2096 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Notices 

• February 3, 2011—Mitchell Pauole 

Community Center, 90 Ainoa Street, 

Kaunakakai, Moloka’i, HI 96748, from 

5:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. 

• February 5, 2011—La ̄na‘i High & 

Elementary School Cafeteria, 555 Fraser 

Avenue, La ̄na‘i City, HI 96763, from 

9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

Each scoping meeting will be 

conducted in two parts: An informal 

‘‘workshop’’ discussion period that will 

not be recorded, and a formal 

commenting session that will be 

transcribed by a court stenographer. 

Meeting participants may also have 

their comments entered into the record 

during the informal portion of the 

meetings, on request. Those who do not 

arrange in advance to speak may register 

at a meeting (preferably at the beginning 

of the meeting) and may speak after 

previously scheduled speakers. The 

presiding officer will establish 

procedures to ensure that everyone who 

wishes to speak has an opportunity to 

do so. Depending on the number of 

speakers, the presiding officer may limit 

all speakers to a set amount of time 

initially and provide additional 

opportunities to speak as time permits. 

Speakers may also provide written 

materials to supplement their 

presentations, and such additional 

information may be submitted in 

writing by the date listed in the DATES

section. Both oral and written comments 

will be considered and given equal 

weight by DOE and DBEDT. 

The formal commenting session will 

begin with an overview of the proposed 

Wind Phase of the Hawai‘i Interisland 

Renewable Energy Program and a 

description of the State and Federal 

environmental review processes. The 

presiding officer will establish the order 

of speakers and provide any additional 

procedures necessary to conduct the 

formal commenting session. Speakers 

may be asked questions to help ensure 

that DOE and DBEDT fully understand 

all suggestions and comments. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 7, 

2011. 

Patricia A. Hoffman, 

Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

[FR Doc. 2011–479 Filed 1–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision for the 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Proposed Abengoa Biorefinery 

Project Near Hugoton, Stevens County, 

KS (DOE/EIS–0407) 

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the Department) 

prepared an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS–0407) to 

assess the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action of providing Federal financial 

assistance to Abengoa Bioenergy 

Biomass of Kansas, LLC (Abengoa 

Bioenergy) to support the design, 

construction, and startup of a 

commercial-scale integrated biorefinery 

to be located near the city of Hugoton 

in Stevens County, southwestern Kansas 

(the Project). The integrated biorefinery 

would use a combination of biomass 

feedstocks, such as corn stover and 

wheat straw, to produce ethanol and to 

generate sufficient electricity to power 

the facility and supply excess electricity 

to the regional power grid. The Project 

site comprises approximately 810 acres 

of row-cropped agricultural land. The 

biorefinery facilities would be 

developed on 385 acres of the Project 

site, and the remaining 425 acres would 

remain agricultural and act as a buffer 

between the biorefinery and the city of 

Hugoton. 

After careful consideration of the 

potential environmental impacts and 

other factors such as program goals and 

objectives, DOE has decided that it will 

provide Federal funding under Section 

932 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPAct 2005) of up to $71 million (2009 

dollars), subject to annual 

appropriations, to Abengoa Bioenergy 

for the Project. A separate decision will 

be made regarding a potential loan 

guarantee; and if DOE decides to 

proceed to consider the loan guarantee, 

DOE would consider using the Final 

Abengoa Biorefinery EIS to comply with 

NEPA review requirements for the loan 

guarantee. If DOE determines that the 

Final Biorefinery EIS sufficiently 

addresses all activities covered by the 

loan guarantee, DOE could either issue 

a Record of Decision (ROD) deciding to 

issue a loan guarantee, or amend this 

ROD. 

ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available 

on the DOE National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at: http:// 

nepa.energy.gov/ and on the Abengoa 

Biorefinery Project Web site at: http:// 

www.biorefineryprojecteis-abengoa.com. 

This ROD also is available on these Web 

sites. Copies of the Final EIS and this 

ROD may be obtained from Ms. Kristin 

Kerwin, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Golden Field Office, 1617 Cole 

Blvd., Golden, CO 80401; telephone: 

720–356–1564; or fax: 720–356–1650. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

obtain additional information about this 

Project, the EIS or the ROD, contact Ms. 

Kristin Kerwin by the means specified 

above under ADDRESSES. For general 

information on the DOE 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 at: 1–800–472– 

2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

prepared this ROD pursuant to the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA [40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 

1500–1508] and the DOE NEPA 

regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). This 

ROD is based in part on DOE’s Final EIS 

for the Proposed Abengoa Biorefinery 

Project (DOE/EIS–0407, August 2010). 

Background 

Under EPAct 2005, Congress directed 

DOE to carry out a program to 

demonstrate the commercial application 

of integrated biorefineries for the 

production of biofuels, in particular 

ethanol, from lignocellulosic feedstocks. 

Federal funding for cellulosic ethanol 

production facilities is intended to 

further the government’s goal of 

rendering ethanol cost-competitive with 

gasoline by 2012, and along with 

increased automobile fuel efficiency, 

reducing gasoline consumption in the 

United States by 20 percent within 

10 years. 

To implement its responsibilities 

under EPAct 2005, DOE issued a 

funding opportunity announcement in 

February 2006 for the design, 

construction, and startup of 

commercial-scale integrated 

biorefineries. In February 2007, the 

Department selected Abengoa Bioenergy 

and five other applicants for negotiation 

of award. Abengoa Bioenergy proposed 

an innovative approach to biorefinery 

operations that would involve 

production of biofuel and energy in the 

form of steam that could be used to meet 

energy needs and displace fossil fuels, 

such as coal and natural gas. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Notices 2097 

proposal also included an integrated 

grain-to-ethanol facility. 

In January 2009, Abengoa Bioenergy 

modified its proposal by omitting the 

integrated grain-to-ethanol facility and 

including a steam-driven turbine that 

would generate sufficient electricity to 

power the production facility and 

supply excess electricity to the regional 

power grid. In addition, Abengoa 

applied for a loan guarantee from the 

Department’s Loan Guarantee Program 

pursuant to Title XVII of EPAct 2005, 

and from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Rural Development 

Biorefinery Assistance Program 

pursuant to Section 9003 of the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

The Department of Agriculture Rural 

Development was a cooperating agency 

in the preparation of the EIS. 

DOE considered Abengoa Bioenergy’s 

proposed project changes and 

concluded that the Project remained 

eligible for Federal funding under 

Section 932 of EPAct 2005. On August 

28, 2009, the Department determined, 

however, that it would not proceed with 

Abengoa’s request for a DOE loan 

guarantee. 

On December 22, 2009, after 

publication of the Draft Abengoa 

Biorefinery Project EIS on September 

23, 2009, Abengoa Bioenergy filed a 

revised loan guarantee application, and 

in March 2010, the Department 

determined that the proposed 

biorefinery was eligible for 

consideration under Title XVII, Section 

1703 of EPAct 2005, and requested that 

Abengoa submit the Part II portion of its 

loan guarantee application. Abengoa 

submitted the Part II application on May 

14, 2010. 

At this time, DOE is not proposing to 

issue a loan guarantee for the 

construction and startup of the 

biorefinery. DOE is reviewing the Part II 

submission and, pending the results of 

the Part II review, will decide whether 

to initiate the due diligence, 

underwriting, and negotiation phase of 

the loan guarantee process. If DOE 

initiates that process with Abengoa, 

DOE’s proposed action (that is, to issue 

a loan guarantee) would be subject to 

NEPA review. If DOE decides to proceed 

to consider the loan guarantee, DOE 

would consider using the Final 

Biorefinery EIS to comply with NEPA 

review requirements for the loan 

guarantee. If DOE determines that the 

Final Biorefinery EIS sufficiently 

addresses all activities covered by the 

loan guarantee, DOE could either issue 

a Record of Decision deciding to issue 

a loan guarantee, or amend this Record 

of Decision. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Rural Development also considered 

Abengoa’s application for a loan 

guarantee and did not approve it for 

funding in Fiscal Year 2009. Should 

Abengoa submit an application for a 

loan guarantee in the future, Rural 

Development will use DOE’s Final 

Biorefinery EIS as part of its evaluation 

of project eligibility and sufficiency. 

Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

EPAct 2005, Section 932, directs the 

Secretary of Energy to conduct a 

program of research, development, 

demonstration, and commercial 

application for bioenergy, including 

integrated biorefineries that can produce 

biopower, biofuels, and bioproducts. In 

carrying out a program to demonstrate 

the commercial application of integrated 

biorefineries, EPAct 2005 authorizes the 

Secretary to provide funds to biorefinery 

demonstration projects to encourage 

(1) the demonstration of a wide variety 

of lignocellulosic feedstocks; (2) the 

commercial application of biomass 

technologies for a variety of uses, 

including liquid transportation fuels, 

high-value bio-based chemicals, 

substitutes for petroleum-based 

feedstocks and products, and energy in 

the form of electricity or useful heat; 

and (3) the demonstration of the 

collection and treatment of a variety of 

biomass feedstocks. Accordingly, DOE 

needs to implement Section 932 of 

EPAct 2005 and support advanced 

biofuel production pursuant to the 

Renewable Fuel Standard established by 

the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). EISA 2007’s 

Renewable Fuel Standard requires the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to ensure that transportation fuel 

sold or introduced in the United States 

contain at least 36 billion gallons per 

year of biofuels by 2022, and includes 

specific provisions for advanced 

biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol and 

biomass-based diesel fuels. Thus, DOE’s 

purpose is to demonstrate that 

commercial-scale integrated 

biorefineries that use a wide variety of 

lignocellulosic (second-generation) 

feedstocks to produce biofuels, biobased chemicals, and biopower can 

operate without direct Federal subsidy 

after construction costs are paid, and 

that these biorefineries can be easily 

replicated. 

EIS Process 

In August 2008, DOE published in the 

Federal Register its ‘‘Notice of Intent to 

Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement and Notice of Wetlands 

Involvement for the Abengoa 

Biorefinery Project near Hugoton, KS’’ 

(73 FR 50001), starting a 45-day public 

scoping period during which DOE held 

a public scoping meeting in Hugoton, 

Kansas. In April 2009, DOE re-opened 

public scoping and published in the 

Federal Register its ‘‘Amended Notice of 

Intent to Modify the Scope of the 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Abengoa Biorefinery Project near 

Hugoton, KS’’ (74 FR 19543). The 

amended notice informed the public 

about changes in the Project relevant to 

the scope of the ongoing EIS. The 

Department conducted a 30-day public 

scoping period and held a second public 

scoping meeting in Hugoton, Kansas. 

During these scoping periods, the 

Department received oral and written 

comments of the following three types: 

Expressions of support for the Project, 

statements of no negative environmental 

impacts, and requests for additional 

information from Federal and state 

agencies and members of the public. 

On September 23, 2009, DOE 

published in the Federal Register its 

Notice of Availability for the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Abengoa Biorefinery Project Near 

Hugoton, Stevens County, KS (DOE/EIS– 

0407D) (74 FR 48525). DOE’s Notice of 

Availability invited the public to 

comment on the Draft EIS during a 

45-day public comment period, and 

described how the public could submit 

oral and written comments on the Draft 

EIS. DOE’s Notice also announced a 

public hearing, which DOE conducted 

in Hugoton, Kansas on October 21, 

2009. On September 25, 2009, EPA 

listed the Draft Abengoa Biorefinery 

Project EIS in its weekly notice of 

availability (74 FR 48951). 

The Department received 

approximately 40 comments from six 

commenters during the public comment 

period. DOE prepared a commentresponse chapter for the Final 

Biorefinery EIS (Chapter 10), which 

provides each comment and DOE’s 

response. One commenter reiterated 

comments submitted during public 

scoping, and another commenter 

submitted suggestions regarding regionspecific studies for corn stover removal 

and runoff index scores for agricultural 

lands. One commenter recommended 

that the proposed transmission line be 

designed to protect migratory birds and 

raptors. A few commenters expressed 

concern about landfill management of 

refinery waste. A couple of commenters 

expressed support for the Project. One 

commenter submitted a number of 

comments regarding the impacts of 

biomass harvest on soil sustainability, 

potential impacts to groundwater, the 

timeframe for construction of the grainto-ethanol facility, the use of the latest 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2098 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Notices 

biorefinery design for the air quality 

analysis, the site selection process, and 

the reliance on irrigated corn crops. 

DOE issued the Final EIS and on 

August 20, 2010, EPA listed the Final 

Abengoa Biorefinery Project EIS in its 

weekly notice of availability (75 FR 

51458). The Final EIS reflects changes 

resulting from public comments, and, 

accordingly, the responses in the 

comment-response chapter identify 

sections of the Final EIS to which 

changes have been made. The Final EIS 

also reflects changes based on new and 

updated information. Substantive 

changes in the Final EIS are indicated 

by vertical change bars shown in the 

margins. DOE received one comment on 

the Final EIS from EPA, Region VII. EPA 

stated that DOE had adequately 

addressed the concerns expressed in 

EPA’s comments on the Draft EIS. 

Proposed Action and Project 

Description 

DOE’s Proposed Action is to provide 

Federal funding of up to $71 million 

(2009 dollars), subject to annual 

appropriations, to Abengoa Bioenergy to 

support the design, construction, and 

startup of the biorefinery, whose total 

anticipated cost is approximately $685 

million (2009 dollars). 

The biorefinery would be constructed 

on a 385-acre parcel near Hugoton, 

Kansas. Abengoa Bioenergy has 

optioned an additional 425 acres 

immediately east of the biorefinery 

parcel, between the biorefinery and the 

Hugoton city limits, as a buffer area. The 

optioned parcel would continue to be 

used as agricultural land, and might be 

used to test production of biomass 

feedstocks. 

The biomass-to-ethanol and -energy 

facility proposed by Abengoa Bioenergy 

would use lignocellulosic biomass 

(biomass) as feedstock to produce 

biofuels. Biomass, including corn 

stover, wheat straw, milo stubble, mixed 

warm season grasses (such as 

switchgrass), and other available 

materials, would be harvested as 

feedstock and fermented to produce 

ethanol. 

The biorefinery would also produce 

biopower, or bioenergy, in the form of 

electricity. The bioenergy generation 

facilities co-located at the site would 

use direct-firing (that is, using the 

biomass as a solid fuel in a boiler) to 

produce steam. Steam produced in the 

biomass boilers would be used for 

facility processes and to produce 

electricity. 

Under the Proposed Action, the 

biorefinery would process 

approximately 2,500 dry short tons per 

day of feedstock, which would be 

obtained from producers within 50 

miles of the Biorefinery Project site. The 

biorefinery would produce up to 19 

million gallons of denatured ethanol per 

year and 125 megawatts of electricity. 

Seventy-five megawatts of electricity 

would be sold commercially. 

Construction of the biorefinery would 

take approximately 18 months and 

would require infrastructure 

improvements, such as construction of 

site roads that would tie to Rural Road 

P, a 1.5-mile-long electrical 

transmission line, and an approximately 

0.5-mile railroad spur on the Biorefinery 

Project site that would tie into the 

Cimarron Valley Railroad. Temporary 

connections to utilities would include 

electricity, cable, telephone, and a 

nonpotable water line. Temporary 

potable water and sanitary facilities 

would be provided onsite until 

construction of permanent, onsite 

facilities. 

Harvested bales of biomass would be 

transported to a 10-acre onsite storage 

yard or to one of seven offsite storage 

sites to be located within 30 miles of the 

Biorefinery Project site. Each offsite 

storage location would be about 160 

acres and would have no permanent 

structures. Combined, these sites would 

store enough biomass to support 

biorefinery operations for up to 1 year. 

Bales of corn stover and other biomass 

ready to be processed at the biorefinery 

would be transported to a bale barn and 

sent by conveyor for grinding and 

cleaning. The ground feedstock would 

then enter the production process or be 

stored temporarily in silos onsite. In 

addition, wood waste would be used as 

boiler fuel to generate electricity. Up to 

1,000 tons per day would be brought 

from various sources by rail and truck 

to the biorefinery. 

The ethanol production process 

would involve the following steps: (1) 

Enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation, 

(2) distillation and dehydration, and (3) 

ethanol denaturization and storage. 

During hydrolysis and fermentation, the 

feedstock would be treated with 

enzymes and genetically modified 

organisms (enzymatic hydrolysis) to 

simultaneously break down the 

cellulose and ferment the recovered 

sugars. The resulting ‘‘beer,’’ which 

would be 4 to 5 percent ethanol at that 

point, would then be distilled and 

dehydrated to remove water and 

residual solids. Distillation would also 

destroy genetically modified and other 

organisms. 

The facility design incorporates two 

45,200-gallon-capacity shift tanks to 

hold the anhydrous ethanol produced 

during each 8-hour shift. The storage 

tanks would be enclosed in a bermed 

area to contain spills. Gasoline would be 

added to denature the ethanol and make 

it unfit for human consumption prior to 

temporary storage and loading of the 

product into tanker railcars for 

shipment. 

Solids would be recovered from the 

distillation process. Approximately 

120,000 dry short tons of solids, referred 

to as lignin-rich stillage cake, would be 

produced per year. The stillage cake 

would be transferred by conveyor to an 

onsite third-party lignin producer. After 

extracting the lignin, the lignin 

producer would return the lignin-poor 

stillage cake to the biorefinery and 

Abengoa Bioenergy would use it as fuel 

for the solid biomass boilers. Until a 

lignin extraction facility is built, 

Abengoa would burn the lignin-rich 

stillage cake as solid fuel in the biomass 

boilers. As an option, Abengoa could 

use lignin-rich stillage cake as fuel for 

the solid biomass boiler during the life 

of the biorefinery. 

The biomass receiving, grinding, and 

storage operations would be an enclosed 

system with a high-velocity, positive 

pressure collection system to transfer 

airborne particles to a dirt loadout tank. 

The loadout tank, grinding activities, 

and associated transfer points would 

have fabric filter dust collectors 

(baghouses). Volatile organic matter 

released during processing would be 

captured in a vent scrubber. 

Approximately 1,900 dry short tons 

per day of biomass feedstock would be 

supplied to the boilers. The biomass 

boilers would also burn much of the 

waste resulting from ethanol 

production, including fines collected 

during milling, stillage cake, and syrup 

from the distillation process. These 

processes would produce approximately 

127,000 tons of ash annually. This ash 

would contain potassium and 

phosphorus and would be marketed to 

the contracted feedstock producers as a 

soil amendment. If there is no market 

for the ash, it would be sent to landfills. 

Alternatives 

In addition to the Proposed Action, 

the EIS analyzes an Action Alternative 

and the No Action Alternative. 

Action Alternative 

Under the Action Alternative, DOE 

would provide Federal funding to 

support the design, construction and 

startup of a biorefinery that would use 

a two-stage process to produce 

fermentable sugars for bioethanol 

production and that would produce 

syngas using a gasification system. A 

syngas boiler as well as the biomass 

boilers would produce steam. Steam 

would be used for ethanol production 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Notices 2099 

processes and electricity production. 

Under the Action Alternative, the 

biomass boilers and the turbines would 

be used to generate electricity solely to 

operate the plant and would be smaller 

than those for the Proposed Action. 

The biorefinery would produce 

approximately 12 million gallons per 

year of denatured ethanol, 19,000 short 

tons per year of lignin-rich stillage cake, 

and 20 megawatts of electricity for use 

at the facility. 

The milling process for the Proposed 

Action and Action Alternative is the 

same. Once milled, the feedstock would 

be pretreated with dilute acid to remove 

hemicellulose and pectin (the Proposed 

Action is a one stage process and does 

not include two pretreatment stages as 

does the Action Alternative). It is this 

pretreatment step and the subsequent 

processing of the fractionated biomass 

where the two-stage process differs from 

the one-stage process described in the 

Proposed Action. After this 

pretreatment, two types of hydrolysate 

or pretreated biomass would be 

processed in two separate steps. One 

type contains a hydrolysate primarily 

consisting of hemicellulose and pectin, 

which would be further saccharified to 

fermentable sugars; these simple sugars 

would then be fermented to ethanol. 

The second type includes the celluloserich, lignin-rich fiber hydrolysate, 

which would be further processed with 

enzymes to produce simple sugars that 

would be simultaneously fermented to 

ethanol. Each separate step produces 

beers containing between 4 and 5 

percent ethanol and both beers would 

be conveyed to distillation operations 

for purification. Volatile organic matter 

released during both of these processes 

would be captured in a vent scrubber. 

Approximately 71,000 dry short tons 

per year of soluble and insoluble solids 

would be recovered from the bottom of 

the distillation column. The soluble 

solids would be concentrated to a thin 

stillage syrup in an evaporator and 

would be combusted in the biomass 

boilers. About 130 dry short tons per 

day of insoluble, lignin-rich stillage 

cake would be transferred to an onsite 

processing facility for extraction of 

lignin. After the lignin was extracted, 

the lignin producer would return the 

lignin-poor stillage cake to the 

biorefinery, and Abengoa Bioenergy 

would use it as fuel for the solid 

biomass boiler. Until a lignin extraction 

facility is built, Abengoa would burn the 

lignin-rich stillage cake as solid fuel in 

the biomass boiler. If recovery of lignin 

is not economically feasible, the ligninrich stillage cake would be used as fuel 

in the biomass boiler.Denaturing the 

produced ethanol and loadout for the 

Proposed Action and Action Alternative 

would be the same. 

Syngas produced in the gasification 

plant under the Action Alternative 

would be used to operate a fire-tube 

boiler to produce steam. A small 

biomass solids boiler would also 

produce steam to power the biorefinery 

process operations only. Steam would 

be used to operate a small turbine that 

would produce 20 megawatts of power. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

DOE would not provide Federal funding 

to Abengoa Bioenergy to support the 

design, construction, and startup of a 

biorefinery. Abengoa would not build a 

biorefinery and the biorefinery parcel 

would remain agricultural land. The 

Department recognizes, however, that 

Abengoa could pursue alternative 

sources of capital for development of 

the biorefinery. 

Potential Environmental Impacts of the 

Proposed Action 

In making its decision, DOE 

considered the environmental impacts 

of the Proposed Action, Action 

Alternative, and the No-Action 

Alternative on potentially affected 

resource areas. These include: land use; 

air quality; hydrology; biological 

resources; utilities, energy, and 

materials; wastes, byproducts, and 

hazardous materials; transportation; 

aesthetics; socioeconomics; cultural 

resources; health and safety; and 

environmental justice. DOE also 

considered potential impacts on these 

resources from accidents and acts of 

sabotage. No wetlands would be filled 

and no floodplains would be affected. 

The EIS also considered cumulative 

impacts, that is, impacts from the 

Project combined with those from other 

past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. The 

following sections discuss the potential 

impacts. 

Land Use 

Operation of the biorefinery would 

require approximately 880,000 dry short 

tons of lignocellulosic feedstock per 

year. Abengoa Bioenergy anticipates 

that, at the start of operations, the 

primary feedstock would be corn stover, 

with secondary feedstocks consisting of 

grain sorghum stover, wheat straw, and 

mixed warm season grasses. 

Approximately 20 percent of the total 

feedstock demand would consist of corn 

stover for cellulosic ethanol production, 

with the remaining 80 percent 

consisting of any combination of 

feedstocks for bioenergy production. 

DOE conservatively estimates that the 

total annual demand for crop residue by 

the biorefinery would equal about 60 

percent of the targeted crop residues 

that could be sustainably removed from 

the 50-mile region surrounding the 

Biorefinery Project site. The demand for 

corn residue for ethanol production 

would be about 20 percent of the 

amount that could be sustainably 

removed from irrigated corn acreage. 

Thus, production of targeted crop 

residues exceeds biorefinery demand 

and Abengoa would have flexibility in 

feedstock procurement. DOE anticipates 

the demand for crop residue by the 

biorefinery would have a negligible 

impact on changes in land use type, 

including use of lands in the 

Conservation Reserve Program, because 

there would be no incentive to alter 

land use type for the purpose of meeting 

demand. 

Over time, it is anticipated that mixed 

warm season grasses (such as 

switchgrass) would replace corn residue 

as the primary feedstock for producing 

ethanol resulting in (1) beneficial 

environmental impacts where marginal 

cropland was converted, and (2) 

minimal environmental changes where 

land use types such as nonharvested 

cropland, former Conservation Reserve 

Program acreage, and pasture were 

converted. The beneficial environmental 

impacts of converting marginal cropland 

to mixed warm season grasses are 

related to establishment of a crop that is 

resistant to many pests and plant 

diseases; uses relatively less water, 

fertilizer, and pesticides; and establishes 

deep roots that store carbon in the soil. 

Increased mixed warm season grasses 

production would not be expected to 

result in an adverse impact to land 

enrolled in the Conservation Reserve 

Program. 

Contracts between Abengoa Bioenergy 

and producers of biomass would 

include a requirement that crop residues 

would be harvested in accordance with 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

guidelines for minimizing wind erosion. 

DOE concludes that, on a regional basis, 

removing crop residue following these 

guidelines would have a negligible 

adverse impact on soil organic matter 

content. On a field-by-field basis, crop 

residue removal would have a negligible 

to minor adverse impact on soil organic 

matter content. Any adverse impact to 

soil organic matter content would be 

limited to land for which the producer 

was compensated for residue removal. 

Development of the biorefinery would 

result in the irreversible conversion of 

385 acres from agricultural to industrial 

use. The Proposed Action is consistent 

with existing land use and zoning at the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2100 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Notices 

Project site. The reduction in irrigated 

farmland associated with the water 

rights Abengoa Bioenergy would 

transfer to industrial use at the 

biorefinery would be a negligible change 

in regional irrigated cropland. 

Air Quality 

Construction of the biorefinery would 

cause emissions from various activities 

including use of heavy diesel-operated 

equipment, disturbance of the soil, 

grading activities, material transport, 

and material handling. These activities 

would be short term or intermittent in 

nature and would only occur during the 

18-month construction phase. Best 

management practices would be 

employed to minimize these emissions. 

Concentrations of criteria pollutants 

estimated to be released during 

operation of the biorefinery would be 

well below the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. The estimated 

concentrations from the biorefinery, 

combined with ambient background 

concentrations of pollutants in the 

region, are about 67 percent of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

for 24-hour PM10, 12 percent for 

nitrogen dioxide, and less than 10 

percent of the standard for other 

pollutants. DOE concludes that air 

emissions would not harm human 

health and the environment. 

The biorefinery also would be a 

source of greenhouse gases, with carbon 

dioxide the most abundant. The boilers 

would be the main source of the 

greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, 

methane, and nitrous oxide. Biomass 

fermentation and distillation processes 

also would emit carbon dioxide. The 

total emissions of carbon dioxide 

equivalents (used to represent the 

contribution of all gases) from operation 

would be 3.61 million tons per year. 

According to the DOE Energy 

Information Administration, the total 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 

was 7,775 million tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalents, with 6,409 million 

tons of the total from energy-related 

carbon dioxide. The projected 

greenhouse gas emissions from the 

biorefinery would be 0.046 percent of 

the total U.S. carbon dioxide equivalent 

value. 

Although the biorefinery would be a 

source of greenhouse gas emissions, 

operation of the biorefinery would 

provide a net reduction in greenhouse 

gas emissions when considering the 

emissions produced during the lifecycle 

of ethanol production and use relative 

to the lifecycle of gasoline production 

and use. To determine the level of 

greenhouse gas reduction from the 

Proposed Action, DOE used the 

Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, 

and Energy use in Transportation 

(GREET) Model, developed by DOE’s 

Argonne National Laboratory. The 

GREET Model examines ‘‘well-to-wheel’’ 

fuel lifecycles by considering factors 

such as producing raw materials for 

fuels, refining the raw materials into 

fuels, and using the fuel in vehicles. 

The Abengoa Biorefinery Project 

would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

not only by producing a fuel that 

displaces gasoline, but also by 

producing power that displaces 

electricity from other electricity 

generating sources. The GREET Model 

combines these reductions and other 

factors into a single metric to express 

the net effect on lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions relative to a baseline 

scenario in which the biorefinery is not 

built. Because the majority of the 

electricity the biorefinery would 

produce would be exported rather than 

used for biorefinery operations, the 

greenhouse gases displaced by the 

biorefinery would be larger than the 

greenhouse gases emitted by biorefinery 

operations, thus causing a decrease in 

greenhouse gas emissions that exceeds 

100 percent. As a comparison, if only 

enough electricity was produced to run 

the biorefinery (none would be sold to 

the grid), the percent reduction under 

the Proposed Action would be 69 

percent as compared with the baseline 

where the biorefinery is not built and 

passenger vehicles use 100 percent 

conventional or reformulated gasoline. 

Hydrology 

Wastewater, petroleum products, and 

hazardous chemicals would be 

generated by the biorefinery. Planned 

releases of wastewater would be limited 

to the non-contact wastewater that 

would be used for irrigation of the 

buffer area. Petroleum products and 

hazardous chemicals used during 

construction and operations would be 

managed within secondary containment 

on the site, and there are no surface 

waters in the nearby area that would be 

affected by accidental releases. 

Disturbed and built-up land areas 

would result in increased runoff; this 

runoff would be directed to natural low 

areas within the biorefinery parcel. 

Changes in infiltration would be minor 

and likely would be limited to small 

changes in the exact locations where 

infiltration would occur. Alterations to 

surface water drainage would be limited 

to minor changes within the 385-acre 

parcel and possibly within the buffer 

area. Natural low areas where runoff 

accumulates would not be altered. The 

Department concludes the potential for 

adverse impacts to surface waters from 

the Proposed Action is negligible. 

Construction of the biorefinery would 

require approximately 220 acre-feet of 

water, and operations would require 

about 2,900 acre-feet of water per year. 

DOE estimates that an additional 46 

acre-feet of groundwater would be 

withdrawn per year by the city of 

Hugoton to meet the domestic needs of 

biorefinery workers, bringing the total 

annual estimated demand to support the 

biorefinery to approximately 2,950 acrefeet per year. 

Abengoa Bioenergy has optioned 

existing irrigation water rights from 

eight wells to meet the water demand 

for construction and operation of the 

biorefinery under the Proposed Action. 

The maximum permitted withdrawal 

associated with those water rights is 

about 7,240 acre-feet per year, and the 

total volume discharged from those 

wells in 2008 was about 4,380 acre-feet. 

Thus, use of those water rights for 

operation of the biorefinery would 

result in a reduction of more than 4,290 

acre-feet compared with the permitted 

annual volume, and a reduction of more 

than 1,430 acre-feet compared with 

withdrawals during 2008. DOE 

concludes that operation of the 

biorefinery would result in a beneficial 

decrease in groundwater withdrawals 

from the High Plains aquifer. 

Changes in cropping practices as a 

result of the Proposed Action are not 

expected to occur. Further, increases in 

water withdrawals for agricultural 

purposes in Kansas are limited by State 

water appropriation regulations, 

although increases in Oklahoma and 

Colorado may be allowed. Thus, DOE 

concludes that changes in water use in 

the region resulting from changes in 

land use to meet the demand of the 

biorefinery for biomass are not expected 

to occur. 

Any spills of hazardous materials 

would be handled in accordance with a 

spill prevention, control, and 

countermeasures plan, which would 

minimize or eliminate potential impacts 

to the groundwater quality from 

construction and operation of the 

biorefinery. 

Biological Resources 

There are no Federal- or stateendangered and/or threatened species, 

candidate species, or state species in 

need of conservation present or within 

1 mile of the Biorefinery Project site. 

DOE concludes that construction and 

operation of the biorefinery would have 

no impacts on threatened or endangered 

species or their designated critical 

habitat. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Notices 2101 

To construct the biorefinery, the 

biorefinery parcel, which is currently 

used for dry-land farming, would be 

converted to industrial use. There 

would be some minor, short-term 

adverse impacts to biological resources 

from the construction and some minor, 

long-term adverse impacts from the 

operation of the biorefinery, but these 

impacts would affect only common 

species on or within 1 mile of the 

Biorefinery Project site. The analysis of 

potential changes in land use resulting 

from the Proposed Action indicated that 

conversion of Conservation Reserve 

Program lands to tilled cropland from 

the Proposed Action is not expected, 

and other changes in land use would be 

minimal. Thus, DOE does not expect the 

Proposed Action to impact biological 

resources within the region surrounding 

the Project site. 

Utilities, Energy, and Materials 

Biorefinery workers and their families 

would rely on the city of Hugoton water 

system, the city of Hugoton sewage 

system, and the Stevens County landfill. 

The Hugoton water system also would 

supply potable water for the biorefinery 

facilities. Anticipated demands are well 

below the excess capacity of the City 

water system. The sewage collection 

system in Hugoton has sufficient 

capacity to accommodate use of the 

system by construction and operations 

workers and their families. In addition, 

the Stevens County landfill has enough 

capacity to handle the increase in solid 

waste during construction and 

operations due to the influx of workers 

and their families living in Hugoton. 

The biorefinery would require no 

electric power from the regional grid 

during operations. Rather, the 

biorefinery would supply 75 megawatts 

of electricity to the grid during normal 

operations, which equals 5.8 percent of 

the production capacity in the westerncentral region of Kansas, but only about 

0.2 percent of current summer demand 

in the Southwest Power Pool. The 

amount of natural gas and diesel fuel 

required for normal operation of the 

biorefinery is approximately 0.1 and 

0.05 percent, respectively, of the 

amounts of these fuels used in Kansas 

and would not adversely impact their 

supply and distribution in the region. 

The Proposed Action would involve a 

commitment of building materials. With 

the possible exception of stainless steel, 

these materials would be available and 

their procurement would not decrease 

availability to other users in regional 

markets. Components used in stainless 

steel production (such as chromium and 

nickel) are in high demand and, at 

times, affect availability of stainless 

steel. However, the amount of stainless 

steel required for construction of the 

biorefinery is a very small portion of the 

amount that moves through the U.S. 

market annually. 

Wastes, Byproducts, and Hazardous 

Materials 

The wastes and byproducts the 

biorefinery would produce include 

construction wastes, wastewater, solid 

biomass boiler ash, distiller’s residual 

biomass solids (stillage cake), stillage 

syrup, wastewater treatment facility 

sludge, lignin, genetically modified 

organisms, dirt and fines resulting from 

biomass processing, municipal solid 

waste, and hazardous waste. 

Solid biomass boiler ash and lignin 

are byproducts that could be sold to 

consumers within the 50-mile region of 

influence. Abengoa Bioenergy would 

burn stillage cake, dirt and fines from 

biomass processing, and genetically 

modified organisms in the solid biomass 

boilers as part of the Proposed Action. 

Domestic and process wastewater would 

be treated in the onsite wastewater 

treatment facilities, and treated process 

wastewater would be recycled in the 

ethanol production process. Wastewater 

treatment facility sludge would be used 

in the boiler fly ash pelletization 

process or burned in the solid biomass 

boilers. Abengoa would use non-contact 

wastewater for crop irrigation on the 

buffer area, and would treat, recycle, 

and/or dispose of boiler bottom ash, 

municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, 

and construction debris at permitted 

facilities within the region of influence. 

The Stevens County landfill would 

not have adequate capacity to receive 

the construction wastes generated and 

maintain its small arid landfill exempt 

permit status (limited to 20 tons per 

day); revising that permit would be 

expensive. The non-recycled 

construction waste streams would be 

split among other permitted landfills 

and transfer stations within 35 miles of 

the biorefinery without significantly 

affecting their capacity. Less than 1 ton 

per day of municipal solid waste would 

be generated during the expected 30- 

year operating life of the biorefinery and 

would be sent to the Stevens County 

landfill. This waste stream would be 

about a 3 percent increase to the 

landfill’s current waste stream and 

would reduce the life of the landfill by 

less than 1 year. 

The onsite wastewater treatment 

facility would treat all process 

wastewater generated at the Biorefinery 

Project site and would not discharge any 

to the Hugoton wastewater system. 

Wastewater treated onsite would be 

reused in the ethanol production 

process. Wastewater that would not be 

recycled and reused in the production 

process or treated onsite (non-contact 

wastewater) would be produced at a rate 

of 370 gallons per minute and would be 

used to irrigate biomass crops on the 

buffer area. This water would be 

conveyed to two 11.5-acre storage ponds 

prior to application to the buffer area. 

Wastewater treatment facility sludge 

would be used in the boiler fly ash 

pelletization process or burned in the 

solid biomass boilers. Based on an 

agronomy study, the chemical 

composition of the wastewater and the 

anticipated stipulations of a required 

discharge permit, DOE does not 

anticipate adverse impacts from the 

land application of wastewater, 

including odor or aesthetic impacts. 

Abengoa Bioenergy would have to 

modify the facility water balance and 

wastewater treatment facility design if 

lignin was extracted from the stillage 

cake, thereby generating additional 

wastewater. 

Chemicals required for operation of 

the biorefinery would be received by 

truck or rail and off-loaded and 

transferred by an enclosed chemical 

delivery system to storage tanks, silos, 

or other chemical storage facilities. 

Chemicals would have to be obtained 

from outside the region. The demand for 

chemicals for the biorefinery would be 

an insignificant percentage of the 

production in the United States. 

The Project would generate 2,000 

pounds per year of hazardous waste (for 

example, spent solvents, waste ethanol, 

and caustics). Those wastes would be 

collected and treated/disposed of by 

licensed hazardous waste facilities. DOE 

does not anticipate adverse impacts 

from the handling and disposal of 

hazardous wastes generated at the 

biorefinery because Abengoa 

Bioenergy’s proposed hazardous waste 

management practices will be 

implemented. 

Genetically modified organisms used 

in the enzymatic hydrolysis process 

would be killed by a heat sterilization 

process and would be contained in the 

beer column bottoms. The bottoms 

stream would be dewatered and the 

residual solids sent to the solid biomass 

boiler for burning. 

The solid biomass boilers would 

generate up to 16 tons of bottom ash per 

day. The bottom ash would be sent to 

the Seward County landfill. Disposal of 

the bottom ash at this landfill over the 

life of the biorefinery would reduce the 

life of permitted landfill space by about 

2.2 years. In addition, the solid biomass 

boilers would generate up to 350 tons of 

fly ash per day. Abengoa Bioenergy 

plans to sell the fly ash as a nutrient 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2102 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Notices 

replacement co-product to biomass 

producers in the region. If the ash could 

not be sold or otherwise used in a 

beneficial manner, it would require 

disposal at permitted solid waste 

disposal facilities. The Stevens County 

landfill does not have adequate capacity 

to receive this amount of ash without a 

permit modification, so this waste 

stream would be split among permitted 

landfills and transfer stations within 35 

miles of the biorefinery. However, 

impacts on existing permitted solid 

waste disposal facilities could be 

problematic if a significant percentage 

of the boiler fly ash was not marketable 

as a soil amendment byproduct. The 

loss of land used for landfill disposal of 

solid wastes generated during 

construction and operation of the 

biorefinery would be an irreversible and 

irretrievable loss of resources. 

Transportation 

There would be approximately 32,000 

truck shipments of materials during 

construction, and about 80,000 to 

116,000 truck and 1,300 to 6,600 rail 

shipments per year during the 30-year 

operating period of the biorefinery. DOE 

estimates there would be 35 to 41 traffic 

fatalities during the 30-year operations 

period due to these shipments and the 

commuting of workers, the majority (32 

to 38) of which would be due to 

shipments of biomass, chemicals, 

denatured ethanol product, and waste. 

For perspective, over the 30-year 

operations period, there would be an 

estimated 13,400 traffic fatalities in 

Kansas and 820 traffic fatalities in the 

nine counties surrounding the Project 

site. 

DOE estimates that 1,075 rail carloads 

of denatured ethanol and waste and 211 

to 5,554 rail carloads of biomass and 

chemicals would be shipped to and 

from the biorefinery per year of 

operation, which is equivalent to about 

49 to 241 additional trains per year. 

This would result in an increase in the 

approximately 600 trains per year that 

travel on the Cimarron Valley Railroad, 

but is less than the capacity of 40 to 60 

trains per day on that line. Thus, the 

additional rail traffic for the Proposed 

Action would not adversely affect the 

operations of the Cimarron Valley 

Railroad. 

Increased truck traffic would result in 

increased pavement deterioration. For 

biomass, chemical, and waste shipments 

associated with the Proposed Action, 

DOE estimated the annual cost of this 

pavement damage to range from 

$580,000 to $840,000. 

Aesthetics 

DOE considered the potential impacts 

of the Abengoa Biorefinery Project on 

views in the area surrounding the 

Biorefinery Project site and evaluated 

how noise and odor from the biorefinery 

could affect residents in the area. 

Visual Resources—The tallest 

structure at the biorefinery considered 

under the Proposed Action would be 

approximately 115 feet, but many of the 

other structures would be 40 feet tall or 

less. The biorefinery would be visually 

similar to the grain storage silos and 

elevators, chemical tanks, and other 

structures located adjacent to the 

Biorefinery Project site and would be 

visible from surrounding vantage points, 

such as the city of Hugoton and the 

Forewinds Golf Course. The Proposed 

Action would require a new 1.5-milelong transmission line that would be 

visible from Road P and Road 11 near 

the Biorefinery Project site, but would 

result in minimal visual impacts to 

viewers from a distance. 

The biorefinery would operate 24 

hours a day, 350 days a year, and thus 

would be a source of night lighting. 

Noise—Workers would be exposed to 

noise during construction from 

construction equipment and trucks 

traveling to and from the biorefinery 

construction site. Workers would also 

be exposed to noise from equipment and 

biorefinery processes during operations. 

Best management practices would be 

employed to limit noise, and a hearing 

conservation program would be 

implemented; therefore, permissible 

noise exposure levels are not expected 

to be exceeded. 

The nearest residence to the 

Biorefinery Project site, approximately 

0.6 mile away, may experience some 

annoyance from construction noise. The 

noise level at that distance would be 

approximately 56 decibels which is 

approximately the same noise level as a 

normal conversation. 

In addition to being temporary, EPA 

states that this noise level should not 

interfere with daily activities such as 

conversation, working, or recreation. As 

such, the impact would be small. At 0.6 

mile, noise from wood hog operations 

could be distinguishable from other 

background sources of noise. Noise from 

biorefinery operations would attenuate 

to below background levels beyond 0.6 

mile. Therefore, except for the residence 

at the northwest property boundary, 

DOE does not anticipate impacts to 

members of the public from 

construction or operation of the 

biorefinery due to noise. 

During construction, there would be 

about 70 truck shipments to the 

biorefinery site per day, or about one 

truck arriving every 12 minutes 

(assuming all traffic occurs from 7 a.m. 

to 9 p.m.). During operations, 202 trucks 

per day are expected (one truck every 4 

minutes). The routes taken by those 

trucks through and around Hugoton 

would vary, but it is anticipated that at 

least 50 percent of the traffic (one truck 

every 8 minutes during operations) 

would use the truck bypass and affect 

two residences along Road Q. Along a 

route that passes the Stevens County 

Hospital, several schools, and places of 

worship, trucks are anticipated to pass 

at a rate of one every 21 minutes during 

operations. Noise from these passing 

trucks would frequently interfere with 

outdoor conversations and cause 

annoyance indoors. Rail traffic would 

increase by about 255 trains per year. 

Most of the rail shipments would carry 

wood waste and are expected to occur 

on weekdays during normal working 

daylight hours. 

Odor—Odors may result from 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds, including ethanol, and 

hazardous air pollutants, and from 

nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. 

Engineered controls implemented to 

minimize these emissions would reduce 

odors from the biorefinery. Air 

dispersion modeling indicates that no 

odorous compounds would be detected 

at the biorefinery parcel fence line or 

offsite locations where the public would 

commonly be located. Therefore, DOE 

anticipates no impacts to the public 

from the release of odorous compounds. 

Socioeconomics 

DOE evaluated the potential impacts 

of construction and operation of the 

biorefinery on socioeconomic variables, 

including population and housing, 

employment and income, taxes, and 

public services, in Stevens County and 

the three surrounding counties; that is, 

Morton and Seward counties in Kansas 

and Texas County in Oklahoma. 

The Proposed Action would require 

256 workers at the peak of construction. 

About 190 of those positions likely 

would be filled by people who would 

migrate into the four-county region, 

which would result in a temporary 

increase in the population in the region 

of less than 1 percent and would have 

little impact on the availability or cost 

of housing or on public services. In 

addition to the jobs directly associated 

with the construction of the biorefinery, 

88 indirect jobs are expected to be 

created during the peak period of 

construction. DOE estimates that during 

construction, there would be about 110 

additional students enrolled in local 

school districts. This represents a 1.0 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Notices 2103 

percent increase in enrollment in the 

region. During the 12-month period of 

the most-intense construction activity, 

the region could experience an 

approximately $17-million infusion of 

earnings, which equals about 1 percent 

of the 2006 per capita income in the 

region. 

The anticipated life of the biorefinery 

is 30 years, during which it would 

employ 43 people. This would result in 

a regional increase in the local 

population of less than 0.1 percent, and 

would have little or no impact on 

housing, public services, or educational 

services. During operations, the region 

would experience an annual $4.4 

million infusion in earnings. In 

addition, 23 indirect jobs are expected 

to be created during the operations 

phase. 

Cultural Resources 

No properties listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places are within or 

on properties adjoining the Biorefinery 

Project site. Based on DOE review of 

published information, coordination 

with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and the results of a Phase I/II 

investigation of a 160-acre portion (areas 

investigated were coordinated with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer) of 

the Project site, construction and 

operation of the biorefinery would not 

result in adverse impacts to Statepreserved or National Historic Register 

sites, sites of prehistoric or early historic 

occupation, or historic resources of local 

significance. When selected, offsite 

biomass storage locations will be 

evaluated for cultural resources in 

coordination with the Kansas State 

Historical Preservation Office to ensure 

no adverse impacts. 

Health and Safety 

DOE estimated health and safety 

impacts to workers from industrial 

hazards using incidence rates for 2007 

for both nonfatal occupational injuries 

and occupational fatalities from the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Members of the public would 

not be located within the Biorefinery 

Project site and would not be affected by 

industrial hazards at the biorefinery. 

The potential for adverse impacts to 

health and safety from the Proposed 

Action would be very minor. During 

construction, the industrial health and 

safety impacts to workers are estimated 

to be 14 total recordable cases (that is, 

work-related deaths, illnesses, or 

injuries that result in the loss of 

consciousness, days away from work 

restricted work activity or job transfer, 

or required medical treatment beyond 

first aid), 7 days away from work, and 

0.026 fatality. During operations, the 

total annual industrial health and safety 

impacts to workers from all operations 

at the biorefinery (such as, ethanol 

manufacturing, milling and grinding 

operations, and electric power 

generation) are estimated to be 2.7 total 

recordable cases, 0.94 day away from 

work, and 0.0014 fatality. Based on 

these results, DOE concludes that a 

fatality would be unlikely. No adverse 

health impacts to members of the public 

from air emissions under normal 

operations are anticipated. 

Facility Accidents and Sabotage 

Based on the operational history of 

existing ethanol plants, DOE concludes 

that the hazards of ethanol production 

to members of the public are minor, and 

that accidents during biorefinery 

operations are not likely to result in 

permanent health effects to offsite 

members of the public. In some accident 

scenarios, such as the failure of an 

ethanol or gasoline storage tank, 

workers could be injured or killed 

depending on the location of the worker 

at the time of the event. 

DOE considered the most hazardous 

intentional destructive act to be the 

deliberate destruction of a toxic 

chemical storage tank. The 

consequences of such an act would be 

similar to the accidental failure of a 

toxic chemical tank and would be 

limited to injury and, in unlikely 

circumstances, death to nearby workers. 

Environmental Justice 

No impacts to communities with high 

percentages of minority or low-income 

populations were identified that would 

exceed those identified for the general 

population. In addition, during the 

scoping process, DOE identified no 

unique exposure pathways, sensitivities, 

or cultural practices that would result in 

different impacts on minority or lowincome populations. Disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts would be 

unlikely as a result of the Proposed 

Action. 

Potential Impacts of the Action 

Alternative 

Under the Action Alternative, the 

environmental impacts would be similar 

to those of the Proposed Action. For 

most resource and subject areas, there 

are no or minor differences between 

those alternatives. Differences exist 

between the alternatives for the 

following resource and subject areas. 

Air Quality—The Proposed Action 

would result in a greater reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions (340 percent) 

than the Action Alternative (39 percent) 

by producing more fuel with biomassderived ethanol and producing more 

electricity from biomass. 

Utilities—The Proposed Action would 

produce and sell electricity in excess of 

that required to operate the biorefinery 

equal to about 5 percent of the 

production capacity in west-central 

Kansas. The Action Alternative would 

produce less electricity and would 

require electrical power from the 

regional grid to operate the biorefinery 

equal to about 1 percent of the 

combined production capacity of two 

suppliers in the region. 

Transportation—The Proposed Action 

would require substantially more truck 

shipments than the Action Alternative 

during operations; thus, the number of 

traffic accidents and amount of road 

damage would be proportionally greater 

under the Proposed Action. 

Noise—For operations, because there 

would be more truck shipments for the 

Proposed Action, local residents would 

experience noise from truck shipments 

more frequently under the Proposed 

Action than under the Action 

Alternative. 

Socioeconomics—Approximately 10 

percent more workers would be 

employed at the biorefinery under the 

Proposed Action, and more earnings 

would be infused in the local economy. 

Under the Action Alternative, the 

biorefinery would produce 33 percent 

less ethanol [12 million gallons (45 

million liters)] and 80 percent less 

biopower (20 megawatts) than under the 

Proposed Action. In addition, less 

salable byproducts, such as lignin and 

lignin-rich stillage cake, would be 

produced under the Action Alternative. 

Potential Impacts of the No-Action 

Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

none of the adverse impacts identified 

above for the two action alternatives (for 

example, emissions of air pollutants, 

use of land for disposal of solid wastes, 

increase in truck traffic, and associated 

increase in accidents and noise) or 

beneficial impacts (for example, 

increased employment, decrease in 

groundwater use, and increase in the 

electrical production capacity for the 

region) would occur. Further, the 

benefits that would be gained from the 

development, demonstration, and 

commercial operation of an integrated 

biorefinery that uses lignocellulosic 

feedstocks would not be realized. In 

addition, no benefits would be realized 

from the development of a renewable 

energy system that would reduce air 

pollutants and sequester emissions of 

greenhouse gases. For example, the 

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions 

estimated to occur if the Proposed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2104 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Notices 

Action were implemented would not be 

realized with the continued use of 

gasoline instead of biofuel and no 

generation of biopower. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The Proposed Action and Action 

Alternative would result in both 

beneficial and adverse potential 

environmental impacts (summarized 

above and in Table 2–2 of the EIS). 

Potential beneficial impacts include 

those associated with reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions and a 

decrease in water withdrawals; adverse 

impacts include those associated with a 

substantial increase in transportation 

activity and minor impacts from air 

emissions. On balance, DOE regards the 

No-Action Alternative, which would 

result in no change in existing 

environmental conditions, as the 

environmentally preferred alternative. 

Decision 

DOE has decided to implement the 

Proposed Action to provide Federal 

funding of up to $71 million (2009 

dollars), subject to annual 

appropriations, to Abengoa Bioenergy 

Biomass of Kansas, LLC (Abengoa 

Bioenergy) to support the design, 

construction, and startup of the 

Abengoa Biorefinery Project. DOE has 

also decided to adopt the mitigation 

measures discussed in the Final 

Abengoa Biorefinery EIS and 

summarized below under ‘‘Mitigation’’. 

Basis of Decision 

DOE’s decision is based on the 

importance of achieving the objectives 

of the EPAct 2005 and careful review of 

the potential environmental impacts 

presented in the Final Biorefinery EIS. 

This Project will support advanced 

biofuel production pursuant to the 

Renewable Fuel Standard established by 

EISA 2007, which requires EPA to 

ensure that transportation fuel sold or 

introduced into commerce in the United 

States contain at least 36 billion gallons 

per year of biofuels by 2022. It provides 

an opportunity to demonstrate that 

commercial-scale integrated 

biorefineries that use a wide variety of 

lignocellulosic (second-generation) 

feedstocks to produce biofuels and 

biopower can operate without direct 

Federal subsidy after construction costs 

are paid, and that these biorefineries can 

be easily replicated. 

The Project would reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions not only by producing a 

fuel that displaces gasoline, but also by 

producing power that displaces 

electricity from other electricity 

generating sources. In addition, this 

Project would have economic benefits in 

the region. The Project would require 

256 workers at the peak of construction 

and during the 12-month period of the 

most-intense construction activity, the 

region could experience an 

approximately $17-million infusion of 

earnings. Over the anticipated life of the 

biorefinery of 30 years, it would employ 

43 people and the region would 

experience an annual $4.4 million 

infusion in earnings. 

To meet the mandates of the EPAct 

2005 and other governing policies, it is 

in the best interest of DOE to select and 

fund the most technologically and 

economically viable alternative. 

Production of more ethanol and 

production of biopower would make the 

Proposed Action a more economically 

viable alternative than the Action 

Alternative. The Proposed Action, 

therefore, better meets the direction of 

Section 932(d)(2) of EPAct 2005, which 

directs the Secretary of Energy to select 

only proposals that ‘‘demonstrate that 

the project will be able to operate 

profitably without direct Federal 

subsidy after initial construction costs 

are paid.’’ In addition, the Proposed 

Action more fully supports the intent of 

the Section 932(d)(1) of EPAct 2005 to 

encourage the commercial application 

of biomass technologies for a variety of 

uses, including high-value bio-based 

chemicals and energy in the form of 

electricity and useful heat. For these 

reasons, DOE determined the Proposed 

Action more fully meets its purpose and 

need, and has decided to implement the 

Proposed Action. 

This decision incorporates all 

practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental impacts. DOE plans to 

review annual monitoring reports to 

assess the environmental impacts 

predicted in the EIS and the 

implementation of appropriate 

avoidance and mitigation measures. 

Mitigation 

DOE’s decision incorporates best 

management practices and additional 

measures to avoid or minimize adverse 

environmental impacts during the 

design, construction, and operation of 

the Project. DOE will require Abengoa 

Biorefinery to implement the best 

management practices outlined in 

Chapter 6, Section 6.1, of the Final 

Biorefinery EIS, for the following 

resource areas: land use; air quality; 

geology and soils; surface water; 

groundwater; biological resources; 

utilities, energy, and materials; wastes 

and hazardous materials; visual 

resources; noise; odor; cultural 

resources; and health and safety. 

DOE regards mitigation measures as 

activities or actions that would be above 

and beyond (in addition to) best 

management practices. DOE requires 

that the participants comply with all 

applicable Federal, state, and local 

environmental laws, orders, and 

regulations. Mitigation measures beyond 

those specified in permit conditions 

will be addressed in a mitigation action 

plan (MAP) that DOE will prepare 

pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.331. The MAP 

will explain how the mitigation 

measures will be planned, 

implemented, and monitored and is an 

adaptive management tool. Mitigation 

conditions in it will be removed if 

equivalent conditions are otherwise 

established by permit, license, or law, as 

compliance with permit, license or 

regulatory requirements are not 

considered mitigation activities subject 

to DOE control and are therefore not 

included in MAPs. 

DOE will ensure that commitments in 

the ROD are incorporated into DOE’s 

Cooperative Agreement with Abengoa 

Bioenergy. The MAP and annual 

monitoring reports will be available on 

the DOE NEPA Web site (http:// 

www.nepa.energy.gov) and the DOE 

Golden Field Office Web site (http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/golden/ 

Reading_Room.aspx). DOE will make 

copies of the MAP available for 

inspection in appropriate locations (e.g., 

local library or DOE reading rooms) for 

a reasonable time. The Department also 

will provide copies of the MAP and 

annual reports upon request. 

In the Final EIS, DOE stated that 

mitigation measures for the following 

resource areas were being considered: 

air quality, biological resources, visual 

resources, odor, socioeconomics, wastes 

and hazardous materials, and 

transportation. Upon consideration of 

the findings presented in the Final EIS, 

DOE has determined that no mitigation 

is required for air quality, odor, or 

socioeconomic impacts. The required 

implementation of air quality best 

management practices presented in 

Section 6.1 will adequately minimize 

impacts and therefore no additional 

mitigation is required. While the EIS 

concludes that odor may result from 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds, it also concludes, based on 

air dispersion modeling, that there are 

no anticipated impacts to the public 

from the release of odorous compounds 

and therefore no mitigation is required. 

The EIS concludes that the impacts to 

community services would be 

temporary and not likely to place an 

undue demand on community services, 

and therefore no mitigation is required. 

Biological Resources Mitigation. 

While the EIS concludes that DOE does 

not expect the Proposed Action to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Notices 2105 

impact biological resources (including 

threatened and endangered species) 

within the region or the Project site, 

DOE acknowledges that the new 

transmission line should be designed to 

minimize impacts to raptors and 

migratory birds. At this time it is 

uncertain whether Abengoa or Pioneer 

Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Pioneer 

Electric) will be responsible for the 

design and construction of the new 

transmission line, or if an existing 

transmission line will be upgraded by 

Pioneer Electric to serve the biorefinery. 

If Abengoa is responsible for the design 

and construction of the transmission 

line, DOE will require that the line be 

designed and constructed to minimize 

the risk of electrocution to raptors and 

migratory birds. If Pioneer Electric is 

responsible for the design and 

construction of the new transmission 

line or the upgrade of the existing line, 

DOE will have no authority to impose 

mitigation measures. However, a 

transmission line constructed or 

upgraded by Pioneer Electric would be 

subject to additional NEPA review by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS). Further, 

Pioneer Electric would follow RUS 

standards for design and construction of 

transmission lines, which include 

consideration of raptors and migratory 

birds. 

Visual Resources Mitigation. The 

buffer area will only be used for 

agricultural activities, thereby 

maintaining the current visual status of 

this area. To minimize visual impacts 

from nighttime light, the biorefinery 

will have the minimum amount of 

downward-facing or directional lighting 

necessary for safe operation. 

Wastes and Hazardous Materials 

Mitigation. Abengoa will develop and 

implement a waste management plan for 

construction and operation of the 

biorefinery. Abengoa will also develop 

and implement a contingency plan for 

alternative beneficial uses of the solid 

biomass boiler fly ash in the event that 

the waste management plan is not 

effective. 

Transportation Mitigation. To the 

extent practicable, Abengoa will stagger 

workforce schedules to minimize traffic 

delays and congestion. Abengoa will 

develop safety-based criteria to be used, 

in part, to select carriers, including 

elements of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration regulations, as 

well as provisions for drivers to be paid 

hourly and receive bonuses for accidentfree driving, mandatory safety training, 

and avoidance of teen-age drivers and 

drivers having less than 5-years 

experience. Abengoa will require 

carriers and drivers to meet the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

regulations. In addition, to the extent 

practicable, Abengoa will maximize the 

use of rail shipments to and from the 

Project site and will ensure the onsite 

rail system does not block railroad 

crossings near the site. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on the 15th day 

of December 2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–480 Filed 1–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0437; FRL–9251–3] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to OMB for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; Notification of Episodic 

Releases of Oil and Hazardous 

Substances (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 

1049.12, OMB Control No. 2050–0046 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document 

announces that an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) has been 

forwarded to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review and 

approval. This is a request to renew an 

existing approved collection. The ICR, 

which is abstracted below, describes the 

nature of the information collection and 

its estimated burden and cost. 

DATES: Additional comments may be 

submitted on or before February 11, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2010–0437, to (1) EPA online 

using http://www.regulations.gov (our 

preferred method), by e-mail to 

superfund.docket@epa.gov, or by mail 

to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Superfund Docket, 

Mailcode 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and 

(2) OMB by mail to: Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Beasley, Office of Emergency 

Management, Mailcode 5104A, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–564– 

1965; fax number: 202–564–8444; 

e-mail address: beasley.lynn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has 

submitted the following ICR to OMB for 

review and approval according to the 

procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. 

On June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36653), EPA 

sought comments on this ICR pursuant 

to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no 

comments. Any additional comments on 

this ICR should be submitted to EPA 

and OMB within 30 days of this notice. 

EPA has established a public docket 

for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–SFUND–2010–0437, which is 

available for online viewing at http://

www.regulations.gov, or in person 

viewing at the Superfund Docket in the 

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/ 

DC Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Reading Room 

is 202–566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Superfund Docket is 

202–566–0276. 

Use EPA’s electronic docket and 

comment system at 

www.regulations.gov, to submit or view 

public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the docket, and 

to access those documents in the docket 

that are available electronically. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then 

key in the docket ID number identified 

above. Please note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA 

receives them and without change, 

unless the comment contains 

copyrighted material, confidential 

business information (CBI), or other 

information whose public disclosure is 

restricted by statute. For further 

information about the electronic docket, 

go to http://www.regulations.gov. 

Title: Notification of Episodic 

Releases of Oil and Hazardous 

Substances (Renewal). 

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1049.12, 

OMB Control No. 2050–0046. 

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to 

expire on January 31, 2011. Under OMB 

regulations, the Agency may continue to 

conduct or sponsor the collection of 

information while this submission is 

pending at OMB. An Agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information, unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES