Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices 3577 

7004, Alternate Preservation, Packaging, 

and Packing and 252.211–7005, 

Substitutions for Military or Federal 

Specifications and Standards; OMB 

Control Number 0704–0398. 

Type of Request: Extension. 

Number of Respondents: 385. 

Responses Per Respondent: 1.4. 

Annual Responses: 573. 

Average Burden Per Response: 

Approximately 2 hours. 

Annual Burden Hours: 1,136. 

Needs and Uses: This information 

collection permits offers to— 

• Propose alternatives to military 

preservation, packaging, or packing 

specifications. DoD uses the information 

to evaluate and award contracts using 

commercial or industrial preservation, 

packaging, or packing if the offeror 

chooses to propose such alternates. 

• Propose Single Process Initiative 

(SPI) processes as alternatives to 

military or Federal specifications and 

standards cited in DoD solicitations for 

previously developed items. DoD uses 

the information to verify Government 

acceptance of an SPI process as a valid 

replacement for a military or Federal 

specification or standard. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit and not-for profit institutions. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet 

Seehra. 

Written comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection should be sent to 

Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management 

and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 

10236, New Executive Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20503. 

You may also submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by the following method: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, docket 

number, and title for the Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other public 

submissions from members of the public 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check http://www.regulations.gov 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia 

Toppings. 

Written requests for copies of the 

information collection proposal should 

be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/ 

Information Management Division, 4800 

Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East 

Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 

22350–3100. 

Manuel Quinones, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01128 Filed 1–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision and Floodplain 

Statement of Findings for the 

FutureGen 2.0 Project 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The United States (U.S.) 

Department of Energy (DOE) announces 

its decision to provide financial 

assistance to the FutureGen Industrial 

Alliance (the Alliance) for its FutureGen 

2.0 Project. DOE prepared an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

(DOE/EIS–0460) to evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with DOE’s proposed action 

of providing approximately $1 billion of 

financial assistance for the project (the 

majority of which was appropriated 

under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA)) through 

cooperative agreements with the 

Alliance. The EIS evaluated the 

potential impacts associated with 

construction and operation of the 

proposed FutureGen 2.0 Project, which 

is a public-private partnership formed 

for the purpose of developing the 

world’s first commercial-scale, oxycombustion electric generation project 

integrated with carbon capture and 

geologic storage. The Alliance, 

cooperating with Ameren Energy 

Resources (Ameren), would upgrade one 

unit in a power plant currently owned 

by Ameren near Meredosia, Illinois. The 

repowered unit would include oxycombustion and carbon capture 

technologies designed to capture at least 

90 percent of its carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions during steady-state operation 

and reduce other emissions to near zero. 

The captured CO2 would be transported 

through an approximately 30-mile 

pipeline to wells where it would be 

injected approximately 4,000 feet below 

ground into a geologic saline formation 

for permanent storage. The project 

would be designed to capture, transport, 

and inject approximately 1.2 million 

tons (1.1 million metric tons) of CO2

annually, and up to a total of 24 million 

tons (22 million metric tons) over 

approximately 20 years. The Alliance 

would also construct and operate 

visitor, research, and training facilities 

related to carbon capture and storage in 

the vicinity of Jacksonville, Illinois. The 

DOE-funded demonstration period 

would last for 56 months from the start 

of operations (approximately 2017) 

through 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EIS and this record of 

decision (ROD) are available on DOE’s 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Web site at http://energy.gov/

nepa/nepa-documents and on the DOE 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

(NETL) Web site at http://

www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/

nepa/index.html. Copies of these 

documents may be obtained from Mr. 

Cliff Whyte, M/S: I07, National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins 

Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, 

WV 26507–0880, ATTN: FutureGen 2.0 

Project; electronic mail: cliff.whyte@

netl.doe.gov; telephone: 304–285–2098; 

or by toll-free telephone at 1–800–432– 

8330, extension 2098. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

obtain additional information about the 

project, the EIS, or the ROD, contact Mr. 

Cliff Whyte as indicated above under 

ADDRESSES. For general information 

about the DOE NEPA process, contact 

Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office 

of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC– 

54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; telephone: 202– 

586–4600; fax: 202–586–7031; or leave a 

toll-free message at: 1–800–472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

prepared this ROD and Floodplain 

Statement of Findings pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 

4321, et seq.), and in compliance with 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) implementing regulations for 

NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] parts 1500 through 1508), DOE’s 

implementing procedures for NEPA (10 

CFR Part 1021), and DOE’s Compliance 

with Floodplain and Wetland 

Environmental Review (10 CFR part 

1022). The decisions announced in this 

ROD are based on DOE’s final EIS for 

the FutureGen 2.0 Project (DOE/EIS– 

0460, October 2013) and other program 

considerations. 

Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

DOE considers the advancement of 

carbon capture and storage technology 

critically important to addressing CO2

emissions and global climate change 

concerns associated with the use of 

fossil fuels. The purpose of DOE’s 

proposed action is to demonstrate the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3578 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices 

commercial feasibility of an advanced 

coal-based technology (oxy-combustion) 

that may serve as a cost-effective 

approach to implementing carbon 

capture at new and existing power 

plants. The proposed project would also 

demonstrate commercial-scale 

integration of transport and permanent 

storage of captured CO2 in a deep 

geologic formation. Implementation of 

the FutureGen 2.0 Project supports the 

objectives of the FutureGen Initiative to 

establish the feasibility and viability of 

producing low-carbon electricity from 

coal with near-zero emissions of air 

pollutants. 

One of DOE’s primary strategic goals 

is to protect our national and economic 

security by promoting a diverse supply 

of reliable, affordable, and 

environmentally sound energy. The 

development of carbon capture and 

storage technologies through the 

FutureGen 2.0 Project would support 

the ongoing and future use of the 

nation’s abundant coal reserves in a 

manner that addresses both aging power 

plants and environmental challenges. 

Federal financial support reduces the 

risks inherent in these first-of-a-kind 

projects, which without financial 

assistance would be unlikely to occur. 

DOE’s Proposed Action 

DOE’s proposed action is to provide 

approximately $1 billion in cost-shared 

ARRA and other funding through 

cooperative agreements with the 

Alliance for its proposed FutureGen 2.0 

Project. The estimated total project cost 

is $1.68 billion. 

Project Description and Location 

The FutureGen 2.0 Project would 

result in the construction and operation 

of a CO2 capture facility using oxycombustion technology to capture at 

least 90 percent (approximately 1.2 

million tons [1.1 million metric tons] 

annually) of CO2 during steady-state 

operation of a repowered electricity 

generating unit at the Meredosia Energy 

Center. This existing generating unit is 

located on a 263-acre site adjacent to the 

east side of the Illinois River, south of 

the village of Meredosia in Morgan 

County, Illinois. The captured CO2

would be conditioned, compressed, and 

transported approximately 30 miles via 

a new pipeline to a new well that would 

inject into the Mt. Simon Formation 

(approximately 4,000 feet below ground 

surface), which is one of the Illinois 

Basin’s major deep saline formations. 

The primary components of the project 

are: 

(1) Oxy-Combustion Large Scale 

Test—The Alliance would acquire 

portions of the Meredosia Energy Center 

from Ameren and repower an existing 

unit with oxy-combustion technology. 

Principal construction features would 

include a new air separation unit to 

generate oxygen, modifications to the 

power block (including a new boiler and 

gas quality control system), a new 

compression and purification unit for 

the flue gas, and additional 

modifications (reconstruction of the 

main cooling tower, two new cooling 

towers, process water system upgrades, 

new process water and wastewater 

treatment systems, and a new 450-foot 

(maximum) concrete exhaust stack). The 

new oxy-combustion facility would 

operate on a blended coal mixture of 60 

percent Illinois No. 6 bituminous and 40 

percent Powder River Basin subbituminous. The repowered unit would 

generate 168 MWe of power (gross) and 

CO2 suitable for transport by pipeline. 

(2) CO2 Pipeline—The Alliance would 

construct a new pipeline approximately 

30 miles long to transport captured CO2

to a new injection well site northeast of 

Jacksonville, Illinois. The pipeline 

would be constructed of either a 12-inch 

or 10-inch diameter pipe. The proposed 

pipeline route crosses mostly rural and 

sparsely developed agricultural lands in 

Morgan County. The Alliance plans to 

use existing rights-of-way (ROWs) to the 

extent practicable to minimize 

environmental impacts and avoid 

sensitive resources. The CO2 pipeline 

would have an operational ROW with a 

width of 50 feet and a construction 

ROW of 80 feet (100 feet in limited 

circumstances). 

(3) CO2 Storage—The proposed 

project would convey approximately 1.2 

million tons (1.1 million metric tons) of 

CO2 annually to a new injection site on 

9.5 acres northwest of the intersection of 

Beilschmidt Road and Martin Road in 

eastern Morgan County. The CO2 would 

be injected via four horizontally drilled 

injection wells into the Mt. Simon 

Formation approximately 4,000 feet 

below the surface, and would be 

confined in the geologic saline 

formation by an overlying impermeable 

caprock layer (the Eau Claire Formation) 

approximately 480 feet thick. The 

maximum extent of the subsurface CO2

plume after 20 years of injection would 

be approximately 4,000 acres based on 

modeling results; the Alliance has 

acquired the subsurface rights of 6,800 

acres for the modeled plume. The Class 

VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

permits to be issued by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) for the four horizontal 

injection wells require the 

implementation of a monitoring, 

verification, and accounting (MVA) 

program to assess the injection and 

geologic storage of CO2 and to verify 

that it stays within the target formation. 

The MVA program, including 

monitoring wells and other 

technologies, would proceed throughout 

the planned injection period (20 years) 

and continue for another 50 years or 

until such time as the USEPA is 

satisfied that the plume is stable and no 

further monitoring is required. 

(4) Educational Facilities – The 

Alliance would construct and operate 

visitor, research, and training facilities 

(the educational facilities) to support 

public outreach and communication, 

and to provide training and research 

opportunities associated with near-zero 

emissions power generation and CO2

capture and storage technologies. The 

intended general location for the 

educational facilities is the vicinity of 

Jacksonville, which is the largest 

community in Morgan County. The 

Alliance has been working with local 

stakeholders to identify a location that 

would be advantageous to the 

FutureGen 2.0 Project and to the local 

community. Siting of the facilities 

would require a maximum of 3.5 acres 

at a location that has access to existing 

utility infrastructure and roadways. 

Alternatives 

Alternatives considered by DOE 

during the original 2003 FutureGen 

program originated as private-party (e.g., 

electric power industry) applications 

submitted to the Department. The 

FutureGen 2.0 Project is a continuation 

of the original FutureGen program. In 

addition to fully analyzing the potential 

impacts of the FutureGen 2.0 Project 

and the no action alternative, DOE 

considered alternatives for the proposed 

action in the EIS, including alternative 

fuel sources, alternative advanced 

electric generating technologies, 

alternative retrofitting technologies, 

alternative sites for the oxy-combustion 

large scale test, and alternative CO2

pipeline and storage locations. These 

alternatives were dismissed from further 

analysis primarily because they either 

were already addressed by other 

programs and projects within DOE’s 

diverse portfolio of energy research, 

development, and demonstration efforts; 

because they did not meet the Alliance’s 

environmental, geologic, or siting 

criteria; or because they would not meet 

the cost and technology-advancement 

objectives of the FutureGen Initiative as 

effectively as the proposed project. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, DOE 

would not continue to fund the 

FutureGen 2.0 Project into the final 

design, construction, and operational 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices 3579 

phases. Without DOE funding, it is 

unlikely that the Alliance (or the U.S. 

industry in general) would undertake, in 

the near-term, the commercial-scale 

integration of CO2 capture and geologic 

storage with a coal-fueled power plant. 

Therefore, the no action alternative 

represents a ‘‘no-build’’ alternative. 

Without DOE’s investment in this 

facility, the development of oxycombustion plants integrated with CO2

capture and geologic storage would be 

delayed or not occur at all. While the no 

action alternative would not satisfy the 

purpose and need for DOE’s proposed 

action, this alternative was analyzed to 

allow for comparisons to the effects of 

the proposed project, as required under 

CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1502.14). The 

no action alternative reflects the current 

baseline condition and serves as a 

benchmark against which the effects of 

the proposed action can be evaluated. If 

the Alliance decided to pursue the 

project without DOE funding, potential 

impacts would be similar to those 

evaluated under DOE’s proposed action. 

EIS Process 

DOE initiated the NEPA process by 

publishing a notice of intent (NOI) to 

prepare an EIS in the Federal Register 

(FR) on May 23, 2011. DOE stated in 

that notice that the EIS would analyze 

the potential environmental impacts at 

each of three CO2 storage sites proposed 

by the Alliance. These sites were 

located near Jacksonville, Illinois; 

Taylorville, Illinois; and Tuscola, 

Illinois. DOE conducted a scoping 

process that included three public 

scoping meetings and consultations 

with interested governmental agencies 

and other stakeholders. DOE held public 

scoping meetings in Taylorville, 

Tuscola, and Jacksonville during the 30- 

day public scoping period, which ended 

on June 22, 2011. 

Following the public scoping period 

and after consideration of the comments 

received, DOE prepared a draft EIS that 

analyzed the potential environmental 

impacts of the construction and 

operation of the FutureGen 2.0 Project 

and the no action alternative. During the 

preparation of the document, the 

Alliance determined that CO2 injection 

and storage at the Jacksonville site, 

located in Morgan County, was the only 

suitable option as the quality of the 

geologic storage site was acceptable and 

the prohibitive costs involved in 

transporting the CO2 for substantial 

additional distances to Taylorville and 

Tuscola made the other sites 

unreasonable. As a result, the 

Taylorville and Tuscola sites were 

removed from further consideration, 

and the draft EIS analyzed the potential 

environmental impacts of CO2 injection 

and storage at the site near Jacksonville 

only. DOE and the USEPA both 

published notices of availability (NOAs) 

for the draft EIS on May 3, 2013. DOE’s 

NOA (78 FR 26004) also announced its 

plans for a public hearing, which was 

held on May 21, 2013, in Jacksonville. 

DOE listened to questions and 

concerns during an informal session 

before the hearing and received oral 

comments on the draft EIS at the public 

hearing. During the 45-day public 

comment period, which ended June 17, 

2013, DOE received comment letters 

from the USEPA, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, and Illinois Department of 

Agriculture. Comments also were 

received from one local elected official, 

four non-governmental or public-private 

organizations, and seven members of the 

public. 

Comments included concerns 

regarding: (1) The adequacy of technical 

and financial information about the 

project; (2) potential socioeconomic 

impacts and risks; (3) the suitability of 

the proposed geologic formation for 

storage of CO2; (4) the effectiveness of 

the project to mitigate potential climate 

change; (5) potential health and safety 

risks associated with leakage from the 

CO2 storage formation or the pipeline; 

(6) the protection of threatened and 

endangered species, forest habitat, bald 

eagles, and migratory birds; (7) the 

adequacy of the NEPA analysis, 

definition of purpose and need, and 

alternatives; (8) connected actions and 

cumulative impacts related to coal use; 

(9) potential environmental justice 

impacts on low-income populations; 

and (10) potential impacts on surface 

waters, wetlands, groundwater, prime 

farmland, and public water utilities. 

USEPA rated the draft EIS as LO—‘‘Lack 

of Objections.’’ 

DOE distributed the final EIS in 

October 2013. The USEPA published a 

NOA in the Federal Register on 

November 1, 2013 (78 FR 65643). In the 

final EIS, DOE updated project 

information, refined analyses, and 

responded to all comments on the draft 

EIS. 

Comments Received on the Final EIS 

DOE received comments on the final 

EIS from the USEPA and a concerned 

citizen, Ms. Betty Niemann. DOE 

considered these comments during 

preparation of this ROD. 

USEPA, in a letter dated November 

27, 2013, indicated that the final EIS 

adequately clarified issues USEPA had 

posed on the draft EIS except that 

USEPA had a remaining comment on 

fine particulate matter. USEPA 

recommended that the ROD require 

either a more detailed and refined 

analysis that demonstrates that 

FutureGen 2.0 is not a significant 

contributor to ambient air quality 

violations or impose controls/

limitations to assure there would be no 

violations. In response, the Alliance 

updated the air quality modeling 

analysis as recommended and the 

results are discussed in this ROD under 

Air Quality. The analysis demonstrates 

that the FutureGen 2.0 Project would 

not significantly contribute to a 

modeled exceedance of the 24-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

for fine particulate matter. In a letter 

dated December 16, 2013, USEPA stated 

that concerns raised in the November 

27, 2013 comment letter have been 

resolved, and that USEPA has no 

additional recommendations. 

Ms. Niemann, in a letter and 

subsequent electronic mail, expressed 

concern about a range of topics, 

including among other things: The 

cooperative agreement between DOE 

and the Alliance; potential impacts on 

land use and aesthetics associated with 

the visitor center in Jacksonville; 

apparent discrepancies in the acreage 

required for CO2 storage, potential for 

leaks from the CO2 storage area, such as 

from characterization/stratigraphic 

wells; adequacy of analysis of baseline 

impacts to landowners under the no 

action alternative; whether the 

anticipated environmental benefits of 

CO2 reduction are significant enough to 

justify the project in view of costs and 

impacts to landowners; adequacy of 

site-specific information in the EIS; 

liability issues; and whether the 

Alliance has the expertise to carry out 

the FutureGen 2.0 Project. DOE has 

reviewed the final EIS in light of these 

comments and determined the analyses 

in the final EIS are adequate. Many of 

the issues in these comments were also 

posed in comments from Ms. Niemann 

on the draft EIS; responses to those 

comments are in Appendix I of the final 

EIS. 

Decision 

DOE has decided to proceed with 

cost-shared funding for the FutureGen 

2.0 Project, providing the Alliance with 

approximately $1 billion through 

cooperative agreements. The project, 

potential environmental impacts, and 

required mitigation measures are 

described below. 

Basis of Decision 

DOE based its decision on the 

importance of achieving the objectives 

of the FutureGen Initiative and a careful 

review of the potential environmental 

impacts presented in the EIS. Clean coal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3580 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices 

is an essential component of the 

President’s ‘‘All of the Above’’ energy 

strategy and the proposed project would 

help DOE meet its congressionallymandated mission to support advanced 

clean-coal technology projects. Congress 

appropriated significant funds to enable 

DOE to pursue large-scale 

demonstrations of clean coal 

technologies, and the FutureGen 2.0 

Project is expected to yield significant 

scientific, commercial, and energyproduction benefits. Studies by DOE 

have identified oxy-combustion as a 

potentially cost-effective approach to 

implementing carbon capture at existing 

coal facilities, including a large crosssection of the world’s existing 

pulverized coal power plants. Oxycombustion also has the potential for 

use in new power plants. Oxycombustion technology is inherently 

scalable, making it possible to 

demonstrate the technology at a 

relatively small commercial scale, such 

as the 168 megawatt electricity (MWe), 

FutureGen 2.0 Project, and then 

replicate it at larger-scale (e.g., 500+ 

MWe) power plants. The ability to 

demonstrate the technology at a smaller 

but commercially relevant scale offers 

substantial cost-saving benefits. An 

important benefit of FutureGen 2.0 will 

be the data collected during the 

demonstration period. These data may 

be used by DOE and others to evaluate 

whether the project’s technologies could 

be effectively and economically 

implemented at a commercial scale. 

DOE plans to verify the 

environmental impacts predicted in the 

EIS and the implementation of 

appropriate avoidance and mitigation 

measures. 

Mitigation 

DOE’s decision incorporates measures 

to avoid or minimize adverse 

environmental impacts during the 

design, construction, and operation of 

the project. DOE requires that recipients 

of financial assistance comply with all 

applicable federal, state, and local 

environmental laws, orders, and 

regulations. During project planning, the 

Alliance incorporated various 

mitigation measures and permit 

requirements into its project, and the 

analyses completed for the EIS assumed 

that such measures would be 

implemented. These measures are 

identified in the EIS and incorporated 

into this ROD as conditions for DOE’s 

financial assistance under the 

cooperative agreements between DOE 

and the Alliance. All practicable means 

to avoid or minimize environmental 

harm from the project have been 

adopted. 

Mitigation measures beyond those 

specified in permit conditions will be 

addressed in a Mitigation Action Plan 

(MAP). DOE will prepare the MAP, 

consistent with 10 CFR part 1021.331, to 

establish how the mitigation measures 

will be planned, implemented, and 

monitored. The MAP will be an 

adaptive management tool; therefore, 

mitigation conditions in it would be 

removed if equivalent conditions are 

otherwise established by permit, 

license, or law. Permit, license, or 

regulatory requirements are not 

mitigation actions subject to DOE 

control and, therefore, would not be 

included in the MAP. Through 

management of its cooperative 

agreements with the Alliance, DOE will 

ensure that the Alliance fulfills the 

monitoring and mitigation requirements 

specified in this ROD and in the MAP, 

which is under development. DOE will 

make the MAP available for inspection 

in appropriate locations for a reasonable 

time. Copies of the MAP and any annual 

reports required by the MAP will also be 

available upon written request. 

Potential Environmental Impacts 

In making its decision, DOE 

considered the environmental impacts 

of the FutureGen 2.0 Project (DOE’s 

proposed action) and the no action 

alternative. The potentially affected 

environmental resources evaluated 

included: Air quality; climate and 

greenhouse gases; physiography and 

soils; geology; groundwater; surface 

water; wetlands and floodplains; 

biological resources; cultural resources; 

land use; aesthetics; materials and waste 

management; traffic and transportation; 

noise; utilities; community services; 

human health and safety; 

socioeconomics; and environmental 

justice. For analytical purposes, DOE 

evaluated potential impacts using 

current baseline conditions where the 

energy center is no longer in operation, 

as well as using historical baseline 

conditions prior to the 2011 suspension 

of operations at the energy center. DOE 

also considered the impacts from 

construction and operation of the 

FutureGen 2.0 Project in combination 

with those from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

(i.e., cumulative impacts). 

Best management practices (BMPs) 

would be implemented and all 

necessary permits would be obtained to 

minimize potential impacts and to 

comply with regulatory requirements 

during construction and operation. The 

following sections discuss the key 

potential impacts of the project. 

Air Quality 

Construction of the FutureGen 2.0 

Project would result in short-term, 

minor, localized increased tailpipe and 

fugitive dust emissions. Emissions 

would be concentrated at the 

construction sites and would steadily 

decrease with distance. Constructionrelated emissions would be reduced 

with the implementation of industry 

standard BMPs, including control of 

vehicle speeds, minimizing or 

stabilizing exposed areas to reduce wind 

erosion, wetting exposed areas and 

roads with water or appropriate 

surfactants, reducing or eliminating 

equipment idling time, and using 

properly maintained equipment. The 

proposed project would occur in an area 

listed as either in ‘‘attainment’’ or 

‘‘unclassified’’ for all criteria pollutants. 

Clean Air Act conformity requirements 

are not applicable and thus there are no 

emissions thresholds that pertain to the 

construction phase of this project. 

Air dispersion modeling, using 

USEPA’s model AERMOD, was 

performed to assess the potential air 

quality impacts of the proposed 

FutureGen 2.0 Project during operations 

and to demonstrate compliance with the 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. The modeling results 

indicated that emissions of criteria 

pollutants or hazardous air pollutants 

during operations would not exceed 

relevant air quality or health standards 

when analyzed as an isolated project or 

when analyzed cumulatively with 

applicable regional sources. In response 

to a recommendation from the USEPA 

based on its review of the final EIS, the 

Alliance updated the air quality 

modeling analysis regarding the 

potential impacts of the proposed 

FutureGen 2.0 Project on the region’s 

ability to meet the 24-hour National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

particulate matter less than 2.5 microns 

in diameter (PM 2.5). This updated 

modeling analysis corrects the State of 

Illinois’ emissions inventory to account 

for an over-prediction in PM 2.5 impacts 

and therefore provides a more accurate 

assessment of the project’s potential PM 

2.5 impacts. The results of this updated 

analysis demonstrate that the FutureGen 

2.0 Project would not significantly 

contribute to a modeled exceedance of 

the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. (See final 

EIS at pages 3.1–23). Emissions would 

be well within the limits of the facility’s 

air permit issued by the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency on 

December 13, 2013. The project would 

not jeopardize the attainment status of 

the region for any criteria pollutant; nor 

would the project impact the air quality 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices 3581 

or visibility at any Class I areas. During 

normal operations of the oxycombustion facility, the gas quality 

control system would incorporate stateof-the-art flue gas scrubbing technology 

to minimize criteria pollutant emissions 

from the stack. Beneficial impacts could 

result from overall lower emissions, as 

electricity generated by this project may 

displace electricity generated by 

traditional coal-fired power plants that 

emit significantly higher levels of 

pollutants. 

Climate and Greenhouse Gases 

Construction-related impacts resulting 

from tailpipe emissions of greenhouse 

gases would be minimized by the use of 

appropriate BMPs, such as maintaining 

engines according to manufacturers’ 

specifications, minimizing idling of 

equipment while not in use, and using 

electricity from the grid if available to 

reduce the use of diesel or gasoline 

generators for operating construction 

equipment. 

The capture and geological storage of 

greenhouse gas emissions by the project 

would contribute to beneficial 

cumulative effects on a national and 

global scale. The proposed project 

would capture and sequester 

approximately 1.2 million tons per year 

(1.1 million metric tons per year) of CO2

emissions from the generation of 168 

MWe of electric power, which would 

generate approximately 90 percent less 

greenhouse gas emissions than a similar 

conventional coal-fired power plant, or 

approximately 70 percent less than a 

natural-gas fired power plant. The 

reduction in CO2 emissions resulting 

from the project would incrementally 

reduce the rate of their accumulation in 

the atmosphere and help to 

incrementally mitigate climate change 

related to atmospheric concentrations of 

greenhouse gases. On a broader scale, 

successful implementation of the project 

may lead to widespread acceptance and 

deployment of oxy-combustion 

technology with geologic storage of CO2, 

thus fostering a long-term reduction in 

the rate of CO2 emissions from power 

plants. 

The Alliance must design and 

construct the FutureGen 2.0 Project to 

capture a minimum of 90 percent of the 

CO2 in the treated stream when 

operating under normal conditions, and 

use best efforts to achieve at least a 90 

percent capture rate during the 

demonstration period. 

Physiography and Soils 

Construction of the proposed 

FutureGen 2.0 Project would increase 

the potential for soil erosion and 

compaction, increase the amount of 

impermeable surfaces, and withdraw 

some prime farmland soils from 

agricultural production. Construction of 

the FutureGen 2.0 Project would 

temporarily disturb up to 418 acres and 

permanently alter up to 233 acres. Much 

of the land at the energy center that 

would be impacted has been previously 

disturbed, and all of the agricultural 

land along the pipeline ROW would be 

restored for agricultural use after 

construction. The permanent loss of 

prime farmland for the entire FutureGen 

2.0 Project would be approximately 14 

acres located at the injection site. 

Impacts to prime farmland soils and 

agricultural uses resulting from the 

construction and operation of the 

FutureGen 2.0 Project would be 

minimized through compliance with an 

Agricultural Impact Mitigation 

Agreement and pollution prevention 

requirements included in the project’s 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permits and Spill 

Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasures plans. 

The Alliance signed an Agricultural 

Impact Mitigation Agreement with the 

Illinois Department of Agriculture 

(included in Appendix H, Agricultural 

Mitigation, in the final EIS). The Illinois 

Farm Bureau also participated in the 

development of the agreement by 

reviewing and providing comments that 

were incorporated. The agreement 

specifies the activities the Alliance 

would undertake to mitigate any 

adverse impacts to farmland associated 

with the construction of the CO2

pipeline. 

Geology 

Construction at the Meredosia Energy 

Center and in the CO2 pipeline corridor 

may require excavation of glacial 

materials. Construction of the injection 

wells would result in removal of 

geologic media through the drilling 

process. This process would not be 

unique to the area and would not affect 

the availability of local geologic 

resources. 

Operation of the oxy-combustion 

facility and CO2 pipeline would not 

affect geologic resources. At the 

injection wells, the potential for CO2 to 

migrate out of the injection zone is 

considered highly unlikely. Computer 

modeling conducted by the Alliance for 

their proposed injection well 

configuration of four horizontal wells 

installed at one injection well site 

predicted that the CO2 plume would 

expand to encompass an area of 

approximately 4,000 acres within the 

CO2 storage study area over the 20-year 

injection period. During injection, the 

Alliance would monitor the formation 

pressure to ensure that injectioninduced seismicity would not occur. 

The Alliance would also follow a 

USEPA-approved MVA plan and 

conduct studies and monitoring to 

minimize this potential. As required by 

the UIC permits, appropriate mitigation 

strategies would be implemented should 

CO2 migration be identified. 

On November 13, 2013, the Alliance 

received a Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP– 

12—Utility Line Activities) from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

which authorizes the Alliance to 

conduct trenching activities within two 

ephemeral streams located within the 

pipeline ROW. 

Wetlands and Floodplains 

In accordance with 10 CFR part 1022 

(DOE regulations for Compliance with 

Floodplain and Wetland Environmental 

Review Requirements), DOE assessed 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

project and its connected actions on 

wetlands and floodplains in the affected 

area. The Alliance selected sites and a 

pipeline route that would minimize 

impacts to wetlands and floodplains 

and has committed to implementing 

methods designed to further reduce 

impacts. 

No impacts to wetlands would occur 

at the Meredosia Energy Center as a 

result of the proposed project. If the 

Alliance undertakes activities related to 

the proposed barge unloading facility, 

then temporary impacts could occur 

resulting in potential increased 

sedimentation of the Illinois River from 

disturbance of the river bottom. 

The operational ROW for the CO2

pipeline contains no National Wetland 

Inventory-mapped wetlands, but may 

contain up to 0.5 acre of freshwater 

wetlands based on a wetland 

delineation performed by the Alliance 

in spring 2013. While all perennial 

streams, intermittent streams, and the 

majority of wetland areas would be 

avoided using trenchless technologies, 

trenching could occur during pipeline 

construction at certain ephemeral 

streams that are seasonally dry at the 

time of construction, as well as within 

a 0.03-acre wetland swale identified 

during a wetland delineation by the 

Alliance. This 0.03-acre area of hydric 

soils is located in an active agricultural 

field within the proposed pipeline ROW 

and was originally assumed to be a nonregulated feature. However, a 

Preliminary Jurisdictional 

Determination (PJD) received by the 

Alliance from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) indicated that, 

based on a significant nexus to the 

Illinois River, the 0.03-acre wetland area 

is considered to be a regulated wetland 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3582 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices 

feature of ordinary resource value. 

Concurrently with the PJD, the Alliance 

received an approved Nationwide 

Permit—12 ‘‘Utility Line Activities’’ 

(NWP–12) that authorizes trenching 

activities within this wetland area as 

well as two ephemeral streams along the 

pipeline route. The NWP–12 includes 

numerous permit conditions which 

must be followed by the Alliance, one 

of which requires that these features be 

restored to their original, preconstruction conditions after 

construction activities are completed. 

Since the Alliance would comply with 

all permit conditions, no permanent 

impacts to wetlands would occur. 

Construction within the 100-year 

floodplain would occur only in areas 

that are currently developed at the 

Meredosia Energy Center; therefore, 

additional impacts are not expected. If 

the Alliance undertakes activities 

related to the proposed barge unloading 

facility, temporary placement of 

facilities within the 100-year floodplain 

would occur during construction, and 

the area would be returned to preconstruction conditions after 

construction activities are completed. 

Construction of the CO2 pipeline 

unavoidably would cross 100-year 

floodplains and may result in small 

ancillary structures being placed in the 

100-year floodplain, resulting in minor 

impacts. Construction at the CO2

injection well site would avoid 

floodplains. 

Potential Environmental Impacts of the 

No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, DOE 

assumed that the FutureGen 2.0 Project 

would not be constructed and that the 

current suspension of operations at the 

Meredosia Energy Center would 

continue. The impacts under the no 

action alternative (i.e., ‘‘no build’’) were 

evaluated in the EIS and compared to 

the proposed action. Under the no 

action alternative, the Meredosia Energy 

Center, pipeline corridor, and the CO2

storage site would remain in their 

current condition with respect to all of 

the environmental resources evaluated. 

There would also be no commercialscale demonstration of the oxycombustion technology to capture and 

geologically store CO2. The 

development of oxy-combustion 

repowered plants integrated with CO2

capture and geologic storage would be 

delayed or not occur at all, and the 

reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 

from coal-fueled power plants would 

not be advanced. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

From a local perspective, the no 

action alternative is the environmentally 

preferable alternative, because it would 

result in no changes to existing 

environmental conditions. However, 

from a national perspective, DOE’s 

proposed action is the environmentally 

preferred alternative. Successful 

demonstration of the proposed 

FutureGen 2.0 Project could facilitate 

the deployment of oxy-combustion, 

carbon capture, and geologic storage 

technologies at power plants and other 

industrial facilities in order to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions that would 

otherwise occur from the continued 

combustion of fossil fuels, especially 

coal, by large conventional facilities. 

Floodplain Statement of Findings 

DOE prepared this floodplain 

statement of findings in accordance 

with DOE’s regulations entitled 

‘‘Compliance with Floodplain and 

Wetland Environmental Review 

Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022). DOE 

completed the required floodplain and 

wetland assessment in coordination 

with development and preparation of 

the EIS, and incorporated the results 

and discussion in Sections 3.6, 3.7, and 

Appendix D of the final EIS. DOE 

determined that the placement of some 

project components within floodplains 

would be unavoidable. However, the 

current design for the project minimizes 

floodplain impacts to the extent 

practicable. Figures 3.7–2, 3.7–3 and 

3.7–4 of the final EIS depict the 

locations of floodplains that cannot be 

avoided and therefore would be 

impacted by the construction and 

operation of the project. 

DOE determined that all practicable 

design layouts at the Meredosia Energy 

Center would affect the 100-year 

floodplain associated with the Illinois 

River and that no wetlands would be 

affected. Since portions of the existing 

facility lie within the 100-year 

floodplain and the project requires the 

use and reconstruction of these 

facilities, DOE and the Alliance did not 

consider alternate sites outside of the 

floodplain. However, the Alliance 

developed the project design to 

minimize impacts to floodplains to the 

greatest extent practicable. Based on the 

current design, 15 acres of 100-year 

floodplain would be impacted, 

including 7.6 acres of permanent impact 

areas and 7.4 acres of temporary impact 

areas (limited to the construction 

period). Development of approximately 

10 acres of impervious surfaces in areas 

that were previously pervious (e.g., 

grassy areas) could result in increased 

flow velocity and a reduction in 

infiltration rates in these areas. Certain 

beneficial aspects of floodplains, such 

as groundwater recharge and water 

quality maintenance, could also be 

reduced by an increase in impervious 

cover within the floodplain. However, 

these effects would be minor in terms of 

the size of the newly paved areas 

relative to the remaining unpaved areas. 

The structures associated with the 

proposed oxy-combustion facility would 

be constructed at the existing energy 

center within an area that is outside of 

mapped floodplains. As a result, the 

proposed structures would not affect the 

natural or beneficial values of the 

floodplain. 

One of the primary factors in the 

design of the CO2 pipeline route was the 

avoidance of streams, wetlands, and 

floodplains. Other factors, such as 

negotiations with land owners, 

utilization of existing ROWs, and 

pipeline security and safety concerns 

were also considered. In addition, the 

Alliance has committed to using 

trenchless technologies to install the 

pipeline beneath all perennial and 

intermittent streams, as well as most 

wetland areas, along the pipeline route. 

By employing trenchless methods to 

avoid these areas, the Alliance would 

also concurrently avoid impacting 

immediately adjacent or co-located 

floodplains and wetlands in these areas. 

The designated pipeline route for the 

FutureGen 2.0 Project (referred to as the 

southern route), would cross 13.2 acres 

of 100-year floodplain. The majority of 

floodplain impacts along the pipeline 

route would be temporary, as the 

pipeline would be buried and the 

surface restored to its pre-construction 

conditions, resulting in only temporary 

disturbance. Although the pipeline itself 

would be buried, certain aboveground 

features associated with the pipeline 

(e.g., mainline block valves) would be 

necessary and could result in potential 

permanent floodplain impacts. 

However, the impact from these features 

would be minimal, as they would be 

limited in number, have small 

footprints, and would be widely 

scattered along the 30-mile route. While 

the exact placement of these small 

features has not yet been determined, 

the Alliance has indicated that all 

surface features would be placed 

outside of floodplains to the extent 

possible. As a result, the construction 

and operation of the pipeline would 

have a negligible impact on the natural 

or beneficial values of the floodplains. 

The Alliance sited the injection wells 

and associated infrastructure by 

selecting areas that did not contain 

floodplains or wetlands. As a result, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices 3583 

these project features would not affect 

the natural or beneficial values of 

floodplains or wetlands. The Alliance 

has not yet determined the location of 

the educational facilities, which could 

involve new construction, rehabilitation 

of existing structures, or a combination 

of both types of construction. If 

development requires new construction, 

it would most likely occur on 

previously disturbed land that avoids 

wetlands and floodplains. Therefore, the 

construction and operation of the 

educational facilities are not expected to 

affect the natural or beneficial values of 

floodplains or wetlands. 

The Alliance has committed to 

performing all project activities in 

accordance with all applicable local, 

state, and federal regulations. The 

Alliance would ensure that all 

construction within floodplains is 

performed in accordance with the 

requirements of the Illinois Department 

of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the 

Morgan County Floodplain Ordinance. 

The USACE issued a NWP–12 to the 

Alliance for installation of the CO2

pipeline. Depending on the types and 

locations of other proposed construction 

activities, the Alliance may also be 

required to obtain additional permits 

from IDNR prior to any construction 

activities. In addition to any 

minimization or mitigation measures 

required by regulation, DOE and the 

Alliance have incorporated measures to 

minimize potential adverse impacts to 

floodplains into the project design from 

construction through operation. These 

measures include, but are not limited to, 

minimum grading requirements, runoff 

controls, design and construction 

constraints and other measures as 

described in Table 4.2–1 of the final EIS. 

By incorporating these measures into 

project designs, DOE and the Alliance 

would avoid and minimize anticipated 

adverse impacts to the natural or 

beneficial values of floodplains and 

wetlands. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 13 of 

January 2014. 

Christopher A. Smith, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01152 Filed 1–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric corporate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: EC14–41–000. 

Applicants: NorthWestern 

Corporation, PPL Montana, LLC. 

Description: Joint Application for 

Order Authorizing Acquisition and 

Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities of 

NorthWestern Corporation and PPL 

Montana, LLC. 

Filed Date: 1/10/14. 

Accession Number: 20140110–5172. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/31/14. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER10–1819–005; 

ER10–1820–007; ER10–1818–004; 

ER10–1817–005. 

Applicants: Northern States Power 

Company, a Minnesota corporation. 

Description: Public Service Company 

of Colorado et al submits revised 

WACM Exhibit JWS–8, Exhibit JWS–9, 

and Revised SIL Results for MarketBased Rate Authorization Triennial 

Market Power Analysis. 

Filed Date: 1/10/14. 

Accession Number: 20140110–0006. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/31/14. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–1858–003; 

ER11–1859–002. 

Applicants: NorthWestern 

Corporation, Montana Generation, LLC. 

Description: Notice of Change in 

Status of NorthWestern Corporation and 

Montana Generation, LLC. 

Filed Date: 1/10/14. 

Accession Number: 20140110–5159. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/31/14. 

Docket Numbers: ER12–673–003; 

ER12–672–003; ER10–1908–006; ER10– 

1909–006; ER10–1910–006; ER10–1911– 

006; ER10–1533–007; ER10–2374–005; 

ER12–674–004; ER12–670–004. 

Applicants: Brea Generation LLC, 

Brea Power II, LLC, Duquesne 

Conemaugh LLC, Duquesne Keystone 

LLC, Duquesne Light Company, 

Duquesne Power, LLC, Macquarie 

Energy LLC, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 

Rhode Island Engine Genco, LLC, Rhode 

Island LFG Genco, LLC. 

Description: Notice of Non-Material 

Change in Status of Brea Generation 

LLC, et al. 

Filed Date: 1/13/14. 

Accession Number: 20140113–5074. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/14. 

Docket Numbers: ER12–1821–003. 

Applicants: Colorado Highlands 

Wind, LLC. 

Description: Notice of Non-Material 

Change in Status of Colorado Highlands 

Wind, LLC. 

Filed Date: 1/13/14. 

Accession Number: 20140113–5059. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/14. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–799–000. 

Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company. 

Description: TACBAA 2014 

Supplemental Information to be 

effective N/A. 

Filed Date: 1/9/14. 

Accession Number: 20140109–5125. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/14. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–974–000. 

Applicants: Northern Indiana Public 

Service Company. 

Description: Filing of an Amendment 

to Transmission Upgrade Agreement to 

be effective 3/12/2014. 

Filed Date: 1/10/14. 

Accession Number: 20140110–5135 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/31/14 

Docket Numbers: ER14–975–000. 

Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power 

Company. 

Description: ComED Metering 

Construction and Maintenance Agrmt— 

FERC RS 133—Jan 2014 to be effective 

2/20/2014. 

Filed Date: 1/10/14. 

Accession Number: 20140110–5141. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/31/14. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–976–000. 

Applicants: Alabama Power 

Company. 

Description: SMEPA Interconnection 

Agreement Filing to be effective 1/1/

2014. 

Filed Date: 1/10/14. 

Accession Number: 20140110–5144. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/31/14. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–977–000. 

Applicants: Mississippi Power 

Company. 

Description: SMEPA Interconnection 

Agreement Filing to be effective 1/1/

2014. 

Filed Date: 1/10/14. 

Accession Number: 20140110–5145. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/31/14. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–978–000. 

Applicants: Gulf Power Company. 

Description: SMEPA Interconnection 

Agreement Filing to be effective 1/1/

2014. 

Filed Date: 1/10/14. 

Accession Number: 20140110–5146. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/31/14. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–979–000. 

Applicants: Georgia Power Company. 

Description: Georgia Power Company 

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 

SMEPA Interchange Agreement Filing to 

be effective 1/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 1/10/14. 

Accession Number: 20140110–5147. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/31/14. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–980–000. 

Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC. 

Description: Filing of Joint Use Pole 

Agreement with Ames Municipal 

Electric Services to be effective 3/15/

2014. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES