30800 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Authority: Section 1605 of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Public Law 

111–5. 

Dated: May 28, 2010. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13308 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

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, privatesector 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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
30802 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 

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 recharging 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 overpressurized 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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 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 DOErequired 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
30804 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 

(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, emailed, 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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Biomass Research and Development 

Technical Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces an 

open meeting of the Biomass Research 

and Development Technical Advisory 

Committee under Section 9008(d) of the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008. The Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) 

requires that agencies publish these 

notices in the Federal Register to allow 

for public participation. This notice 

announces the meeting of the Biomass 

Research and Development Technical 

Advisory Committee. 

DATES: 

June 23, 2010; 10:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. 

June 24, 2010; 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Hyatt Arlington, 1325 

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 

22209, (703) 525–1234. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura McCann, Designated Federal 

Officer for the Committee, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–7766; 

e-mail: laura.mccann@ee.doe.gov or T.J. 

Heibel at (410) 997–7778 ext. 223; email: theibel@bcs-hq.com. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Meeting: To provide 

advice and guidance that promotes 

research and development leading to the 

production of biobased fuels and 

biobased products. 

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will 

include the following: 

• Update on USDA Biomass R&D 

Activities. 

• Update on DOE Biomass R&D 

Activities. 

• Presentation on DOE/USDA Joint 

Solicitation Process. 

• Presentation on DOE and USDA 

loan guarantee programs. 

• Presentation on SC/NIFA joint 

solicitation (genetics). 

• Update on Biomass R&D Board 

Activities. 

Public Participation: In keeping with 

procedures, members of the public are 

welcome to observe the business of the 

Biomass Research and Development 

Technical Advisory Committee. To 

attend the meeting and/or to make oral 

statements regarding any of the items on 

the agenda, you should contact Laura 

McCann at 202–586–7766; E-mail: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES