified through additional scoping.
The EA will consider assessing the
potential effects of project construction
and operation on geology and soils,
aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and
endangered species, recreation and land
use, aesthetic, and cultural and historic
resources.
n. A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission
in the Public Reference Room or may be
viewed on the Commission’s Web site at
https://www.ferc.gov using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
Register online at https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
o. Anyone may submit comments, a
protest, or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70429-70433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29333]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and
Notice of Potential Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement for the W.A.
Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration
Project, Southeastern TX
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
and Notice of Potential Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) NEPA regulations
(40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE's NEPA implementing procedures (10
CFR part 1021), to assess the potential environmental impacts of
providing financial assistance for a project proposed by NRG Energy,
Inc (NRG). DOE selected NRG's proposed W.A. Parish Post-Combustion
CO2 Capture and Sequestration Project (Parish PCCS Project)
for a financial assistance award through a competitive process under
the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) program. NRG would design,
construct and operate a commercial-scale carbon dioxide
(CO2) capture facility at its existing W.A. Parish
Generating Station (Parish Plant) in Fort Bend County, Texas; deliver
the CO2 via a new pipeline to the existing West Ranch oil
field in Jackson County, Texas for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
operations; and demonstrate monitoring techniques to verify the
permanence of geologic CO2 storage.
The project would use an amine-based post-combustion technology to
capture 90 percent (approximately 1.6 million tons) of the
CO2 annually from a 250-megawatt equivalent (MWe) flue gas
slip stream taken from the 617 megawatt (MW) Unit 8 at the Parish
Plant. Captured CO2 would be dried, compressed, and
transported about 80 miles in a new pipeline to an existing oil field
where it would be used for EOR. The project would demonstrate an
integrated commercial-scale deployment of post-combustion
CO2 capture technology for use in EOR operations and long-
term geologic storage. DOE selected this project to receive a financial
assistance award through a competitive process under Round 3 (second
selection phase) of the CCPI program.
The EIS will further inform DOE's decision on whether to provide
financial assistance to NRG for the Parish PCCS Project. DOE proposes
to provide NRG with up to $355 million of the overall project cost,
which would constitute approximately 42 percent of the estimated $845
million total (in 2010 dollars). The project would further a specific
objective of Round 3 of the CCPI program by demonstrating advanced
coal-based technologies that capture and sequester, or put to
beneficial use, CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants.
The purposes of this Notice of Intent (NOI) are to: (1) Inform the
public about DOE's proposed action and NRG's proposed project; (2)
announce the public scoping meetings; (3) solicit comments for DOE's
consideration regarding the scope and content of the EIS; (4) invite
those agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise to be
cooperating agencies in preparation of the EIS; and (5) provide notice
that the proposed project may involve potential impacts to floodplains
and wetlands.
DOE does not have regulatory jurisdiction over the Parish PCCS
Project, and its decisions are limited to whether and under what
circumstances it would provide financial assistance to the project. As
part of the EIS process, DOE will consult with interested federal,
state, regional and local agencies and Native American tribes.
DATES: DOE invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the
EIS. Comments must be received within 30 days after publication of this
NOI in the Federal Register to ensure consideration. In addition to
receiving comments in writing and by email [See ADDRESSES below], DOE
will conduct public scoping meetings to provide government agencies,
private-sector organizations and the general public with opportunities
to present oral and written comments or suggestions with regard to
DOE's proposed action, alternatives, and the potential impacts of NRG's
proposed project for DOE consideration during development of the EIS.
The public scoping meetings will be held at the Needville High School,
100 Fritzella Road, in Needville, Texas, on Wednesday, November 30,
2011; and at the Jackson County Services Building, 411 North Wells
Street, in Edna, Texas, on Thursday, December 1, 2011.
Oral comments will be heard during the formal portion of the
scoping meetings beginning at 7 p.m. [See Public Scoping Process.] The
public is also invited to informal sessions beginning at 5 p.m. at the
same locations to learn more about the project and the proposed action.
Representatives from DOE and NRG will be present at the informal
sessions to discuss the proposed project, the CCPI program, and the EIS
process. Displays and other information about DOE's proposed action and
NRG's proposed project will also be available.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on environmental concerns about the
project, overall scope of the EIS, or requests to participate in the
public scoping meetings should be addressed to Mr. Mark W. Lusk, U.S.
Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610
Collins Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880.
Individuals and organizations who would like to provide oral or
electronic comments should contact Mr.
[[Page 70430]]
Lusk by postal mail at the above address; telephone ((412) 386-7435, or
toll-free 1-(877) 812-1569); fax (304) 285-4403); or electronic mail
(Parish.EIS0473@netl.doe.gov.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
proposed project, contact Mr. Lusk, as described above. For general
information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone ((202) 586-
4600); fax (202) 586-7031); or leave a toll-free message (1-(800) 472-
2756).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The CCPI program was established in 2002 as a government and
private sector partnership to increase investment in clean coal
technology. Through cooperative agreements with its private sector
partners, the program advances clean coal technologies to
commercialization. Congress established criteria for projects receiving
financial assistance under this program in Title IV of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58; EPAct 2005). Under this statute,
CCPI projects must ``advance efficiency, environmental performance and
cost competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that are in
commercial service'' (Pub. L. 109-58, Sec. 402(a)). On February 17,
2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-
5, 123 Stat. 115) appropriated $3.4 billion to DOE for Fossil Energy
Research and Development. DOE intends to use a significant portion of
these funds to provide financial assistance to CCPI projects.
The CCPI program selects projects for its government-private sector
partnerships through an open and competitive process. DOE issues
funding opportunity announcements specifying the types of projects it
seeks, and invites submission of applications. DOE reviews applications
according to the criteria specified in the funding opportunity
announcement; these criteria include technical, financial,
environmental, and other considerations. DOE selects projects
demonstrating the most promise when evaluated against these criteria,
and enters into a cooperative agreement with the selected applicants.
These agreements set out project objectives, obligations of the
parties, and other features of the partnerships. Applicants must agree
to provide at least 50 percent of their project's cost; and for most
CCPI projects, the applicant's cost share is much higher.
To date, the CCPI program has conducted three rounds of
solicitations and project selections. Round 1 sought projects that
would demonstrate advanced technologies for power generation and
improvements in plant efficiency, economics, and environmental
performance. Round 2 requested applications for projects that would
demonstrate improved mercury controls and gasification technology.
Round 3, which DOE conducted in two phases, sought projects that would
demonstrate advanced coal-based electricity generating technologies,
coupled with the capture and sequestration (or beneficial use) of
CO2 emissions. DOE's overarching goal for Round 3 projects
was to demonstrate technologies at commercial scale in a commercial
setting that would: (1) Operate at 90 percent capture efficiency for
CO2; (2) make progress towards capture and sequestration at
less than a 10 percent increase in the cost of electricity for
gasification systems and a less than 35 percent increase for combustion
and oxy-combustion systems; and (3) make progress towards capture and
sequestration of 50 percent of the facility's CO2 output at
a scale sufficient to evaluate full impacts of carbon capture
technology on a generating plant's operations, economics, and
performance. The Parish PCCS Project was one of three projects selected
in the second phase of Round 3. DOE entered into a cooperative
agreement with NRG on May 7, 2010.
Purpose and Need for DOE Action
The purpose and need for DOE action is to advance the CCPI program
by funding projects with the best chance of achieving the program's
objectives as established by Congress: commercialization of clean coal
technologies that advance efficiency, environmental performance, and
cost competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies currently in
commercial service.
DOE Proposed Action
DOE's proposed action is to provide limited financial assistance
through a cooperative agreement with NRG for a new post-combustion
carbon capture and compression system that would be added to the
existing W.A. Parish power plant, with the captured CO2
piped to an oil field for EOR. Under the original cooperative
agreement, DOE agreed to provide approximately $167 million in cost-
shared funding, or about 50 percent of the total estimated costs for a
smaller project (about 60 MWe). However, the cooperative agreement also
specified that NRG would perform a screening study to determine if a
larger scale system can be employed to improve system economics and
performance. As a result, NRG recently proposed that the technology be
demonstrated at a larger scale and requested an increase in DOE funding
to be applied to the total estimated $845 million project cost. DOE's
proposed action for purposes of the EIS is to provide up to $355
million in cost-shared funding for this project.
The W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and
Sequestration Project
NRG's proposed project would demonstrate the commercial feasibility
of a retrofit, commercial-scale CO2 capture and compression
system, coupled with use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) and ultimate sequestration. NRG would design and construct a
system that would capture approximately 90 percent of the
CO2 in an up to 250 MWe flue gas slip stream of the
combustion exhaust gases from the existing 617 MW coal-fired Unit 8 at
NRG's Parish Plant. The captured CO2 (up to 5,475 tons per
day) would be transported an estimated 80 miles in a new pipeline to be
constructed by NRG. The CO2 would be used for EOR and
ultimately sequestered at the existing West Ranch oil field in Jackson
County, Texas.
Proposed Carbon Capture Facility: W.A. Parish Generating Station
The proposed capture system would be constructed on NRG's 4,880-
acre W.A. Parish Plant in rural Fort Bend County near the small town of
Thompsons, Texas. The plant site includes four large pulverized coal-
fueled power generating units, four smaller natural gas-fired units,
and a 2,100-acre lake used for cooling water. The proposed project
would retrofit one of the coal-fueled units (Unit 8) with a post
combustion CO2 capture system, using space available on the
plant site immediately adjacent to the unit. The CO2 capture
system would use the Fluor Corporation (Fluor) advanced Econamine FG
Plus\SM\ technology, with monoethanolamine as the basis for the
solvent. The project demonstration period may also include tests of
other amine-based solvents. A new natural gas-fired combined-cycle
power plant, estimated to be 80 MW in size, would be constructed to
produce the auxiliary power needed to drive the compressors and
equipment of the capture system. The exhaust gases from the new
combustion turbine would produce
[[Page 70431]]
steam to provide heat for the solvent regeneration process.
CO2 Compression and Transport
Captured CO2 would be compressed and transported in a
new pipeline to injection sites at the West Ranch oil field, an
estimated 80 miles from the proposed capture facility. The pipeline
route would traverse parts of Fort Bend, Wharton and Jackson counties.
The anticipated route includes mostly rural, sparsely-developed
agricultural lands. NRG is currently evaluating potential pipeline
routes; and plans to use existing rights-of-way and avoid sensitive
resources to the greatest extent practical. Potential pipeline routes
will be considered as part of the NEPA process.
CO2 Sequestration via Enhanced Oil Recovery
The proposed project would deliver up to 1.6 million tons of
CO2 per year to the West Ranch oil field, located in Jackson
County near the central Gulf Coast of Texas, to be used for EOR. The
oil field has operated since 1938 and is well-characterized. However,
CO2 floods have not been previously demonstrated in this
field. A joint venture between NRG and Hilcorp Energy Company would
conduct the EOR operations.
Project activities eligible for cost-sharing would include:
engineering and design, permitting, equipment procurement,
construction, startup and demonstration. Infrastructure investments in
the oil field by NRG and the costs of EOR operations would not be cost-
shared by DOE and are not included in the total project cost estimates.
DOE would, however, cost-share in monitoring, verification, and
accounting (MVA) activities at the EOR site to demonstrate the
permanence of CO2 sequestration through EOR. Following the
DOE cost-shared demonstration phase, the system would likely continue
long-term commercial operations, without further DOE funding.
CO2 Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting Program
NRG would implement a MVA program to monitor the injection and
migration of CO2 within the geologic formations. The MVA
program must meet regulatory and CCPI program requirements and may
consist of the following components: (1) Injection system monitoring;
(2) containment monitoring (via monitoring wells, mechanical integrity
testing, and other means); (3) CO2 plume tracking via
multiple techniques; (4) CO2 injection simulation modeling;
and (5) experimental techniques yet to be developed.
Proposed Project Schedule
The project proposed by NRG includes three phases: (1) Planning and
conceptual design; (2) detailed engineering, procurement and
construction; and (3) three years of demonstration and monitoring. NRG
plans to start construction in November 2012 and begin commercial
operations (demonstration phase) by 2015. The schedule is contingent on
NRG receiving the necessary permits and regulatory approvals, as well
as financial closing on all the necessary funding sources, including
DOE's financial assistance. DOE's decision to provide financial
assistance for detailed design, procurement of equipment, construction,
and operations is contingent on completion of the NEPA process.
Connected and Cumulative Actions
Under the cooperative agreement between DOE and NRG, DOE would
share in the cost of the carbon capture and supporting facilities at
the power plant site, pipeline construction, development of monitoring
wells and related facilities at the EOR site, and some of the
operational costs (e.g., MVA activities) during the three-year
demonstration phase. DOE will consider the potential impacts associated
with connected actions, such as potential development of additional
support facilities or infrastructure that would be anticipated for the
proposed project.
DOE will also consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed
project along with any other connected actions, including those of
third parties. The cumulative impacts analysis will include an
assessment of pollutant emissions (including greenhouse gas emission
reductions) and other incremental impacts that, when added to past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future impacts, may have significant
effects on the human environment.
Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
NEPA requires that an EIS evaluate the range of reasonable
alternatives to an agency's proposed action. The range of reasonable
alternatives encompasses those alternatives that would satisfy the
underlying purpose and need for agency action. The purpose and need for
DOE action is to advance the CCPI program by providing cost-shared
funding for selected projects that have the best chance of achieving
the program's objectives as established by Congress: the
commercialization of clean coal technologies that advance efficiency,
environmental performance, and cost competitiveness well beyond the
level of technologies currently in service.
DOE's NEPA implementing procedures include a process for
identifying and analyzing reasonable alternatives in the context of
providing financial assistance through the competitive selection of
projects proposed by entities outside the Federal Government. The range
of reasonable alternatives in competitions for grants, loans, loan
guarantees and other financial support is defined initially by the
range of responsive proposals received by DOE. Unlike projects
undertaken directly by the federal government, DOE cannot mandate what
outside entities propose, where they propose their project, or how they
propose to do it, beyond expressing basic requirements in the funding
opportunity announcement; and these express requirements must be
limited to those that further the program's objectives. DOE's decision
is then limited to selecting projects from the applications that meet
the CCPI program's goals.
DOE prepared an environmental critique (see 10 CFR Sec. 1021.216)
that assessed the environmental impacts and issues relating to each of
the proposals received in CCPI Round 3 that met the basic eligibility
requirements. The DOE selecting official considered these impacts and
issues, along with other aspects of the proposals (such as technical
merit and financial ability) and the program's objectives, in making
awards. After DOE selects a project for an award, the range of
reasonable alternatives becomes the project as proposed by the
applicant, any alternatives still under consideration by the applicant
or that are reasonable within the confines of the project as proposed
(e.g., the locations of the processing units, pipelines, and injection
sites on land proposed for the project) and a ``no action''
alternative.
DOE currently plans to evaluate the project as proposed by NRG
(with and without any mitigating conditions that DOE may identify as
reasonable and appropriate), alternatives to NRG's proposal that it is
still considering (e.g., CO2 capture rates and solvents,
power and steam supply options, locations of alternative pipeline
routes, and locations of injection and monitoring wells), and the no
action alternative. The EIS may also analyze other reasonable project-
specific alternatives identified by DOE (in consultation with NRG) or
the public (as part of the public scoping process).
[[Page 70432]]
Under the no action alternative, DOE would not provide funding to
NRG. In the absence of financial assistance from DOE, NRG could
reasonably pursue two options. It could build the project without DOE
funding; the impacts of this option would be essentially the same as
those of NRG's proposed project, except any DOE-required mitigations
would not be imposed. Alternatively, NRG could choose not to pursue its
project, and there would be no impacts from the project. This latter
option would not contribute to the goal of the CCPI program, which is
to accelerate commercial deployment of advanced coal technologies that
provide the United States with clean, reliable, and affordable energy.
However, as required by NEPA, DOE analyzes this option as the no action
alternative for the purpose of making a meaningful comparison between
the impacts of DOE providing financial assistance and withholding that
assistance.
Alternatives being considered by NRG related to specifics of the
proposed project will also be discussed in the EIS. NRG and its
partners are considering locations for the injection and monitoring
wells and the pipeline corridors necessary for transportation of the
CO2.
Floodplains and Wetlands
The footprint of the proposed capture facilities and related
infrastructure that would be constructed at the existing Parish Plant
would be located to avoid or minimize potential impacts to wetlands or
floodplains. Wetland and floodplain impacts, if any, would likely only
be associated with installation of monitoring and injection wells, or
the construction of CO2 pipelines or other linear features
required for this project. The CO2 pipeline would likely
need to cross the Colorado, Navidad and Lavaca rivers, as well as
smaller streams along the route. DOE will identify such impacts during
preparation of the EIS and, if any are identified, DOE will prepare a
floodplain and wetland assessment in accordance with its regulations
(10 CFR Part 1022) and include the assessment in the EIS.
Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
DOE intends to address the issues listed below when considering the
potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of
NRG's proposed project and any connected actions. This list is neither
intended to be all-inclusive, nor a predetermined set of potential
impacts. DOE invites comments on the list of important issues to be
considered in the EIS. The preliminary list of potentially affected
resources or activities and their related environmental issues
includes, but is not limited to:
Air quality resources: potential air quality impacts from
emissions during construction and operation of the proposed project on
local sensitive receptors, local environmental conditions, and special-
use areas, including impacts to smog and haze, impacts from dusts, and
impacts from amine and greenhouse gas emissions;
Water resources: potential impacts from water utilization
and consumption, plus potential impacts from wastewater discharges;
Infrastructure and land use: potential impacts associated
with delivery of feed materials and distribution of products (e.g.,
access roads, pipelines);
Visual resources: potential impacts to the viewshed,
scenic views (e.g., impacts from the injection wells, pipelines, and
support facilities for the injection wells and pipelines), and internal
and external perception of the community or locality;
Solid wastes: pollution prevention and waste management
(generation, treatment, transport, storage, disposal or use), including
hazardous materials;
Ecological resources: potential on-site and off-site
impacts to vegetation, wildlife, threatened or endangered species, and
ecologically sensitive habitats;
Floodplains and wetlands: potential wetland and floodplain
impacts from construction of project facilities and pipelines;
Traffic: potential impacts from the construction and
operation of the facilities, including changes in local traffic
patterns, deterioration of roads, traffic hazards, and traffic
controls;
Historic and cultural resources: potential impacts related
to land disturbance and development associated with new linear
facilities (pipelines, etc.);
Geology: potential impacts from the injection and storage
of CO2 on underground resources such as ground water
supplies, mineral resources, and fossil fuel resources;
Fate and stability of CO2 being sequestered by
its use for EOR;
Health and safety issues: potential impacts associated
with use, transport, and storage of hazardous chemicals (including
ammonia), and CO2 capture and transport to the sequestration
site(s);
Socioeconomic impacts, including the creation of jobs;
Disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations;
Noise and light: potential impacts from construction,
transportation of materials, and facility operations;
Connected actions: potential development of support
facilities or supporting infrastructure (e.g., facilities and utilities
anticipated for EOR operations);
Cumulative effects: incremental impacts of the proposed
project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects; and
Compliance with regulatory and environmental permitting
requirements.
Public Scoping Process
This NOI initiates the public scoping process under NEPA, which
will assist in the development of the draft EIS. To ensure
identification of issues related to DOE's proposed action and NRG's
proposed project, DOE seeks public input to define the scope of the
EIS. The public scoping period will end 30 days after publication of
this NOI in the Federal Register. Interested government agencies,
tribal governments, private-sector organizations, and individuals are
encouraged to submit comments or suggestions concerning the content of
the EIS, issues and impacts that should be addressed, and alternatives
that should be considered. Scoping comments should clearly describe
specific issues or topics that the EIS should address. Written,
emailed, or faxed comments should be received within 30 calendar days
of this notice (see ADDRESSES).
DOE will conduct public scoping meetings at the Needville High
School, 100 Fritzella Road, in Needville, Texas, on Wednesday, November
30, 2011; and at the Jackson County Services Building, 411 North Wells
Street, in Edna, Texas, on Thursday, December 1, 2011. The public is
invited to learn more about the project at informal sessions at these
locations beginning at 5 p.m. DOE will begin the formal meetings with
an overview of NRG's proposed project. Oral comments will be heard
during the formal portion of the scoping meetings beginning at 7 p.m.
DOE requests that anyone wishing to speak at the public scoping
meetings should contact Mr. Lusk, either by phone, email, fax, or
postal mail (see ADDRESSES). Those who do not make advance arrangements
may register at the meetings (preferably at the beginning of the
meeting) and may be given an opportunity to speak after previously
scheduled speakers. Speakers will be given approximately five minutes
to present their comments. Speakers wanting more than five
[[Page 70433]]
minutes should indicate the length of time desired in their requests.
Depending on the number of speakers, DOE may need to limit all speakers
to five minutes initially and provide second opportunities as time
permits. Oral and written comments will be given equal consideration.
The meetings will not be conducted as evidentiary hearings and
speakers will not be cross-examined. However, speakers may be asked
clarifying questions to help ensure that DOE fully understands the
comments or suggestions. A presiding officer will establish the order
of speakers and provide any additional procedures necessary to conduct
the meetings. A court stenographer will record the proceedings,
including all oral comments received. Individuals may also provide
written materials in lieu of, or to supplement, their oral comment.
Issued in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, this 4th day of November
2011.
Anthony V. Cugini
Director, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2011-29333 Filed 11-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P