Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17143 

c. Submission of Paper Applications 

by Hand Delivery. 

If you submit your application in 

paper format by hand delivery, you (or 

a courier service) must deliver the 

original and two copies of your 

application by hand, on or before the 

application deadline date, to the 

Department at the following address: 

U.S. Department of Education, 

Application Control Center, Attention: 

(CFDA Number 84.184E), 550 12th 

Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center 

Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. 

The Application Control Center 

accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC 

time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and 

Federal holidays. 

Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper 

Applications: If you mail or hand deliver 

your application to the Department—

(1) You must indicate on the envelope 

and—if not provided by the Department—in 

Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, 

including suffix letter, if any, of the 

competition under which you are submitting 

your application; and 

(2) The Application Control Center will 

mail to you a notification of receipt of your 

grant application. If you do not receive this 

notification within 15 business days from the 

application deadline date, you should call 

the U.S. Department of Education 

Application Control Center at (202) 245–

6288. 

V. Application Review Information 

1. Selection Criteria: The selection 

criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 

75.210 and are listed in the application 

package. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your application 

is successful, we notify your U.S. 

Representative and U.S. Senators and 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN). We may also notify you 

informally. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: If funded, you are 

expected to collect data on the key 

Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA) performance measures for 

this program and report those data to 

the Department in your interim 

performance report and final 

performance report. At the end of your 

project period, you must submit a final 

performance report, including financial 

information, as directed by the 

Secretary. You must also submit an 

interim report nine months after the 

award date. This report should provide 

the most current performance and 

financial expenditure information as 

specified by the Secretary in 34 CFR 

75.118. We may also require more 

frequent performance reports in 

accordance with 34 CFR 75.720(c). 

4. Performance Measures: We have 

identified the following key GPRA 

performance measures for assessing the 

effectiveness of the Readiness and 

Emergency Management for Schools 

grant program: (1) The percentage of 

Emergency Management Grant sites that 

demonstrate they have increased the 

number of hazards addressed by the 

improved school emergency 

management plan as compared to the 

baseline plan; (2) The percentage of 

Emergency Management Grant sites that 

demonstrate improved knowledge of 

school/and or district emergency 

management policies and procedures by 

school staff with responsibility for 

emergency management functions; and 

(3) The percentage of Emergency 

Management Grant sites that have a plan 

for, and commitment to, the 

sustainability and continuous 

improvement of the school emergency 

management plan by the district and 

community partners beyond the period 

of Federal financial assistance. 

VII. Agency Contact 

For Further Information Contact: Sara 

Strizzi, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Ave., SW., room 3E320, 

Washington, DC 20202–6450. 

Telephone: (202) 708–4850 or by e-mail: 

sara.strizzi@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–

800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

format (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed in this section. 

VIII. Other Information 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You may view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

You may also view this document in 

text or PDF at the following site: 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/ 

dvpemergencyresponse/index.html 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

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

index.html. 

Dated: April 3, 2007. 

Deborah A. Price, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools. 

[FR Doc. E7–6503 Filed 4–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision, Orlando 

Gasification Project, Orlando, Orange 

County, FL 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) has prepared an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS–0383) 

to assess the environmental impacts 

associated with a proposed project that 

would be cost-shared by DOE and 

Southern Company (in partnership with 

the Orlando Utilities Commission) 

(OUC) under DOE’s Clean Coal Power 

Initiative (CCPI) program. The project 

would demonstrate advanced power 

generation systems using Integrated 

Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) 

technology at OUC’s existing Stanton 

Energy Center near Orlando, Florida. 

After careful consideration of the 

potential environmental impacts, along 

with program goals and objectives, DOE 

has decided that it will provide, through 

a cooperative agreement with Southern 

Company, a total of $235 million in 

cost-shared funding (about 41% of the 

total cost of approximately $569 

million) to design, construct, and 

demonstrate the Orlando Gasification 

Project proposed by Southern Company. 

ADDRESSES: The final EIS is available on 

the DOE NEPA Web site at http:// 

www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ 

documentspub.html and on the DOE 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
17144 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

Web site at http://www.netl.doe.gov/ 

technologies/coalpower/cctc/EIS/ 

eis_orlando.html, and the Record of 

Decision (ROD) will be available on 

both Web sites in the near future. Copies 

of the final EIS and this ROD may be 

requested by contacting Mr. Richard A. 

Hargis, Jr., National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, 

U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Energy Technology Laboratory, 626 

Cochrans Mill Road, P.O. Box 10940, 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236–0940; telephone: 

412–386–6065; or e-mail: 

Richard.Hargis@netl.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

obtain additional information about the 

project or the EIS, contact Mr. Richard 

A. Hargis, Jr., National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, 

U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Energy Technology Laboratory, 626 

Cochrans Mill Road, P.O. Box 10940, 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236–0940; telephone: 

412–386–6065; or e-mail: 

Richard.Hargis@netl.doe.gov. For 

general information on the DOE NEPA 

process, contact Ms. Carol M. 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance (GC–20), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103; telephone: 

202–586–4600; or leave a toll-free 

message at 1–800–472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE has 

prepared this ROD pursuant to Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA [40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 

1500–1508] and DOE NEPA regulations 

(10 CFR Part 1021). This ROD is based 

on DOE’s final EIS for the Orlando 

Gasification Project (DOE/EIS–0383, 

January 2007). 

Background and Purpose and Need for 

Agency Action 

In 2002, the U.S. Congress established 

the CCPI program to accelerate 

commercial deployment of advanced 

coal-based technologies for generating 

clean, reliable, and affordable electricity 

in the United States. Congress indicated 

that projects in the program should be 

industry enterprises assisted by the 

government and not governmentdirected demonstrations. These projects 

are expected to showcase technologies 

in which coal-fired power plants can 

continue to generate low cost electricity 

with improved efficiency and comply 

with more stringent environmental 

standards expected in the future. 

DOE issued the second-round CCPI 

solicitation in February 2004 and 

received 13 proposals in June 2004. The 

Orlando Gasification Project (‘‘Orlando 

Project’’) was one of four projects 

selected in October 2004 for further 

consideration. Evaluation criteria used 

in the selection process included 

technical merit of the proposed 

technology, potential for a successful 

demonstration of the technology, and 

potential for the technology to be 

commercialized. DOE also considered 

the participant’s funding and financial 

proposal; DOE budget constraints; 

environmental, health, and safety 

implications; and program policy 

factors, such as DOE’s preference for 

projects that represent a diversity of 

technologies, utilize a broad range of 

U.S. coals, and represent a broad 

geographical cross-section of the United 

States. 

DOE selected the Orlando Project for 

further consideration in view of two 

principal needs. First, the project would 

meet the Congressional mandate to 

demonstrate advanced coal-based 

technologies that can generate clean, 

reliable, and affordable electricity in the 

United States. Second, the 

demonstration would provide a more 

cost-effective fuel supply for integration 

with a privately funded combined-cycle 

unit to generate electricity. 

More specifically, the Orlando Project 

could demonstrate advanced coal 

gasification for power generation 

applications using IGCC technology at a 

sufficiently large scale to allow 

industries and utilities to assess the 

project’s potential for commercial 

application. A successful demonstration 

would confirm that the technology 

could be implemented at the 

commercial scale. The cost-shared 

contribution by DOE would help reduce 

the risk to the Southern Company team 

in demonstrating the technology at the 

level of maturity needed for decisions 

on commercialization. 

Further, the transport gasifier 

technology that would be demonstrated 

offers a simpler method for generating 

power from coal than other alternatives. 

It is unique among coal gasification 

technologies in that it is cost-effective 

when handling low rank coals and 

when using coals with high moisture or 

high ash content. These coals make up 

half the proven reserves in both the U.S. 

and the world. Moreover, the transport 

gasifier is capable of both air- and 

oxygen-blown operation. This inherent 

flexibility will allow it to readily adapt 

to other applications beyond power 

generation including chemical 

production and possible future carbon 

management requirements. 

EIS Process 

On August 11, 2005, DOE published 

in the Federal Register (70 FR 46825) a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS 

and hold a public scoping meeting. DOE 

held a public scoping meeting in 

Orlando, Florida, on August 30, 2005. 

DOE received 11 oral responses at the 

public scoping meeting and 11 

responses by comment card, mail, email, and telephone from members of 

the public, interested groups, and 

Federal, state, and local officials. The 

responses assisted in establishing 

additional issues to be analyzed in the 

EIS and in determining the level of 

analysis warranted for each issue. 

On August 24, 2006, DOE published 

in the Federal Register (71 FR 50051) a 

Notice of Availability for the Orlando 

Gasification Project draft EIS. The 

Notice of Availability invited comments 

on the draft EIS and participation in the 

NEPA process. As part of the review 

process, DOE conducted a public 

hearing on September 13, 2006, in 

Orlando, Florida. DOE also conducted 

an informational session prior to the 

hearing for the public to learn more 

about the proposed project. The public 

was encouraged to provide oral 

comments at the hearings and to submit 

written comments to DOE during a 45- 

day public comment period that ended 

October 10, 2006. DOE received oral 

comments from two individuals at the 

public hearing, and written comments 

from three individuals, one nongovernmental organization, two Federal 

agencies, and one local agency during 

and after the public hearing. 

In January 2007, DOE issued the final 

EIS and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) published a Notice of 

Availability of the final EIS in the 

Federal Register on January 26, 2007 

(72 FR 3846). In the final EIS, DOE 

considered and, as appropriate, 

responded to public comments on the 

draft EIS. Among the issues raised in the 

comments on the draft EIS were 

concerns about (1) Carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions and mitigation options; (2) 

vehicle and rail traffic; (3) mercury 

deposition and bioaccumulation; (4) 

ambient concentrations of ozone; (5) 

environmental justice considerations; 

and (6) air toxics impacts. 

Project Location and Description 

The Orlando Project would be located 

at OUC’s existing 3,280-acre Stanton 

Energy Center in eastern Orange County, 

approximately 3 miles east of the 

eastern city limits of Orlando, Florida, 

and about 13 miles east-southeast of 

downtown Orlando. The topography of 

the area is relatively flat. The new 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17145 

facilities would be constructed on 

approximately 35 of the 1,100 acres of 

land that were previously cleared, 

leveled, and licensed for power plant 

use. The project equipment would be 

located between existing coal-fired units 

and an existing natural gas-fired 

combined-cycle unit. A short 

transmission line (approximately 3,200 

ft in length), proposed to serve as an 

electrical interconnection from the 

proposed facilities to an existing onsite 

substation, would occupy a small 

amount of additional land. Land use in 

the vicinity includes undeveloped areas 

interspersed with a mixture of 

residential and commercial buildings, as 

well as a park, correctional facility, and 

landfill. 

Construction would begin in late 2007 

and continue until early 2010. An 

average of about 350 construction 

workers would be on the site during 

construction. Approximately 600 to 700 

workers would be required during the 

peak construction period between fall 

2008 and spring 2009. After mechanical 

checkout of the proposed facilities, 

demonstration (including data analysis 

and process evaluation) would be 

conducted over a 4.5-year period from 

mid 2010 until late 2014. 

If the demonstration is successful, 

commercial operation would follow 

immediately. The combined workforce 

(i.e., including the Orlando Gasification 

Project and the combined-cycle 

generating unit) would consist of 

approximately 72 employees added to 

the existing Stanton Energy Center staff 

of 204 employees. Of the 72 new 

employees, 19 workers would provide 

support only during the startup and 

demonstration phases of the project, 

while 53 employees would be needed 

over the lifetime of the facilities. The 

facilities would be designed for a 

lifetime of at least 20 years, including 

the 4.5-year demonstration period. 

The new coal gasifier would operate 

entirely on coal, consuming a total of 

approximately 1,020,000 tons per year 

to produce synthesis gas. Two to three 

trains per week would deliver lowsulfur subbituminous coal from the 

Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The 

heating value of the coal would average 

about 8,760 Btu/lb and the sulfur 

content would average about 0.26%. 

Most air emissions would result from 

combustion of synthesis gas in the gas 

combustion turbine during normal 

operations. The exhaust gas would be 

released to the atmosphere via a 205-ft 

stack. 

Alternatives 

Congress directed DOE to pursue the 

goals of the CCPI Program by means of 

partial funding of projects owned and 

controlled by non-Federal sponsors. 

This statutory requirement places DOE 

in a much more limited role than if the 

Federal government were the owner and 

operator of the project. In the latter 

situation, DOE would be responsible for 

a comprehensive review of reasonable 

alternatives for siting the project. 

However, in dealing with an applicant 

under the CCPI Program, DOE must 

focus on alternative ways to accomplish 

CCPI’s purpose that reflect both the 

application before it and the role DOE 

plays in the decisional process. It is 

appropriate in such cases for DOE to 

give substantial weight to the 

applicant’s desires in establishing a 

project’s reasonable alternatives. 

Based on the foregoing principles, the 

only reasonable alternative here to the 

proposed action was the no-action 

alternative, including one scenario that 

could reasonably be expected to result 

as a consequence of the no-action 

alternative. DOE dismissed from further 

consideration other alternatives that did 

not meet the goals and objectives of the 

CCPI Program or of the applicant. 

The Stanton Energy Center was the 

only location identified in Southern’s 

CCPI proposal. It is an existing site at 

which the private partners have already 

established a business relationship. 

Because it is an existing site, DOE 

concluded that it would be preferable to 

any undeveloped location. 

DOE considered alternative 

technologies but dismissed them as 

unreasonable. Technologies and 

approaches that did not involve the use 

of coal (e.g., natural gas, wind power, 

solar energy, and conservation) would 

not contribute to the CCPI Program goal 

of accelerating commercial deployment 

of advanced coal-based technologies. 

Other alternatives, such as reducing the 

size of the proposed project, were 

dismissed as unreasonable. The design 

size for the proposed project was 

selected because it is sufficiently large 

to show potential customers that the 

gasification technology, once 

demonstrated at this scale, could be 

applied commercially without further 

scale-up. The size of the proposed 

project is also related to OUC’s 

projected need for power. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action is for DOE to 

provide Southern Company a total of 

$235 million in cost-shared funding to 

design, construct, and demonstrate the 

Orlando Project. A portion ($13.762 

million) of this funding has already 

been provided for activities in the first 

budget period, such as project 

definition, front-end engineering design, 

environmental permitting activities, and 

preparation of environmental 

information for NEPA analysis. 

Although DOE funding would support 

only the Orlando Project (i.e., coal 

gasifier, synthesis gas cleanup systems, 

and supporting infrastructure), the 

Orlando Project would be integrated 

with a privately funded, combined-cycle 

unit, which together would constitute 

the IGCC facilities. The IGCC facilities 

would convert coal into synthesis gas to 

drive a gas combustion turbine, and hot 

exhaust gas from the gas turbine would 

generate steam from water to drive a 

steam turbine. Combined, the two 

turbines would generate 285 MW 

(megawatts) of electricity. This proven, 

reliable combined-cycle approach of 

using a gas turbine and steam turbine in 

tandem increases the amount of 

electricity that can be generated from a 

given amount of fuel. The IGCC 

facilities are expected to provide a 

source of electricity that is reliable, low 

cost, environmentally sound, and 

efficient. DOE expects that 

approximately 40% of the energy in the 

fuel would be converted to electricity 

compared to about 33% for 

conventional coal-fired power plants. 

The IGCC facilities would substantially 

reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and 

mercury relative to existing, 

conventional coal-fired power plants. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, DOE 

would not provide cost-shared funding 

for the design, construction, and 

demonstration of the proposed Orlando 

Project at OUC’s Stanton Energy Center 

near Orlando, Florida. Based on 

information from the private partners, 

without DOE participation, Southern 

Company and/or OUC could reasonably 

be expected to pursue at least one 

option (i.e., the combined-cycle 

facilities would be built at the Stanton 

Energy Center and operated using 

natural gas as fuel, without the gasifier, 

synthesis gas cleanup systems, and 

supporting infrastructure). Accordingly, 

DOE analyzed a no-action alternative 

scenario in which combined-cycle 

facilities would operate using natural 

gas as fuel without the availability of 

synthesis gas. Under the no-action 

alternative, commercialization of the 

gasification facilities (alone or 

integrated with the combined-cycle 

facilities to form IGCC technology) 

would probably not occur because 

utilities and industries tend to use 

known and demonstrated technologies 

rather than unproven technologies. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
17146 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

Potential Environmental Impacts and 

Mitigation Measures 

In making its decision, DOE 

considered the environmental impacts 

of the proposed action and the no-action 

alternative on potentially affected 

environmental resource areas. These 

include: land use and aesthetics, 

atmospheric resources and air quality, 

geology and soils, water resources, 

floodplains and wetlands, ecological 

resources, social and economic 

resources (including environmental 

justice and cultural resources), waste 

management, human health and safety, 

noise, and transportation. While the 

proposed project consists of only the 

gasifier, synthesis gas cleanup systems, 

and supporting infrastructure, the EIS 

includes the combined-cycle generating 

unit in the analysis of environmental 

impacts because the facilities are 

operationally interdependent. The EIS 

considers the impacts from these 

facilities combined with those from 

other, existing facilities at the Stanton 

Energy Center, and also examines 

potential incremental impacts of the 

project in combination with other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions (i.e., cumulative impacts). 

The following sections provide key 

findings for areas of potential concern. 

Land Use and Aesthetics 

The Orlando Project would be 

confined to the existing Stanton Energy 

Center site and thus would not directly 

affect offsite land use. The 1,100-acre 

developed portion of the power plant 

site is already zoned specifically for 

power generation through the site 

certification process under the Florida 

Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. The 

tallest new structures would be the 205- 

ft heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) 

stack, the 174-ft structure to house the 

gasifier, and the 114-ft HRSG. These 

structures would be shorter than the 

existing two 550-ft stacks serving two 

boiler buildings. Aesthetic impacts 

would be reduced because the facilities 

would be located between existing 

facilities, appearing as part of the site. 

Under the no-action alternative, 

offsite land use would be the same, but 

because the 174-ft structure to house the 

gasifier would not be required, aesthetic 

impacts would be less than those 

predicted under the proposed action. 

Air Resources 

Modeling results based on emissions 

from the Orlando Project predicted that 

maximum concentrations would be less 

than their corresponding ‘‘significant 

impact levels.’’ (Under EPA guidelines, 

if maximum predicted concentrations 

are less than ‘‘significant impact levels,’’

then no further modeling for regulatory 

purposes is required.) Modeling results 

also predicted that, combined with 

ambient background concentrations, 

pollutant concentrations from Orlando 

Project emissions would be less than 

corresponding ambient air quality 

standards. Concentrations would be 

negligible at the nearest Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I 

area about 90 miles to the westnorthwest. (Class I areas are designated 

areas in which the degradation of air 

quality is to be severely restricted.) 

Annual NOX emissions from the Stanton 

Energy Center overall would not be 

expected to increase because, as part of 

the air permitting process, OUC has 

agreed to reduce NOX emissions from 

other units at the Stanton Energy Center 

so that there would be a net decrease in 

NOX emissions. Annual emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a 

precursor of the criteria pollutant ozone, 

would be 129 tons. The small 

percentage increase in VOC emissions 

(approximately 0.3% of the Orange 

County 2001 emission inventory) would 

not be likely to degrade air quality 

sufficiently to cause violations of the 

ozone standard, but the magnitude of 

the degradation cannot be quantified. 

The maximum ambient 24-hour 

concentration of mercury from the 

proposed HRSG stack is predicted to be 

0.8% of its corresponding guideline 

value, and the maximum ambient 24- 

hour concentration of beryllium from 

the stack is predicted to be 0.4% of its 

guideline value. These results indicate 

that mercury and beryllium emissions 

from the proposed facilities alone or in 

combination with other sources would 

pose no threat to human health in the 

area. Any potential odors would be 

limited to the immediate site area and 

would not affect offsite areas. Increases 

in CO2 emissions from the proposed 

facilities would add 1.8 million tons per 

year to an estimated global emission of 

26,000 million tons per year. 

The proposed project would 

significantly reduce additional SO2, 

NOX, mercury, and particulate 

emissions by removing constituents 

from the synthesis gas. The removal of 

approximately 80% of the fuel-bound 

nitrogen from the synthesis gas prior to 

combustion in the gas turbine would 

result in appreciably lower NOX

emissions compared to existing, 

conventional coal-fired power plants. 

The project is expected to remove up to 

95% of sulfur and over 90% of mercury 

emissions. Over 99.9% of particulate 

emissions would be removed. 

During operation, a number of means 

would be employed to reduce emissions 

of air pollutants, including: (1) 

Application of Best Available Control 

Technology; (2) enclosure of coal 

unloading, transfer, and conveying 

equipment, plus application of water 

sprays, as needed, and use of baghouses 

at key transfer points; (3) use of high 

temperature, high pressure filters within 

the gasification process to collect 

particulate matter from the synthesis 

gas; (4) use of gas cleanup technology to 

reduce sulfur concentrations in the 

synthesis gas; and (5) use of activated 

carbon to remove mercury from the 

synthesis gas. 

Southern would monitor to ensure 

emissions compliance. DOE expects the 

proposed facilities to be subject to the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule, Clean Air 

Mercury Rule, applicable New Source 

Performance Standards, and 40 CFR Part 

75 (Acid Rain Program). In general, 

these Federal rules require continuous 

monitoring and recording of SO2, NOX, 

and mercury emissions. Monitoring 

would be subject to stringent quality 

assurance and control requirements to 

ensure that the monitored emissions 

data are accurate and complete. 

Southern would conduct initial and 

periodic compliance testing pursuant to 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection requirements. This stack 

testing, using EPA reference methods, is 

expected to address the principal air 

pollutants emitted by the proposed 

facilities, including carbon monoxide, 

VOCs, and particulate matter. 

Approximately 25% less CO2 would 

be produced per unit of power 

generated compared to typical emission 

rates at existing, conventional coal-fired 

power plants. However, there would be 

a net increase in global emissions of 

CO2. For this project, mitigation, such as 

capture and sequestration, is not 

feasible because the planned sulfur 

removal technology would not generate 

a concentrated CO2 stream. However, 

even if the facilities were to generate a 

concentrated CO2 stream, the nearest 

location amenable to CO2 sequestration 

options that have been demonstrated at 

the scale needed (i.e., enhanced oil 

recovery) would be hundreds of miles 

away. The feasibility and effectiveness 

of other sequestration options, such as 

injection into saline formations, are not 

promising for this area and have not 

been fully characterized. Sequestration 

options for all regions of the country are 

still under investigation in DOE’s 

Carbon Sequestration Program. A 

program goal is to initiate at least one 

large-scale demonstration, at the scale 

required for a power plant, in 2009 to 

demonstrate the appropriateness for CO2

injectivity and validate storage capacity 

estimates and permanence. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17147 

Under the no-action alternative, 

emissions of air pollutants would be 

less than those predicted for the new 

facilities. Also, because the flare would 

not be required, no occasional emissions 

from a flare would occur. 

Water Resources 

Because construction would occur in 

developed site areas where surface 

water runoff is directed to onsite 

stormwater retention ponds and is used 

in the facilities, no impacts to natural 

surface waters would be experienced, 

except in the unlikely event of a major 

storm that caused overflow of the site 

stormwater collection system. 

Transmission line construction outside 

the main plant area could result in soil 

erosion and sediment deposition to 

streams, but best management practices 

described below would minimize 

erosion and sedimentation. Impacts 

from lowering the water table during 

dewatering would be inconsequential. 

Because operation of the facilities 

would not withdraw surface water or 

discharge liquid effluent, surface waters 

would experience no direct impacts. 

The Stanton Energy Center’s use of 

reclaimed water would increase by an 

average of 2.1 million gallons per day 

(from 10.2 million to about 12.3 million 

gallons per day), thus reducing by a 

similar amount the water volume 

discharged to the wetlands downstream 

from the Eastern Water Reclamation 

Facility and from those wetlands to the 

Econlockhatchee River. Because this 

surface water is not used, reduced flow 

would not affect water users. Water 

quality in the river could be affected if 

reduced streamflow also reduced the 

river’s capacity to dilute contamination 

discharged from other parts of the 

watershed, however any such effects 

would be temporary. Increased 

groundwater withdrawals would not 

produce discernible impacts. Facility 

operation could add localized 

contamination to shallow groundwater 

from the possible placement of 

additional waste in the onsite ash 

landfill. Because any contamination 

would be limited to the shallow aquifer 

and any contaminated groundwater 

would be designed to discharge to 

onsite stormwater collection systems, 

impacts to water users are unlikely. 

The new coal pile would be lined and 

leachate collected to prevent the 

introduction of pollutants into 

groundwater. Use of treated wastewater 

effluent and other reclaimed water for 

cooling water makeup would minimize 

the withdrawal and consumption of 

Floridan aquifer groundwater. 

Measurement programs specified in the 

Stanton Energy Center Conditions of 

Certification would ensure continued 

monitoring of groundwater withdrawal 

rates from the Upper Floridan aquifer. 

In the unlikely event of a fuel spill or 

other release, assessment and recovery 

would be conducted in accordance with 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection requirements. 

Runoff during construction and 

operation, as well as all effluents from 

operation, would flow through the 

existing Stanton Energy Center 

collection and reuse system. No offsite 

discharges would occur, except during a 

major storm event. Site-specific Best 

Management Practices to prevent the 

deposition of sediments beyond the 

construction areas would include silt 

fences, hay bales, vegetative covers, and 

diversions, to reduce impacts to surface 

water. No process wastewater would be 

directly discharged to any surface 

waters, but would be reused. 

Under the no-action alternative, 

cooling water requirements would be 

about 20% less than under the proposed 

action. Releases to wetlands 

downstream from the Orange County 

Eastern Water Reclamation Facility and 

from the wetlands to the 

Econlockhatchee River would be 

reduced by 20%, and use of 

groundwater would be the same as 

under the proposed action. 

Floodplains and Wetlands 

No floodplains would be affected by 

the Orlando Project because no 

construction would occur within a 

floodplain. During construction, 

wetland and other vegetation 

communities within the transmission 

corridor would be altered. Because tallgrowing vegetation would be cut and 

kept at a height low enough to prevent 

interference with the conductors, forest 

cover habitats would be reduced and 

shrub or other low-growing vegetation 

would eventually dominate the corridor. 

Construction of the transmission line 

would require submittal of a joint (1) 

Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 

dredge-and-fill wetlands application 

and (2) Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

environmental resource permit. This 

permitting process would also require 

OUC to commit to a mitigation plan for 

any unavoidable wetland impacts. The 

net effect of clearing and maintaining 

3.95 acres of wetland habitat for the 

transmission line would be (1) Loss of 

1.04 acres of wetland due to fill and (2) 

modification of vegetation in wetlands 

in the remainder of the corridor due to 

right-of-way maintenance. This would 

shift, to a small extent, the balance of 

wildlife habitat in the area away from 

wetland and forest toward shrub and 

brushland. To mitigate impacts to the 

wetland area, OUC would purchase 

credits at a local mitigation bank. The 

total number of acres required to 

mitigate the wetlands impacts would be 

determined after deliberations between 

the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, the St. John’s 

River Water Management District, and 

the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Under the no-action alternative, no 

floodplains would be affected and, 

because the new transmission line 

would still be required, the same 

alteration of wetland and other 

vegetation communities within the 

transmission corridor would be 

experienced. 

Ecological Resources 

The land where the Orlando Project 

would be constructed is not important 

habitat for wildlife, and no areas of 

ecological sensitivity would be affected 

directly. Wildlife species would be 

affected by construction activities and 

resultant loss of habitat in the 

transmission corridor. Smaller less 

mobile animals would be at greatest 

risk, whereas larger more mobile 

animals would likely move from the 

disturbed areas and increase 

surrounding habitat use. No Federallylisted threatened or endangered plant 

species are known to occur within the 

immediate vicinity of the main 

proposed facilities or the transmission 

corridor. Five plant species protected by 

the Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services are known to 

occur along or in the vicinity of the 

transmission corridor. Clearing and 

maintenance activities on the right-ofway would be expected to destroy some 

individual plants, but populations 

would persist in undisturbed areas. 

Other than transient or incidental use by 

some wildlife species, no federallylisted threatened or endangered animal 

species are found within the previously 

cleared 1,100 acres. Except for the five 

protected plants, no direct impacts are 

expected to listed species from 

proposed construction and operations. 

The site contains no appreciable natural 

aquatic resources. 

Impacts under the no-action 

alternative would be the same as for the 

proposed facilities. 

Social and Economic Resources 

Construction and operation of the 

Orlando Project would not result in 

major impacts to population, housing, 

local government revenues, or most 

public services in Orange County. 

However, because the county’s public 

schools are already above capacity, even 

the small increase in the number of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
17148 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

students as a consequence of the new 

facilities would contribute to 

overcrowding. Overall, construction and 

operation of the proposed facilities 

would have positive effects on 

employment and income in the region. 

The relatively large minority 

populations in and around the census 

tract in which the Stanton Energy 

Center is located (Census Tract 167.22) 

represent ‘‘environmental justice’’

populations to which adverse impacts 

could be distributed disproportionately. 

However, impacts to land use and 

aesthetics would not be significant for 

the population as a whole and would 

not contribute to disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts. Likewise, 

with regard to health effects and noise, 

there would be no significant adverse 

impacts to the population as a whole, 

and no disproportionately high and 

adverse effects would be experienced. 

Under the no-action alternative, the 

peak and average construction work 

force would be reduced, and the 

construction period would be cut from 

28 months to 24 months. Fewer 

operational workers would be required 

(21 rather than 72). Positive economic 

benefits would also be less. 

Waste Management 

The Orange County Sanitary Landfill 

would have ample capacity to receive 

project construction wastes. Ash 

generated by the Orlando Project is 

being evaluated for several possible 

beneficial uses that could avoid disposal 

in the onsite landfill. If no beneficial use 

is found, the 347-acre dedicated landfill 

would provide more than enough space 

to dispose of this ash, as well as other 

coal combustion wastes generated by 

the Stanton Energy Center. The existing 

generating units would use the 

anhydrous ammonia produced by the 

new facilities to satisfy their 

requirements, and any excess would be 

sold commercially. If the elemental 

sulfur generated by the facilities proves 

to be as pure as it is projected to be, it 

would be sold commercially. Otherwise, 

it would be placed in the onsite landfill. 

Elemental sulfur would not be a 

hazardous waste, and the quantity 

produced would be small in comparison 

with the total capacity of the landfill. 

Under the no-action alternative, the 

quantities of construction wastes would 

be slightly less. Also, because no ash 

would be generated, no disposal sites 

would be needed to accommodate ash. 

No anhydrous ammonia or elemental 

sulfur would be produced. 

Human Health and Safety 

Minimal adverse impacts to human 

health would be expected from 

operational SO2, NOX, and particulate 

matter emissions from the new facilities. 

With regard to health effects of 

hazardous air pollutants, the Orlando 

Project would pose less risk than most 

existing plants, many of which were 

built decades ago. A health risk analysis 

of hazardous air pollutants from the 

proposed facilities estimated that 

concentrations of all hazardous air 

pollutants would be below the threshold 

concentrations (below harmful levels). 

A catastrophic accident (e.g., a 

significant hazardous material release, 

fire, or explosion) associated with the 

facilities, including transportation of 

anhydrous ammonia off the site, would 

be unlikely. 

Southern Company and OUC would 

add project specific health and safetyrelated plans to those already in place 

for existing Stanton Energy Center units 

to prevent or minimize potential 

adverse impacts. These measures would 

include appropriate training and 

supervision of employees and 

enforcement of workplace safety 

policies. 

Southern Company and OUC would 

develop and implement a safety 

program for the chlorine and ammonia 

systems that would include emergency 

response measures as well as specify 

training protocols. 

Excess ammonia generated at the 

proposed facilities would be handled 

and transported according to the 

Department of Transportation’s 

hazardous materials regulations. 

Because emissions of air pollutants 

would be less under the no-action 

alternative, adverse impacts to human 

health would be less. 

Noise 

During operation of the proposed 

facilities, the predicted noise level at the 

nearest residence (about 6,500 ft to the 

northeast) would be 46.5 dBA. No 

adverse community reaction would be 

expected as a result of noise levels 

below 50 dBA. Noise from infrequent 

steam blows would attenuate to a level 

of about 66 dBA at the nearest property 

boundary and 60 dBA at the nearest 

residence. A level of 60 dBA would be 

typical of normal conversation. 

Noise would be essentially the same 

under the no-action alternative. 

Transportation 

Much of the work on planned road 

projects could coincide with 

construction and operation of the new 

facilities, creating a major cumulative 

impact to traffic flow on the local road 

network. This impact would be reduced 

if the Avalon Park Boulevard extension 

is completed in mid-2008 before the 

peak construction period. Also, 

Southern Company and OUC have 

committed to a number of measures that 

would mitigate these potential traffic 

impacts. A construction traffic impact 

mitigation program, which is required 

by the Stanton Energy Center 

Conditions of Certification, would be 

developed and implemented. Such a 

program could include encouraging 

construction workers to carpool; 

working with the local mass-transit 

system to provide workers with a parkand-ride service to the site; using the 

existing railway access to the Stanton 

Energy Center site for the delivery of 

some construction equipment and 

materials; staggering construction work 

schedules and shifts to avoid peak 

traffic hours; and working with the 

Florida Department of Transportation to 

provide temporary traffic control 

devices and alter signal times to assist 

in maintaining proper traffic flow. If the 

Avalon Park Boulevard extension 

project is completed prior to project 

construction, traffic issues would 

largely be mitigated and more modest 

mitigation could be considered. 

However, DOE acknowledges that these 

mitigation steps would not completely 

eliminate traffic impacts. 

Noise related to transportation would 

not be expected to be significant. At the 

nearest residence, noise levels from 

truck traffic on Alafaya Trail would be 

at about the same level as that of a quiet 

subdivision during daylight hours. 

Noise levels from current rail traffic 

have not caused any public complaints. 

Increased rail traffic due to the proposed 

project would result in more frequent 

noise from rail traffic, but the noise 

levels would be the same. 

Traffic congestion would be less 

under the no-action alternative. No 

additional trains would be needed to 

deliver coal, but trucks would continue 

to deliver anhydrous ammonia to the 

site once per week. Noise levels 

associated with transportation would be 

the same as for the new facilities but 

would be less frequent. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The no-action alternative is 

environmentally preferable because it 

would result in slightly less impacts 

than those predicted for the proposed 

action. 

Comments Received on the Final EIS 

The only comments that DOE 

received on the final EIS were from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 4, NEPA Program Office. 

EPA stated that the final EIS was 

responsive to their comments on the 

draft EIS, but observed that direct, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17149 

indirect, and cumulative impacts are 

inherent in projects that generate power. 

Therefore, EPA stated that verification 

of the impacts on air quality, wetlands, 

hazardous waste, and cumulative 

impacts will need to take place as the 

project progresses, with appropriate 

avoidance and mitigation measures 

implemented. DOE anticipated verifying 

impacts through an environmental 

monitoring plan. This plan will be 

developed as part of the cooperative 

agreement with Southern Company, and 

reports on monitoring activities will be 

included in the reports required under 

the cooperative agreement. 

EPA also expressed appreciation of 

DOE’s consideration of diesel retrofit 

technology to minimize emissions from 

construction equipment. As stated in 

the final EIS, specification of the use of 

diesel retrofit technologies is not 

warranted since impacts from diesel 

engines during construction are not 

expected to be a concern. However, DOE 

will encourage Southern Company to 

consider the use of biodiesel and diesel 

retrofit technologies during construction 

activities to further reduce impacts. 

Decision 

DOE will implement the proposed 

action, providing, through a cooperative 

agreement with Southern Company, a 

total of $235 million in cost-shared 

funding to design, construct, and 

demonstrate the Orlando Gasification 

Project. 

DOE’s decision was made upon 

careful review of the potential 

environmental impacts, presented in the 

EIS, and incorporates all practicable 

means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm. DOE plans to 

verify the environmental impacts 

predicted in the EIS and the 

implementation of appropriate 

avoidance and mitigation measures. 

Issued in Washington, DC on this 28th day 

of March 2007. 

James A. Slutz, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. E7–6435 Filed 4–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ER07–528–000] 

Brookfield Energy Marketing U.S. LLC; 

Notice of Issuance of Order 

April 2, 2007. 

Brookfield Energy Marketing U.S. LLC 

(Brookfield) filed an application for 

market-based rate authority, with an 

accompanying rate tariff. The proposed 

market-based rate tariff provides for the 

sale of energy, capacity and ancillary 

services at market-based rates. 

Brookfield also requested waivers of 

various Commission regulations. In 

particular, Brookfield requested that the 

Commission grant blanket approval 

under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 

issuances of securities and assumptions 

of liability by Brookfield. 

On March 30, 2007, pursuant to 

delegated authority, the Director, 

Division of Tariffs and Market 

Development—West, granted the 

requests for blanket approval under Part 

34. The Director’s order also stated that 

the Commission would publish a 

separate notice in the Federal Register 

establishing a period of time for the 

filing of protests. Accordingly, any 

person desiring to be heard or to protest 

the blanket approvals of issuances of 

securities or assumptions of liability by 

Brookfield should file a motion to 

intervene or protest with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 

(2004). 

Notice is hereby given that the 

deadline for filing motions to intervene 

or protest is April 30, 2007. 

Absent a request to be heard in 

opposition by the deadline above, 

Brookfield is authorized to issue 

securities and assume obligations or 

liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, 

surety, or otherwise in respect of any 

security of another person; provided 

that such issuance or assumption is for 

some lawful object within the corporate 

purposes of Brookfield, compatible with 

the public interest, and is reasonably 

necessary or appropriate for such 

purposes. 

The Commission reserves the right to 

require a further showing that neither 

public nor private interests will be 

adversely affected by continued 

approvals of Brookfield’s issuance of 

securities or assumptions of liability. 

Copies of the full text of the Director’s 

Order are available from the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. The Order may also be viewed 

on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary 

link. Enter the docket number excluding 

the last three digits in the docket 

number filed to access the document. 

Comments, protests, and interventions 

may be filed electronically via the 

internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 

on the Commission’s Web site under the 

‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filings. 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–6439 Filed 4–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ER07–589–000] 

Citigroup Energy Canada ULC; Notice 

of Issuance of Order 

April 2, 2007. 

Citigroup Energy Canada ULC (CECU) 

filed an application for market-based 

rate authority, with an accompanying 

rate schedule. The proposed marketbased rate schedule provides for the sale 

of energy, capacity and ancillary 

services at market-based rates. CECU 

also requested waivers of various 

Commission regulations. In particular, 

CECU requested that the Commission 

grant blanket approval under 18 CFR 

Part 34 of all future issuances of 

securities and assumptions of liability 

by CECU. 

On March 30, 2007, pursuant to 

delegated authority, the Director, 

Division of Tariffs and Market 

Development—West, granted the 

requests for blanket approval under Part 

34. The Director’s order also stated that 

the Commission would publish a 

separate notice in the Federal Register 

establishing a period of time for the 

filing of protests. Accordingly, any 

person desiring to be heard or to protest 

the blanket approvals of issuances of 

securities or assumptions of liability by 

CECU should file a motion to intervene 

or protest with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 

(2004). 

Notice is hereby given that the 

deadline for filing motions to intervene 

or protest is April 30, 2007. 

Absent a request to be heard in 

opposition by the deadline above, CECU 

is authorized to issue securities and 

assume obligations or liabilities as a 

guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise 

in respect of any security of another 

person; provided that such issuance or 

assumption is for some lawful object 

within the corporate purposes of CECU, 

compatible with the public interest, and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES