```

[Federal Register: June 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 105)]
[Notices]               
[Page 30800-30804]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jn10-60]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for 
Texas Clean Energy Project, Ector County, TX

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Intent To Prepare An Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department) announces 
its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant 
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), 
and DOE NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021), to assess the 
potential environmental impacts for the proposed action of providing 
Federal funding for the proposed Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP) near 
Odessa, Texas. The project would comprise planning, design, 
construction and operation by Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC (Summit) 
of a coal-fueled electric power and chemicals production plant 
integrated with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and geologic 
sequestration. DOE selected this project for an award of financial 
assistance through a competitive process under the Clean Coal Power 
Initiative (CCPI) program (Round 3).
    The EIS (DOE/EIS-0444) will inform DOE's decision on whether to 
provide financial assistance under its CCPI program. DOE proposes to 
provide Summit with approximately $350 million in funding for this 
project, which would demonstrate the full integration of CO2 
capture and sequestration with a commercial, integrated gasification 
combined-cycle (IGCC) poly-generation (electricity and chemicals) 
plant. DOE's contribution of $350 million would constitute about 20 
percent of the estimated total development and capital cost of the 
project, which is estimated to be $1.73 billion (2009 dollars). TCEP 
would employ advanced clean coal technologies to reduce the levels of 
CO2 emissions below that of conventional technologies used 
to generate electricity from fossil fuels, including natural gas.
    Summit proposes to build its IGCC plant adjacent to an oil field in 
Ector County, Texas. The plant would use coal as its feedstock. It 
would capture, in the form of CO2, about 90% of the carbon 
in the portion of its coal fuel supply used for power production. The 
plant would employ two gasifiers, feeding a single, combined-cycle 
power island to generate about 400 MW (gross) of electricity, with the 
co-production of sulfuric acid and urea (for fertilizer) or other 
chemicals. About 275 MW of electricity would be put onto the power 
grid, with the remaining power used for commercial loads on the project 
site, such as urea production and CO2 compression. During 
DOE demonstration phase of the project, it would permanently sequester 
CO2 at a maximum rate of about 3 million tons per year by 
piping it to Permian Basin oil fields, where it would be used by field 
operators for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Summit is owned jointly by 
the Summit Power Group, Inc. and CW NextGen, Inc. (CWNI), a Clayton 
Williams company. The project team includes Summit Power Group, Inc.; 
Blue Source, LLC; Siemens, AG; and CWNI; among others.
    DOE issues this Notice of Intent (NOI) to inform interested parties 
of the pending EIS and to invite public comments on the proposed 
action, including: (1) The proposed plans for implementing the project, 
(2) the range of environmental issues and alternatives to be analyzed, 
and (3) the analysis methods to be used or considered during 
preparation of the EIS.

DATES: DOE invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the 
EIS from all interested parties. Comments must be received by July 2, 
2010, to ensure consideration. Late comments will be considered to the 
extent practicable. In addition to accepting comments in writing 
(formal letters, faxes and e-mails) and by telephone (See ADDRESSES 
below), DOE will conduct a public scoping meeting in which government 
agencies, private-sector organizations, and the general public are 
invited to present oral comments or suggestions with regard to the 
alternatives and issues to be considered in the EIS. The scoping 
meeting will be held beginning at 7 p.m. on Thursday, June 17, 2010, in 
the Saulsbury Meeting Room of the Electronics Technology Building at 
Odessa College, 201 West University Blvd, Odessa, Texas 79764. The 
public is also invited to learn more about the proposed project at an 
informal session at this location beginning at 4 p.m. Displays and 
other information about DOE's proposed action and Summit's project will 
be available, and representatives from DOE and Summit will be present 
at the informal session to discuss the proposed project, DOE's CCPI 
program, and the EIS process.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS and requests to 
participate in the public scoping meeting should be addressed to: Mr. 
Mark L. McKoy, 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, or request copies of the Draft EIS, should 
contact Mr. McKoy by telephone (304-285-4426), toll-free telephone (1-
800-432-8330 (ext. 4426), fax (304-285-4403), e-mail 
(Summit.EIS@netl.doe.gov), or formal mail submitted to the address 
given above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this 
project, contact Mr. Mark L. McKoy, as described above. For general 
information on the DOE NEPA process, please 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 
20585-0103; telephone: 202-586-4600; fax: 202-586-7031; or leave a 
toll-free message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Since the early 1970s, DOE and its predecessor agencies have 
pursued research and development programs that include large, 
technically complex projects in pursuit of innovation in a wide variety 
of coal technologies through the proof-of-concept stage. However, 
helping a technology reach the proof-of-concept stage does not ensure 
its continued development or commercialization. Before a technology can 
be considered seriously for commercialization, it must be demonstrated 
at a sufficient scale to prove its reliability and economically 
competitive performance. The financial risk associated with such large-
scale demonstration projects is often too high for the private sector 
to assume in the absence of strong incentives.
    The CCPI program was established in 2002 as a government and 
private sector partnership to implement the recommendation in President 
Bush's National Energy Policy to increase investment in clean coal 
technology.

[[Page 30801]]

Through cooperative agreements with its private sector partners, the 
program advances clean coal technologies to commercialization; these 
technologies often involve combustion improvements, control system 
advances, gasifier designs, pollution reductions (including greenhouse 
gas reduction), efficiency increases, fuel processing techniques and 
other improvements.
    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)). In February 2009, 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5, 123 
Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009)) (ARRA) appropriated $3.4 billion to DOE for 
``Fossil Energy Research and Development;'' the Department intends to 
use a significant portion of these funds to provide financial 
assistance to CCPI projects.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    The purpose and need for the DOE action are to advance the CCPI 
program by funding 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 that are currently in commercial service.

Summit's Proposed Project

Site of Proposed Project: Penwell, Texas

    The proposed site is located on 600 acres, approximately 15 miles 
southwest of the city of Odessa in Ector County, Texas. The site is on 
flat land north of the town of Penwell and Interstate Highway I-20. The 
proposed power plant property is arid, non-arable brush (mesquite-
lotebush-juniper) and range land. Surrounding areas are or were used 
primarily for ranching to the north and east and oil production to the 
west and south, with some scattered industrial facilities (quarry, 
cement plant, etc.) within sight to the east and south. There is an 
extensive junk yard of abandoned oil and gas equipment along the site's 
southern border, on the other side of a railroad. The site has access 
to coal delivery via rail along the southern border of the property, 
and it connects to I-20 via Farm-to-Market Road 1601. There are 
numerous oil fields within reach of existing CO2 pipelines 
(with the construction of short new connector pipelines) where the 
CO2 could be used in EOR operations. Most likely, 
CO2 would be transported in an existing regional 
CO2 pipeline network. A short, approximately two-mile, new 
CO2 pipeline could connect the power plant site to the 
nearest existing trunk pipeline.

Proposed Plant

    Summit would construct an IGCC poly-generation plant that is 
designed to capture approximately 90 percent of its CO2, and 
sequester it through use in EOR operations. Summit, or another entity, 
would operate the plant to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of a 
fully integrated, coal-fueled 400 MW-equivalent generating unit that 
would produce 275 MW of electricity for the power grid (with additional 
amounts for on-site commercial loads and plant use) plus sulfuric acid, 
urea and perhaps other chemicals such as ammonia, methanol or 
substitute natural gas. Following the demonstration phase, the project 
would continue long-term commercial operations with continuing sales of 
power, urea, captured CO2 and other chemical products.
    The new plant would consist of two gasifiers, a gas processing and 
cleanup system, a syngas-fueled combustion turbine, a heat-recovery 
steam generator, a steam turbine, a sulfur recovery plant, a chemicals 
production plant, and associated facilities. The system is designed 
with duplicate, over-sized gasifiers to ensure full-time availability 
of syngas production, with sufficient supply for both the production of 
electricity (more than 75 percent) and chemicals (less than 25 
percent).
    The plant proposed by Summit would gasify coal to produce 
``synthesis gas'' (or ``syngas''--mostly carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen 
gas (H2), CO2 and steam), which would be 
processed to increase the H2 content (by converting CO and 
H2O into H2 plus CO2) and cleaned of 
particulates and acid gases to produce a H2-rich, carbon-
lean fuel. The H2-rich fuel would power the gas combustion 
turbine, and CO2 emissions would be minimal (only a fraction 
of those of a natural gas power plant) as a result of the hydrogen-
rich, carbon-lean fuel. Hot exhaust gas from the gas combustion turbine 
would generate steam from water in the heat recovery steam generator to 
drive the steam turbine. Using a heat recovery steam generator and a 
steam turbine to capture energy from the exhaust gases of the 
combustion turbine is the essence of the combined-cycle approach and 
increases both efficiency and the total amount of electricity that can 
be generated from a quantity of coal. Both turbines would generate 
electricity for sale, with a part of the electricity diverted to 
service other parts of the poly-generation plant and on-site commercial 
loads. At full capacity, the plant would be expected to use about 5,800 
tons of low-sulfur coal per day (about 1.9 to 2.0 million tons per 
year). Coal would be delivered by railroad trains from the Powder River 
Basin and would be bought through contracts on the open market.
    The plant would minimize emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen 
oxides, mercury, and particulates as compared to conventional coal-
fueled power plants. In compliance with Texas House Bill 469, the 
project would be required to meet stringent emissions limits: 0.034 
pounds of NOX per million BTUs, 0.04 pounds of 
SOX per million BTUs, 95 percent reduction in mercury 
emissions, and 0.015 pounds of particulates per million BTUs. The 
project's air permit application with the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) includes even lower emissions limits than 
those required by HB 469. Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile 
organic compounds would be controlled.
    Steam from the gasification and syngas processing could be 
condensed, treated, and recycled into the gasifier or added to the 
plant's cooling water circuit. Slag from the gasifiers would be sold 
for beneficial uses. Other solid materials generated by the various 
plant processes would be accumulated on site and made available for 
beneficial use, recycling or, if these options are not available, 
disposed of in accordance with applicable laws.
    The chemical plant would use the Haber process to convert syngas 
into ammonia and the Bosch-Meiser process to convert ammonia into urea 
for fertilizer. With equipment additions or changes, other chemicals 
could be produced.
    Other notable equipment would include coal storage facilities, a 
coal preparation plant and coal feed system, air separators, stacks, 
mechanical draft cooling tower (dry cooling is planned for the power 
generation facilities and wet cooling for other portions of the plant), 
a unit for converting captured sulfur dioxide into sulfuric acid for 
sale on the market, and a particulate filtration system. The height of 
the tallest proposed stack would be approximately 140 feet above ground 
level. Additionally, the plant would require the construction of a 
railroad loop, coal unloading facilities, ash/slag handling facilities, 
access roads, administration buildings, water and

[[Page 30802]]

waste water treatment facilities, and a waste water disposal well. An 
underpass may be constructed beneath the adjoining railroad.

Proposed Linear Facilities

    Linear facilities are the power transmission lines and pipelines 
that convey electricity and materials to and from the plant. 
Electricity could be conveyed to regional 345 kV transmission lines via 
an approved ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) grid 
extension but could also be transmitted via local interconnects with 
either of two 138 kV transmission lines, one located approximately 0.7 
miles to the north and the other located 1.8 miles to the south. 
Rights-of-ways (ROWs) would be approximately 200 ft wide. An electrical 
substation would be constructed to facilitate the connection to the 
grid.
    Process water would be obtained from local wastewater treatment 
facilities (using effluent from the Gulf Coast Authority, the City of 
Odessa, and/or the City of Midland) or from a re-charging aquifer in 
the region. Other water supply options may be considered during the 
project planning. The water would be conveyed by one or more new 
pipelines constructed on a combination of existing and new ROWs over 
distances ranging between about 10 miles and 54 miles.
    Wastewater would be processed in a new on-site wastewater treatment 
plant. The plant would be designed for zero liquid discharge.
    Natural gas, which would be used to start the plant, would be 
obtained from an existing pipeline that traverses the proposed project 
site or from a gas line located either to the north or to the south of 
the site. Natural gas also may be used to fuel the power island 
initially, while the remainder of the plant is under construction.
    The plant may deliver its CO2 to the existing Central 
Basin CO2 pipeline, which is less than two miles to the east 
of the proposed plant site. In this option, a short new pipeline would 
be constructed eastwards along new ROW. Alternatively, new pipelines 
could be constructed to either existing oil fields or to other existing 
pipelines. New ROWs would require widths of 100 ft for construction and 
approximately 50 ft for pipeline operations. Sales and conveyance 
options for CO2 are currently under consideration and 
negotiation.

Proposed Use of CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery and 
Sequestration

    During DOE's demonstration phase of plant operations, the project 
would sequester about 3 million tons of CO2 per year by 
transporting it in pipelines to oil fields in the Permian Basin of west 
Texas for use in EOR operations. These fields are well characterized, 
and some already make extensive use of CO2 for EOR. As a 
consequence of EOR operations, most of the captured CO2 
(more than 99 percent) would be sequestered in deep underground 
geologic formations that would be monitored to verify the quantity and 
permanence of CO2 storage. The use of CO2 in this 
manner would continue the existing uses of the subject fields, namely 
enhanced oil production using CO2.
    The EOR process involves the repeated injection of CO2 
to reduce the oil's viscosity and to move it through the reservoir. 
During EOR operations, pore space left by the extracted oil is occupied 
by the injected CO2, sequestering it in the geologic 
formation. Reservoirs are not over-pressurized from CO2 for 
EOR operations, because fluid volumes are removed from the reservoirs 
in amounts corresponding to those injected in the reservoirs.

Summit's Technology Alternatives

    Summit has proposed to use Siemens SFG-500 gasifiers and a Siemens 
F-class combined-cycle power island. As plans progress, Summit will 
make a final selection of air separation technology, water/gas shift 
reactor technology, acid gas removal system technology (for capturing 
both CO2 and acid gases, such as H2S), sulfur 
recovery technology (e.g., Claus process), and urea production 
technology (e.g., combination of the Haber ammonia production process 
and Bosch-Meiser urea production process). Summit has proposed to use 
only commercially proven, fully warranted equipment to reduce risks and 
costs. The technological advancement is in the integration of all these 
components. A competitive process would be used to select vendors and 
manufacturers (other than for the Siemens-supplied equipment). A wide 
variety of chemicals could be produced, depending on chemical 
processing equipment installed. Current plans indicate market viability 
for the production and sale of urea (for fertilizer), ammonia, methanol 
and substitute natural gas (SNG).

Proposed Project Schedule

    The project proposed by Summit includes the planning, design, 
construction, initial start-up, and early operation of the plant and 
associated facilities for a period of three years under the DOE 
demonstration phase. Thereafter the plant and associated facilities, 
including the capture and sale of CO2, would be expected to 
continue for 30 to 50 years. Summit plans to start construction during 
2011 and commercial operations (demonstration phase) by late 2014. The 
schedule is contingent upon Summit receiving the necessary permits 
(which would be preceded by hearings, public comment opportunities and 
other events mandated by applicable regulations and agency procedures) 
and 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 expensive equipment, 
construction, and operations will be informed by the NEPA process.

Connected and Cumulative Actions

    Under the cooperative agreement between DOE and Summit, DOE would 
share in the cost of the power and chemical plant, supporting 
facilities and site infrastructure (including that required for 
sequestration monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA), and the 
costs associated with implementing and documenting the results of the 
demonstration test plan during the demonstration phase). Under this 
agreement, DOE would not share in the costs of normal plant operations 
during the demonstration phase. For activities that would not occur if 
not for this project, DOE will consider these as connected actions and 
will evaluate them in the EIS.
    DOE will consider the cumulative impacts of both the cost-shared 
activities and other activities, along with any other connected 
actions, including those of third parties. Cumulative impacts analysis 
will include the analysis of pollutant emissions (including greenhouse 
gas emissions) and other incremental impacts that, when added to past, 
present and reasonably foreseeable future impacts, may have significant 
effects on the human environment. DOE will not consider impacts 
associated with the purchase of commodities (such as coal) on the open 
market, coal mining, or the transportation of coal as a general 
industrial activity (as distinguished from the delivery of coal to the 
project site, specifically), given these impacts are generally well 
known and would occur regardless of DOE's decision regarding financial 
assistance for this project. No coal for this project would come from 
``mountaintop removal'' forms of mining, which are not practiced in the 
Powder River Basin.

[[Page 30803]]

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

    NEPA requires that agencies evaluate the reasonable alternatives to 
their proposed action. The purpose and need for agency action 
determines the range of reasonable alternatives. In this case, the 
purpose and need for DOE's proposed action--providing cost-shared 
funding for Summit's project--is to advance the CCPI program by funding 
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 that are 
currently in service.
    DOE's NEPA regulations include a process for identifying and 
analyzing reasonable alternatives in the context of providing financial 
assistance through a 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 by DOE itself, 
the Department 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 among 
the applications that meet the program's goals.
    Recognizing that the range of reasonable alternatives in the 
context of financial assistance and contracting is determined by the 
number and nature of the proposals received, section 216 of DOE's NEPA 
regulations requires the Department to prepare an ``environmental 
critique'' that assesses the environmental impacts and issues relating 
to each of the proposals that the DOE selecting official considers for 
an award. See 10 CFR 1021.216. This official considers 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. DOE prepared a critique of the proposals that were 
deemed suitable for selection in this round of awards for the CCPI 
program. DOE will prepare an ``environmental synopsis,'' based on the 
critique, to document consideration given to environmental factors. DOE 
will make the synopsis available to the public by posting it on NETL's 
Web site.
    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 
particular location of the plant on the parcel of land proposed for the 
project) and a ``no action'' alternative. Regarding a no action 
alternative, DOE assumes for purposes of the EIS that, if it decides to 
withhold financial assistance, the project would not proceed.
    DOE currently plans to evaluate the project as proposed by Summit 
(with and without any mitigating conditions that DOE may identify as 
reasonable and appropriate); alternatives to Summit's proposal that it 
is still considering (e.g., water sources, sales options for 
CO2, and the ROWs for linear facilities); and the no action 
alternative. DOE and Summit will consider other reasonable alternatives 
suggested during the scoping period.
    Under the no action alternative, DOE would not provide funding to 
Summit. In the absence of financial assistance from DOE, Summit 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 DOE's proposed action, except any DOE-required mitigations 
would not be imposed. Or, Summit 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 considered by Summit in developing its proposed 
project will be discussed in the EIS. Summit considered a number of 
sites (six in Texas alone) and determined that the only reasonable site 
for continued consideration is the one at Penwell. Summit's 
consideration included market opportunities and conditions, local 
infrastructure, physical suitability of the sites, and environmental 
concerns. Two of the sites had already been environmentally reviewed 
and cleared for a very similar project, FutureGen (reference: DOE/EIS-
0394). In particular, Summit sought a site where CO2 sales 
options were readily available and the market was strong and dependable 
so that there would be no reliance on pending legislation for 
CO2 capture and sequestration and no need for a long 
CO2 pipeline that might not be built. The EIS will briefly 
describe Summit's site selection process. However, DOE does not plan to 
analyze in detail any alternative sites considered and dismissed by 
Summit because Summit is no longer considering these other alternatives 
and because they were not part of the proposal that Summit offered and 
DOE accepted.

Floodplains and Wetlands

    The footprint of the proposed plant would not affect any wetlands 
or floodplains. Wetland and floodplain impacts, if any, from 
construction of pipelines and transmission lines would be identified 
during the preparation of the EIS and described in the EIS. In the 
event that the EIS identifies wetlands and floodplains that would be 
affected by the proposed project, including its linear facilities and 
connected actions, DOE will prepare a floodplain and wetland assessment 
in accordance with its regulations at 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 
Summit's proposed project and any connected actions. This list is 
neither intended to be inclusive nor a predetermined set of potential 
impacts. DOE invites comments on whether this is the correct list of 
important issues that should be considered in the EIS. The 
environmental issues include:
     Air quality impacts: Potential for air emissions during 
construction and operation of the power plant and appurtenant 
facilities to impact local sensitive receptors, local environmental 
conditions, and special-use areas, including contributions to smog and 
haze, impacts from dust and any significant vapor plumes, and 
consequences of greenhouse gas emissions;
     Water resource impacts: Potential impacts from water 
utilization and evaporation;
     Infrastructure and land use impacts: Potential 
environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the project, 
including delivery of feed materials and distribution of products

[[Page 30804]]

(e.g., power transmission lines, pipelines);
     Visual impacts associated with facility structures: View 
shed impacts, impacts to scenic views (e.g., impacts caused by the 
plant structures, water vapor plumes, flares, power transmission lines, 
pipelines), internal and external perception of the community or 
locality;
     Solid waste impacts: Pollution prevention and waste 
management issues (generation, treatment, transport, storage, disposal 
or use), including the handling of slag, water treatment sludge, sulfur 
by-products, and hazardous materials;
     Ecological impacts: Potential on-site and off-site impacts 
to vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, aquatic wildlife, threatened or 
endangered species, and ecologically sensitive habitats;
     Traffic issues: 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 resource issues: Potential impacts, 
primarily related to linear facilities and connected actions;
     Fate and stability of sequestered CO2 (and 
other captured gases) during and after EOR usage;
     Health and safety issues associated with CO2 
capture, transport, and usage in EOR;
     Marketability of products (including by-products) and 
market access to feedstocks;
     Socio-economic impacts, including the creation of jobs and 
the impacts of State and local tax incentives;
     Disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income 
populations;
     Noise and light impacts: Potential impacts from 
construction, transportation of materials, and facility operations;
     Connected actions: Potential development of support 
facilities or supporting infrastructure;
     Cumulative effects that result from the incremental 
impacts of the proposed project when added to other past, present, and 
reasonably foreseeable future projects;
     Compliance with regulatory requirements and environmental 
permitting;
     Environmental monitoring plans associated with the power 
plant and with the CO2 sequestration sites.

Public Scoping Process

    To ensure identification of all issues related to DOE's proposed 
action and Summit's proposed project, DOE seeks public input to define 
the scope of the EIS. The public scoping period will end on July 2, 
2010. Interested government agencies, 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, e-mailed, faxed, or telephoned comments should be received by 
July 2, 2010 (see ADDRESSES).
    DOE will conduct a public scoping meeting beginning at 7 p.m. on 
Thursday, June 17, 2010 in the Saulsbury Meeting Room of the 
Electronics Technology Building at Odessa College, 201 West University 
Blvd., Odessa, Texas 79764. The public is also invited to learn more 
about the proposed project at an informal session at this location 
beginning at 4 p.m. Anyone who wishes to speak at this public scoping 
meeting should contact Mr. Mark L. McKoy, either by phone, fax, e-mail, 
or letter (see ADDRESSES).
    Those who do not arrange in advance to speak may register at the 
meeting (preferably at the beginning of the meeting) and may speak 
after previously scheduled speakers. Speakers will be given 
approximately five minutes to present their comments. Those speakers 
who want more than five minutes should indicate the length of time 
desired in their request. Depending on the number of speakers, DOE may 
need to limit all speakers to five minutes initially and provide second 
opportunities as time permits. Speakers may also provide written 
materials to supplement their presentations. Oral and written comments 
will be given equal consideration. Federal, State and local elected 
officials and tribal leaders may be given priority in the order of 
those making oral comments.
    DOE will begin the formal meeting with an overview of Summit's 
proposed Texas Clean Energy Project. The meeting will not be conducted 
as an evidentiary hearing, and speakers will not be cross-examined. 
However, speakers may be asked 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 meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 27th day of May, 2010.
James J. Markowsky,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-13215 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```