```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60478-60488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision, Texas Clean Energy Project

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision to 
continue to provide financial support to the Texas Clean Energy Project 
(TCEP). DOE prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-
0444) to assess the environmental impacts associated with the TCEP, a 
project that Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC (Summit) would design, 
construct, and operate. The project will demonstrate advanced power 
systems using integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology 
to generate 400 megawatts (gross) of electric power from coal and will 
put 130 to 213 megawatts on the power grid while capturing 
approximately 90 percent of its carbon dioxide (CO2) 
emissions. The project will sequester approximately 2.5 to 3.0 million 
tons (2.3 to 2.7 million metric tonnes) of CO2 per year. The 
CO2 will be delivered through a regional pipeline network to 
existing oil fields in the Permian Basin of West Texas for use in 
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) by third-parties. The plant will also 
produce urea, argon, and sulfuric acid for sale in commercial markets. 
Because of its multiple products, the facility is referred to as a 
polygeneration (polygen) plant. The plant will be built on a 600-acre 
(243-hectare) oil field site in Ector County, Texas, north of the 
community of Penwell, and will continue in commercial operation for 30 
to 50 years.
    DOE's proposed action, as described in the EIS, is to provide cost-
shared financial assistance under DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative 
(CCPI) using a combination of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111-5) funds and other CCPI program funds. After 
careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts and other 
factors such as program goals and objectives, DOE has decided to 
provide, through a cooperative agreement with Summit, $450 million in 
cost-shared funding, which is approximately 26 percent of the project's 
total capital cost of $1.73 billion (2009 dollars). The balance of 
project funding is expected to come from private sector investors and 
lenders.

ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available on the National Energy Technology 
Laboratory's Web site at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/nepa/index.html and on the DOE NEPA Web site at: http://energy.gov/nepa. Copies of the EIS may be obtained from Mr. Mark L. McKoy, 
Environmental Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy 
Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880; 
telephone: 304-285-4426; toll-free number: 1-800-432-8330 (ext 4426); 
fax: 304-285-4403; or e-mail: mmckoy@netl.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about 
this project, the EIS, or this Record of Decision (ROD), contact Mr. 
McKoy by the means specified above under ADDRESSES. For general 
information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, 
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department 
of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; 
telephone: 202-586-4600; fax: 202-586-7031; or leave a toll-free 
message at: 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared this ROD pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) regulations for 
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA [40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508], DOE's NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 
1021), and DOE's Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental 
Review Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022). This

[[Page 60479]]

ROD is based on DOE's Final EIS for the Texas Clean Energy Project 
(DOE/EIS-0444), comments submitted on the EIS and proposed project, 
other information, and program considerations.

Background and Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    The TCEP involves the planning, design, construction, and operation 
by Summit of a coal-fueled electric power and chemicals production 
plant integrated with CO2 capture and geologic sequestration 
through EOR. Summit is owned jointly by the Summit Power Group, Inc., 
and CW NextGen, Inc., a Clayton Williams company. The project team 
includes Summit; Summit Power Group, Inc.; Siemens Energy, Inc.; Linde, 
AG; Fluor Corporation; Blue Source, LLC; and others.
    DOE selected this project for an award of financial assistance 
through a competitive process under the CCPI Round 3 program pursuant 
to the process set out in Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) DE-
FOA-0000042. DOE's financial assistance will occur through cost sharing 
as specified under the terms of a financial assistance agreement 
between DOE and Summit. This project includes a demonstration period 
(including plant reliability and operations testing) following the 
construction and commissioning of the plant and continuing until the 
end of the cooperative agreement's period of performance (July 15, 
2017).
    As the nation's most abundant fossil fuel, coal is expected to have 
an important role in the United States' energy future. However, fossil 
fuel combustion is a major source of anthropogenic CO2 
emissions. Electric power generation contributes approximately 39 
percent of all CO2 emissions in the U.S. In 2009, 81 percent 
of all electricity production-related CO2 emissions resulted 
from the burning of coal.
    Public Law 107-63, enacted in November 2001, established the CCPI 
program, which is a cost-shared collaboration between the Federal 
government and industry to increase investment in advanced, low-
emissions coal technologies. Later, with Title IV of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) (Pub. L. 109-58), the Congress established 
additional criteria for projects receiving financial assistance under 
the CCPI program. Under these criteria, CCPI projects must help the 
nation successfully commercialize advanced power systems that ``advance 
efficiency, environmental performance, and cost competitiveness well 
beyond the level of technologies that are in commercial service'' 
(EPACT 2005, section 402(a)). In February 2009, the Congress 
appropriated $3.4 billion to DOE for fossil energy research and 
development, with $800 million allocated to the CCPI program. CCPI's 
Round 3 seeks to address the challenge of meeting the United States' 
dynamic demand for electricity while decreasing emissions of 
CO2 from coal-based power generation. This is done through 
financial assistance awards to industrial participants for 
demonstrations, at commercial scale and in commercial settings, of low-
CO2 emissions coal-based technologies that have 
opportunities for timely deployment in the power industry.
    DOE's purpose is to provide financial assistance to projects that 
have the best chance of achieving the CCPI program's objectives as 
established by the Congress. Specifically, DOE's purpose and need for 
action is to demonstrate the commercial-readiness of CO2 
capture and geologic sequestration fully integrated with a power plant. 
The technical, environmental, financial and performance data generated 
from the design, construction, and operation of the polygen plant will 
provide a commercial reference plant for these technologies.

EIS Process

    DOE published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on June 2, 
2010 (75 FR 30800) announcing its plan to prepare an EIS and hold a 
public scoping meeting. DOE held the scoping meeting in Odessa, Texas, 
on June 17, 2010. DOE considered all of the comments it received on the 
scope of the EIS and addressed them in the Draft EIS. On March 18, 
2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice 
of Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register (76 FR 14969). 
On March 22, 2011, DOE published in the Federal Register (76 FR 15968) 
a Notice of Availability and announced a public hearing in Odessa on 
April 5, 2011. Comments were solicited at the public hearing and 
throughout the 45-day public comment period, which ended May 2, 2011.
    Comments on the Draft EIS included:
     Proposed options to use municipal waste water and the 
proposed Fort Stockton Holdings water supply pipeline;
     Possible changes in discharges to Monahans Draw and salt 
loading due to discharge to the draw;
     The need to reduce the project's demand for potable water 
in light of the limited regional supply;
     The choice of West Texas as the site for a coal-fueled 
electricity generating plant instead of a site near either the supply 
of coal or the demand for the electricity;
     The market for electricity and the economic viability of 
the project;
     DOE's proposed funding of clean coal projects instead of 
projects using renewable resources;
     The need for a comprehensive CO2 emissions 
assessment that extends through the EOR process to the end uses of 
produced petroleum products;
     Increased railroad traffic and associated coal dust; and
     The existence of additional foreseeable projects that 
should be included in the cumulative effects section of the EIS.
    In the Final EIS, DOE considered and, as appropriate, responded to 
comments on the Draft EIS. The EPA published a Notice of Availability 
for the EIS in the Federal Register on August 5, 2011 (76 FR 47579). In 
addition to responding to comments on the Draft EIS, the Final EIS 
included new information related to, among other things, treatment of 
process water and the disposal of waste water by two additional 
options: evaporation ponds and deep well injection.

Decision

    DOE has decided to proceed with $450 million in financial 
assistance (i.e., cost-shared funding) under the terms of the 
cooperative agreement with Summit for the design, construction and 
demonstration of the TCEP.

Basis of Decision

    DOE's decision was reached after considering the potential 
environmental impacts presented in the EIS, the practicable options for 
mitigation of the impacts, the importance of achieving the objectives 
of programmatic and legislative mandates (CCPI, EPACT 2005, and ARRA) 
and other information. Specifically, the project meets or exceeds the 
three primary objectives of CCPI Round 3 and satisfies the programmatic 
and legislative objective of demonstrating the technical practicality 
of producing electricity and other products from coal while capturing 
and beneficially using most of the CO2 produced from coal 
gasification.
    Furthermore, the project will create jobs and modernize the 
nation's infrastructure, meeting the objectives of the ARRA. During 
most of the construction period, the gross domestic product (GDP) in 
the region of influence (Ector, Midland, Crane and Ward Counties) is 
estimated to increase by more than 0.4 percent; during the final year 
of construction it will increase by an estimated 0.67 percent. During 
plant operations, regional GDP will increase

[[Page 60480]]

by about 0.16 percent, representing a long-term benefit. Property taxes 
paid by the project are expected to total $14.5 million annually during 
the operations phase, after deducting anticipated abatements and tax 
reliefs. Income and sales taxes related to the project will further 
benefit local governments.
    Summit estimates that an average of 650 construction workers will 
be needed to build the plant with a peak at perhaps 1,500 workers. 
TCEP's operational work force is expected to be approximately 150 
workers. Accounting for indirect and induced jobs, the total number of 
jobs resulting from the project will average about 1,000 during 
construction and 300 during operations.
    This decision incorporates all practicable means to avoid or 
minimize environmental, social, or economic harm. DOE plans to verify 
the implementation of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.

Mitigation

    As a condition of its decision to provide funding for the design, 
construction and operation of the project, DOE is imposing requirements 
that will avoid or minimize the environmental impacts of the project. 
These conditions are described below. Under the terms of the 
cooperative agreement, DOE requires Summit to comply with applicable 
Federal, state and local government laws, regulations, permit 
conditions, and orders. Mitigation measures beyond those specified in 
permit conditions enforceable by other Federal, state and local 
agencies are addressed in this ROD and, as appropriate, will be set 
forth in a Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) as required by 10 CFR 1021.331. 
The MAP will further detail the mitigation measures, explaining how 
they will be planned, implemented, monitored and reported. These 
mitigation requirements are a condition for continued DOE funding.
    DOE will ensure that commitments in this ROD (as further detailed 
in the MAP) are met through management of the cooperative agreement, 
which makes the conditions in the ROD contractually enforceable. DOE 
will make the MAP available for public inspection via postings on the 
DOE and NETL Web sites.
    During project planning, Summit incorporated various mitigation 
measures and anticipated permit requirements. The analyses in the EIS 
assumed that these measures would be in effect. These measures are 
identified in Tables S2-7 and 2-8 of the EIS as commitments made by 
Summit and are incorporated into this ROD as conditions for DOE's 
financial assistance under the cooperative agreement.
    Mitigations identified in this ROD shall be made a term and 
condition for future ownership or management of the TCEP by any other 
parties during the period of performance under the cooperative 
agreement.
    After carefully reviewing the EIS, the comments received on the EIS 
and proposed project, and the current events in the region, DOE 
requires the following mitigation measures as a condition of its 
decision:
    (1) Summit shall design and construct the TCEP to capture at least 
90 percent of the carbon in the fossil fuels when operating under 
normal conditions, and Summit shall use best efforts to achieve at 
least a 90 percent capture rate during the demonstration period.
    (2) Summit shall develop jointly with the Texas Bureau of Economic 
Geology and DOE a plan for monitoring, verification and accounting 
(MVA) of CO2 sequestered through EOR. The MVA will be 
implemented by third-party buyers of the CO2. Contracts 
established between Summit and these buyers (or the field operators who 
ultimately use the CO2) shall make the implementation of the 
MVA plan a term and condition of the contract and shall, as 
appropriate, involve the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology and the Texas 
Railroad Commission in the certification of the sequestration of 
CO2 via EOR. MVA reports submitted to the State of Texas 
shall also be submitted to Summit and to DOE (via Summit).
    (3) Summit shall not use the proposed Fort Stockton Holdings 
waterline as a primary water supply for the TCEP. If constructed, this 
waterline may be used as a backup supply to temporarily provide water 
to the TCEP when the primary water supply is not in service.
    (4) Summit shall not enter into contracts whereby waste water 
discharge into Monahans Draw would increase by more than 0.75 million 
gallons per day, as an annual average, and 6 million gallons per day as 
a daily maximum, as a result of the TCEP.
    (5) The TCEP's power island shall be designed, constructed and 
operated with dry cooling towers. If this is found to be technically 
infeasible, then a hybrid cooling system (or a wet cooling assist) may 
be used. A wet cooling system is acceptable for the chemical plant 
component of the TCEP.
    (6) If the TCEP uses solar evaporation ponds, Summit shall plan, 
design, and construct any high salinity ponds to be ready for 
installation of bird deterrent netting. Before completing final design 
on solar evaporation ponds, Summit shall prepare, jointly with DOE and 
governmental agencies with regulatory jurisdiction, a plan for bird 
deterrence, monitoring and reporting; and this plan shall be 
implemented during the design, construction and operation of the solar 
evaporation ponds.
    (7) If Summit chooses to dispose of desalination reject water by 
deep well injection, in addition to complying with the terms and 
conditions of a permit under Texas's Underground Injection Control 
Program, Summit shall install a well near the bottom of the zone of 
potentially potable ground water (i.e., ground water with a total 
dissolved solids concentration of less than 10,000 milligrams per 
liter) and monitor this water for increases in total dissolved solids 
and hydrocarbons as indicators of possible leakage of more deeply 
injected brine reject water or displaced native fluids. It may be 
feasible to use the same well for both monitoring and for supplying 
potable water to the polygen plant. Before completing final design on a 
system for deep well injection of brine reject water, Summit shall 
prepare, jointly with DOE and government agencies with regulatory 
jurisdiction, a plan for monitoring well design, construction, 
monitoring and reporting; and this plan shall be implemented during the 
design, construction and operations of the system for deep well 
injection.
    (8) Before land disturbance at the plant site and along the utility 
corridors, Summit shall survey areas to be disturbed and undertake 
measures to protect wetlands, waterways (including non-jurisdictional 
waters), playa lakes, rare species (e.g., the sand dune lizard, 
Sceloporus arenicolus, Federal candidate for listing) and critical 
habitats (e.g., the Shinnery Oak Sand Dune habitat), and state-listed 
rare species (particularly the Texas horned lizard), as specified in 
the MAP. As appropriate, Summit shall consult with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department regarding 
special natural communities and features, as well as rare species and 
their habitats.
    (9) To reduce impacts to species protected under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act, ground disturbing activities in areas of potential breeding 
habitat shall be avoided during the breeding and nesting season (March 
1 through July 31). If this seasonal avoidance is not practicable, a 
qualified biologist shall survey the potentially affected area prior to 
any ground disturbing activities to determine if nesting is underway; 
and buffer areas shall be established as needed to protect eggs and 
young birds until they fledge. Owls and hawks may

[[Page 60481]]

nest in this area at other times of year. Surveys shall be conducted 
for owl and hawk nests, and buffer areas shall be established around 
active nests. If a power transmission line route crosses or is located 
near a water body or playa lake bed, the adjacent section of the line 
shall have line markers to reduce the potential for bird collisions. To 
prevent electrocution of perching raptors and to reduce power outages 
and maintenance, Summit shall consider the use of various protection 
measures such as adequate line spacing, perch guards, and insulated 
jumper wires.
    (10) For linear facility routes chosen by Summit, phase I cultural 
resource surveys (including archaeological and paleontological 
surveys), along with consultations with the Texas State Historic 
Preservation Officer and DOE, shall be completed for segments not 
previously surveyed but for which surveys are warranted. Further 
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer for any 
unforeseen areas of construction or ground disturbance not included 
within the EIS shall be completed before construction starts to 
determine the need for further cultural resource investigations and any 
appropriate mitigation measures.
    (11) For any pipeline crossings of Monahans Draw, Summit shall 
first consider the practicability of pipeline installation beneath the 
streambed by directional drilling. If trenching is chosen as the method 
of installation of pipeline, Summit shall seek to use crossing 
locations and construction techniques whereby impacts to aquatic life, 
vegetation and land surface features along the draw would be minimized; 
and Summit shall use land surface reconstruction, erosion controls, and 
revegetation (with native species) to stabilize and restore the 
affected floodplains, stream banks, stream beds, and vegetation.
    (12) Where vegetative ground cover remains disturbed or soil 
remains exposed after project-related construction activities, Summit 
shall strive to achieve beneficial results in terms of erosion control, 
land stabilization, long-term vegetative cover and habitat improvement 
through revegetation, landscaping and other techniques as appropriate. 
Plantings of vegetation shall use species that are native, adaptable to 
the planting location, beneficial to wildlife, drought tolerant, and 
helpful with water conservation. Where practicable, grass re-seedings 
or plantings shall use only native species, usually in a mixture of 
grasses and forbs appropriate to address potential erosion problems and 
provide long-term cover.
    (13) Summit shall prepare annual reports during the term of the 
cooperative agreement that document the operations and corresponding 
air emissions from the TCEP. Annual reports shall include summary 
information on the TCEP's emissions of criteria pollutants, mercury and 
other toxic pollutants of concern, and CO2. These reports 
shall indicate the performance and emissions of the TCEP during normal 
operations. If air emissions data are collected during periods of 
operation outside normal steady-state conditions, this information also 
shall be summarized in the report.
    (14) To reduce visual impacts associated with polygen plant 
structures and facilities, including exposed portions of linear 
facilities, DOE recommends that Summit choose, where appropriate, 
finish coat colors for exterior surfaces that reduce the form, color 
and line contrasts between the surrounding landscape and the exteriors 
of buildings and structures. Chosen colors should be slightly darker 
than the surrounding landscape to achieve optimal benefit. This choice 
of color would not apply where regulation, safety, service, material 
type, or other reasons dictate the choice of other colors or no paint.
    Summit will conduct further resource assessments as the project 
planning and design continues. If there are substantial changes in the 
TCEP proposal or significant new information relevant to environmental 
concerns, as described in 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1), DOE will prepare a 
supplemental EIS. If it is unclear whether an EIS supplement is 
required, DOE will prepare a Supplement Analysis, in accordance with 10 
CFR 1021.314(c), to support the determination. DOE will make Supplement 
Analyses available to the public and to regulatory agencies with 
jurisdiction for 30 days of review and comment prior to DOE determining 
whether a supplemental EIS is required.

Project Description and Location

    The project will be located approximately 15 miles (mi) (24 
kilometers) southwest of the city of Odessa in Ector County, Texas. 
Summit will build the polygen plant on a 600-acre (243-hectare) site 
adjacent to the community of Penwell and north of Interstate Highway 20 
(I-20) along a Union Pacific Railroad line. Summit chose this site 
primarily because of its proximity to an existing CO2 
market, a connection point to a CO2 pipeline network, and 
multiple oil fields currently performing or suitable for CO2 
floods.
    The project's linear facilities include one or two electric 
transmission lines to connect the plant with one or both of the nearby 
power grids; process water supply pipelines; a natural gas pipeline; a 
pipeline for captured and compressed CO2; one or two access 
roads; and a rail spur.
    The TCEP will employ integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) 
technology. Gasification is the process of converting coal into a fuel 
called synthesis gas (syngas). A combined-cycle electric power plant is 
one that uses both a gas turbine-generator (similar to a jet aircraft 
engine) and a steam turbine-generator (which uses steam produced by 
exhaust heat from the gas turbine-generator) to produce more 
electricity than would be produced by a boiler and conventional steam 
turbine-generator alone. Combining (integrating) the gasification 
process with a combined-cycle power plant is known as IGCC.
    This polygen plant will include CO2 capture and 
compression with transport of the CO2 off-site for geologic 
sequestration through EOR. Specifically, the plant will have an air 
separation unit, a coal gasification system (with two operating 
gasifiers), a syngas cleanup system, a mercury (Hg) removal filter, an 
acid gas scrubber (for sulfur species and CO2), a 
CO2 compressor system, a sulfuric acid 
(H2SO4) production plant, a gas turbine-
generator, a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), a steam turbine-
generator, and a urea production plant. The linear facilities will 
convey the outputs and inputs of the polygen plant to and from existing 
infrastructure.
    Summit's TCEP will generate up to 400 megawatts (MW), of which 130 
to 213 MW (approximately 1.0 to 1.7 billion net kilowatt-hours of 
electricity per year) will be available to the electricity grid. In 
addition, the plant will be designed to capture, as CO2, 90 
percent or more of the total carbon in the fossil fuels used by the 
plant under typical operating conditions. Summit will capture up to 3 
million tons (2.7 million metric tonnes) of CO2 annually. 
Approximately 2.5 to 3.0 million tons (2.3 to 2.7 million metric 
tonnes) of the captured CO2 will be sold under commercial 
contracts and subsequently injected into partially depleted oil 
reservoirs where it will be used to extract more oil. In addition, the 
plant will produce urea for sale as fertilizer. Products from the 
gasification process (argon, H2SO4, and inert 
slag) will also be sold on the commercial market.
    Summit received a financial assistance award in Round 3 of DOE's 
CCPI program and qualified for

[[Page 60482]]

investment tax credits under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 48A, 
Qualifying Advanced Coal Project. Summit intends to seek tax credits 
under IRC section 45Q, Credit for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration. 
However, most of TCEP's funding will consist of owner-invested equity 
and debt obtained in private capital markets.

DOE's Proposed Action

    DOE's Proposed Action, as described in the EIS, is to provide a 
total of approximately $450 million in financial assistance for 
Summit's TCEP through a cooperative agreement. The financial assistance 
would be provided on a cost-share basis for the planning, design, 
construction, and demonstration-phase testing and operation of the 
project. Under the terms of the agreement, DOE has already made 
available approximately $48 million on a cost-share basis for the 
project's definition phase, which includes completion of the NEPA 
process.

Alternatives

    The Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCPI by 
providing financial assistance to projects owned by non-Federal 
sponsors and using coal for at least 75 percent of the project's fuel 
requirement. This approach places DOE in a much more limited role than 
if it were the owner and operator of the project. Here, the purpose and 
need for DOE action is defined by the CCPI program and the ARRA. Given 
that CCPI's programmatic purposes and needs are defined by legislation, 
the reasonable alternatives available to DOE, prior to selection of 
this project, were the other projects submitted for DOE's consideration 
in response to the FOA and that were determined to be responsive to the 
FOA's requirements. All projects that were deemed responsive to the FOA 
were analyzed in an environmental critique pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.216, 
which establishes a specific NEPA process for competitive awards of 
financial assistance and contracts. A synopsis of the environmental 
critique is included in Appendix B of the EIS.
    After DOE selects a project, the reasonable alternatives become: 
(1) The project as proposed by the applicant, (2) alternatives or 
options still under consideration by the applicant or that are within 
reasonable confines of the project as proposed (e.g., the particular 
location of the plant on the parcel of land proposed for the project), 
and (3) the ``no action'' alternative.
    DOE issued the FOA for CCPI Round 3 in August 2008, and reopened it 
in June 2009 in response to the addition of ARRA funding to the CCPI 
program. Private sector participants submitted 38 proposals in response 
to the reopened solicitation. After an initial screening removed from 
further consideration those proposals that failed to meet the 
eligibility requirements, the remaining 25 responsive proposals were 
subjected to environmental review and consideration (during the 
selection process) in accordance with 10 CFR 1021.216. From these 25 
proposals DOE selected three proposals representing diverse 
technologies and using a variety of coals to further the goals of the 
CCPI program. DOE selected the TCEP under the reopening of Round 3 
because it would demonstrate IGCC power generation integrated with 
chemical production and CO2 capture technologies in a 
commercial project.
    Summit chose the site for its TCEP based on a selection process 
that it had completed prior to applying for DOE's financial assistance. 
Because of its desire to integrate IGCC technology with CO2 
capture, Summit focused its site selection efforts in Texas, which has 
both a regional market for CO2 for use in EOR and existing 
infrastructure for transporting CO2 to oil fields. Summit 
considered several sites in Texas, including Corpus Christi, Oak Grove, 
Big Brown, and two sites--Jewett and Odessa--that had been considered 
for DOE's FutureGen project. Summit ultimately selected the Odessa site 
primarily because of its proximity to an existing CO2 
pipeline and multiple oil fields where EOR is or may be used. The 
Odessa site also has close access to rail, natural gas, transmission 
lines, and sources of water, which the other sites lacked in varying 
degrees. The Odessa site enjoys significant community support for the 
TCEP.
    Under the proposed action alternative, DOE assessed the potential 
environmental impacts associated with alternative water supplies, 
alternative routes for linear facilities, and options for certain plant 
sub-systems (e.g., evaporation ponds versus deep well injection of 
reject water from the desalination of supply water) as described in the 
EIS. In identifying alternative routes for linear facilities, Summit 
considered selection factors such as using or paralleling existing 
rights of ways and avoiding developed areas and sensitive areas. In the 
EIS, DOE reviewed the potential environmental impacts of these various 
project alternatives still under consideration by Summit with the goal 
of deciding for each of Summit's alternatives whether any adverse 
consequences might be sufficiently objectionable that DOE would 
disallow the usage of that alternative in the TCEP as a condition for 
DOE's financial assistance.

No-Action Alternative

    Under the No-Action Alternative, DOE would not share in the cost 
for detailed design, construction and a three-year demonstration phase 
of the TCEP. For purposes of analysis in the EIS, DOE considered the 
``no-action'' alternative to be the same as the ``no-build'' 
alternative.
    In the absence of financial assistance from DOE, Summit might 
choose to construct and operate the TCEP if it could obtain sufficient 
private financing. However, DOE believes this option is unlikely, 
because of the financial risks and costs of deploying a new power 
plant, especially one with IGCC technology integrated with 
CO2 capture and sequestration. Without DOE participation, it 
is likely that the proposed project would not be built, environmental 
resources would remain in their current condition, and none of the 
impacts associated with the project would occur, whether adverse or 
beneficial (i.e., no new construction, jobs, marketable products, 
resource use, land-use alterations, emissions, discharges, or wastes).
    If the project were canceled, the proposed technologies of the TCEP 
(e.g., commercial-scale IGCC integrated with CO2 capture and 
geologic storage of CO2 using EOR; the manufacture of urea 
from gasified coal) may not be implemented in the near term. 
Consequently, commercialization of these technologies may be delayed or 
may not occur because utilities and industries tend to use known and 
demonstrated technologies rather than new technologies. The no action 
alternative would not contribute to CCPI's goals of accelerating the 
commercial readiness of advanced multi-pollutant emissions control; 
improving combustion, gasification, and efficiency technologies; and 
demonstrating advanced coal-based technologies that capture and 
sequester CO2 emissions.

Potential Environmental Impacts

    In making its decision to provide continued financial assistance to 
the TCEP, DOE considered the environmental impacts of the proposed 
project and no-action alternative on affected resources. These include 
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; climate; soils, geology, and 
mineral resources; ground water; surface water, floodplains and 
wetlands; biological resources; aesthetics; cultural resources; land 
use; socioeconomics and

[[Page 60483]]

community services; environmental justice; utility services; 
transportation; materials and waste management; human health, safety, 
and accidents; and noise and vibration. The EIS also examined potential 
incremental impacts of the TCEP in combination with other past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (i.e., cumulative impacts). 
The following sections summarize the environmental impacts and 
mitigation measures described and analyzed in the Final EIS.

Air Quality

    The TCEP will be categorized as a major source of air pollutants 
under Clean Air Act regulations because emissions of some criteria 
pollutants (NO2, SO2, CO, PM10, and 
PM2.5) will exceed 100 tons per year. Construction-related 
and operational emissions would not cause air quality to exceed either 
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments or the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However, ambient air 
concentrations of criteria pollutants could increase between 9 percent 
and 200 percent at the point of maximum ground level impact under 
certain weather conditions during plant operations. While the TCEP will 
capture for beneficial use at least 90 percent of the carbon as 
CO2 in its fuels, annual emissions of CO2 from 
the TCEP will reach 300,000 tons per year, and these emissions will 
contribute to global atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
    Plant-wide emissions of hazardous air pollutants will not exceed 
either the individual pollutant threshold (10 tons per year) or the 
combined pollutant threshold (25 tons per year). Maximum predicted 
concentrations for all identified compounds that could have a negative 
impact to human health were found to be below their respective effects 
screening limits for general public exposure, except for short-term 
exposures to coal dust on the plant site (which will not exceed 
industrial exposure criteria).
    Although air quality impacts will be small, the TCEP will reduce 
emissions and impacts to the fullest extent practicable. As a condition 
of its decision, DOE requires reports on air emissions from the TCEP 
(see Mitigation).

Climate

    Construction and operation of the TCEP will not cause measurable 
impacts on local, regional or global climate and meteorology. However, 
operations of the TCEP will contribute greenhouse gas emissions to the 
atmosphere. Annual emissions of CO2 from the TCEP operations 
will range up to 300,000 tons per year, and these emissions will 
contribute to global atmospheric concentrations of CO2. 
Small amounts of methane and other organic compounds (the TCEQ-issued 
air emissions permit limit equals 39.6 tons per year) will be emitted 
and will contribute to greenhouse gas effects.
    The TCEP is designed to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases 
(and precursors) to levels that are much lower than conventional power 
plants of equivalent gross generating capacity and lower than other 
advanced clean coal power plants that have been constructed and 
operated. DOE requires as a condition of its decisions that the TCEP be 
designed and constructed to capture at least 90 percent of the carbon 
in its fossil fuels (see Mitigation).

Soils, Geology and Mineral Resources

    Soils will be disturbed as areas are prepared for construction. 
Disturbed soils will be protected from erosion and will be re-planted 
where practicable. Disturbance at the plant site will result in 
permanent removal or displacement of soils on up to 600 acres. Soil 
disturbance in utility corridors is expected to be temporary and will 
vary greatly depending on the options and routes selected, ranging from 
132 to 1,032 acres (53.4 and 417.7 hectares) (assuming that the 
permanent rights-of-ways but not the temporary rights-of-ways will be 
fully disturbed). New transportation corridors connecting to the power 
plant site could require between 25.3 and 39.0 acres (10.2 and 15.8 
hectares) of soil disturbance.
    The CO2 from the TCEP will be sold to ongoing EOR 
operations in the Permian Basin. This use of CO2 in the 
basin is a well-established process that will serve as final 
sequestration for the CO2 captured at the TCEP. Capture and 
sale of CO2 from the polygen plant will promote the recovery 
of oil and gas in the Permian Basin, where average additional oil 
production is approximately 1.86 barrels of oil per ton of 
CO2 injected. As a tertiary method of EOR, CO2 
floods help oil field operators recover another 8 to 16 percent of the 
original quantity of oil in the reservoir.
    Because oil and gas are withdrawn from oil reservoirs as 
CO2 is injected, fluid pressures within the reservoir would 
not be expected to build up to levels that would represent a 
substantial risk of seismic activity, displacement of native fluids 
into overlying strata, or migration of injected CO2 into 
other strata. Abandoned oil wells typically present the most likely 
leakage routes in old oil fields, and these leaks can usually be 
identified and plugged. Over the long term, injected CO2 
would be trapped in the reservoirs that had previously trapped oil and 
natural gas through many millions of years. DOE requires as a condition 
of its decision that Summit monitor and verify the sequestration of 
TCEP's injected CO2 (see Mitigation).

Ground Water

    Supplies of non-potable (brackish or saline) ground water appear 
more than adequate in the region to meet TCEP's consumption rates for 
process (industrial) water. Although no adverse impacts are expected to 
occur if non-potable ground water is used, water conservation and use 
of a dry cooling system have been included as an integral part of the 
plant to minimize the potential for water supply impacts to the fullest 
extent practicable.
    Aside from meeting the TCEP's needs for process water, Summit is 
considering installation of an on-site well into the Dockum Aquifer to 
serve the plant's potable water needs. Operational demand will be 
approximately 4,500 gal (17,034 L) per day based on approximately 150 
workers on-site. In Ector County, the quality of the Dockum Aquifer 
ranges from fresh to brackish. Although irrigation and public supply 
use is limited in Ector County, at least one resident in the adjacent 
community of Penwell currently relies on water from the same aquifer 
for residential and small-scale commercial use. Potential water quality 
effects on this adjacent well user will be estimated through testing of 
a newly drilled well on-site, if this option is further investigated 
for its potential to supply potable water to the TCEP.
    The TCEP could affect ground water in several ways: (1) Project 
consumption from underground sources of drinking water, (2) 
displacement of fluids into underground sources of drinking water, (3) 
contamination due to spills, leaks, releases or leaching during 
construction and operations, and (4) diminished recharge due to 
alterations of the ground surface.
    The consumption of potable water from ground water aquifers would 
constitute a significant impact if the TCEP were to use such sources 
for primary supply of process water. From the beginning, project 
planners were aware of the potential harms in using potable water for 
the plant's process water needs, so this type of water supply was 
disfavored.
    The Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer was considered as one of the 
options for water supply, using an existing well field located near the 
town

[[Page 60484]]

of Fort Stockton, Texas. This well field yields water of marginal 
quality for human consumption and the water would benefit from 
desalination to improve its acceptance for drinking water. Currently 
water from this field is being used for agricultural irrigation. The 
proposed Fort Stockton Holdings waterline would divert water currently 
used for irrigation to the cities of Midland and Odessa where it could 
be used for potable water supply.
    If the Fort Stockton Holdings waterline were built, the TCEP could 
use approximately 10 percent of its capacity. Because no additional 
ground water would be withdrawn from the aquifer (beyond the current 
rate of pumping for agricultural irrigation) and because very little of 
the water currently used for irrigation recharges the Edwards-Trinity 
Aquifer, Fort Stockton Holdings' proposed waterline project, and TCEP's 
use of 10 percent of the waterline's capacity, would have no additional 
impact on the aquifer. The proposed Fort Stockton Holdings waterline is 
highly controversial and has been unable to obtain needed permits and 
approvals. Therefore, it is unlikely that this waterline would be built 
in time for the TCEP to use it as a primary water supply. DOE requires 
as a condition of its decision that the Fort Stockton Holdings water 
line not be used as a primary source of water (see Mitigation).
    The Capitan Reef Complex Aquifer is a minor aquifer in West Texas 
that is approximately 25 miles to the west of the plant site. Summit 
proposed this aquifer as an option for the process water source. The 
aquifer generally contains poor quality water. Most of the ground water 
pumped from this aquifer in Texas is used for secondary oil recovery. A 
small amount is used for irrigation of salt-tolerant crops. Over the 
last 70 years, water levels in the aquifer have declined in some areas. 
The Oxy Permian pipeline system distributes brackish ground water from 
the Capitan Reef formation to water flood projects in the Permian 
Basin. The closest source of Oxy Permian water to the polygen plant 
site is a group of ground water wells near the town of Kermit, Texas.
    The Oxy Permian system is not used at its full capacity, and demand 
for water for use in secondary oil recovery has been slowly declining. 
Because the amount of water pumped for the Oxy Permian pipeline has 
steadily decreased, the impacts of additional pumping for use as TCEP 
process water would be small. Usage of this water supply option would 
require the installation and use of a substantial desalination system 
at the TCEP plant site, with disposal of a substantial volume of 
desalination reject water (brine).
    Summit also considered the Pecos Alluvium Aquifer in response to a 
suggestion submitted during the public comment period on the Draft EIS. 
This aquifer is of major regional importance and has been widely used 
for irrigation. In central Ward County, it is also used for municipal 
and industrial purposes. Production rates greatly exceed recharge rates 
and aquifer drawdown has approached 200 feet (61 meters) in some areas. 
The aquifer is also highly variable in production quality and quantity. 
If TCEP were to use this option, impacts to the aquifer's water quality 
and quantity would likely be significant within the region of the 
drawdown.
    If deep injection wells are used for the disposal of waste water 
(whether brine water or industrial waste water), its injection could 
displace native fluids upward into underground sources of drinking 
water. The area of risk would be around the injection wells where fluid 
pressures could increase significantly in response to the injection. 
The extent of this area would be estimated after a test well is drilled 
by Summit to gather hydrologic information on each of the likely 
injection targets. If Summit chooses this option, DOE requires 
monitoring of changes in water quality in the deepest underground 
source of drinking water above the injection site (see Mitigation).
    If additional municipal waste water, after treatment, would be 
disposed of into Monahans Draw as a result of the TCEP, there would be 
only a small risk of increased contamination of ground water beneath 
the draw. Permit limits on total dissolved solids (salinity) in water 
discharged into the draw will not be increased, but the volume of waste 
water discharged and salt loading could increase. DOE requires a limit 
on TCEP-related waste water discharges and salt loading to Monahan's 
Draw (see Mitigation).

Surface Water, Floodplains and Wetlands

    At the TCEP site and along access roads, no surface water 
resources, floodplains, or wetlands are present and, therefore, no 
direct impacts to them are expected. Floodplains and wetland areas have 
been identified within pipeline corridors, with the following amounts 
of wetlands being subject to disturbance: WL1, up to 2.53 acres (1.0 
hectares); WL3, up to 0.86 acres (0.35 hectares); and WL5, up to 1.29 
acres (0.52 hectares). The options for installation of pipelines 
beneath wetlands and water bodies are trenching and directional 
drilling. The choice of installation technique would be made by Summit 
on a case-by-case basis after more information is gathered at each 
location. After construction is complete, pipelines will not further 
impact floodplains. For transmission lines, structures could be sited 
to avoid wetlands along these routes. Construction activities in 
corridors that have water bodies (WL1, WL3 and WL5) are likely to 
result in short-term, construction-related impacts such as increased 
turbidity, sedimentation, streambed disturbance, and stream-bank 
vegetation removal.
    Under one option for primary supply of process water, municipal 
waste water from Midland would be processed through primary and 
secondary treatment by the Gulf Coast Authority's (GCA's) plant and 
then processed through micro-filtration or ultra-filtration devices 
before being piped to the TCEP for use. If this option is chosen by 
Summit, there would be an increase in effluent discharge to Monahans 
Draw from the GCA outfall as a result of accepting more waste water, on 
most days, than is required for the TCEP and as a result of disposal of 
the reject water. The draw would be dry most of the time if not for the 
discharges of treated municipal and industrial waste water that 
maintain ponds and wetlands on portions of the draw. The wetlands, 
although small, are among the largest and best in the area and are used 
by a variety of birds and other wildlife. The potential increase in 
GCA's discharge to Monahans Draw (1) would not contribute significantly 
to flooding events in downstream low-lying areas, (2) would make a 
small contribution to the existing salt loading in the draw, and (3) 
would further support and may slightly expand wetlands within the draw.
    If Summit chooses the option to use Midland's municipal waste 
water, the forecasted average increase of 0.75-million gallons per day 
(2.8-million Liters/day) in GCA's discharge to Monahans Draw would 
represent a 27 percent increase over the current average discharge from 
the GCA outfall and may cause a small increase in the downstream extent 
of stream flow along the draw during dry periods and in the downstream 
extent of wetlands. Neither the average per day increase in GCA's 
effluent discharge, nor the infrequent full release of waste water 
received from Midland (6 million gallons per day) would represent a 
significant impact to flood flow volume, flood elevations, or flooding 
frequency in the downstream areas along Monahans Draw.

[[Page 60485]]

    The increase in concentration of total dissolved solids in GCA's 
discharges would be negligible (dissolved salts would pass through the 
micro filtration or ultra filtration devices). However, if Summit 
chooses to use Midland's municipal waste water, there would be a small 
contribution to the existing salt loading in the draw because of the 
increase in the quantity of effluent.

Biological Resources

    Land disturbance and usage at the TCEP site will result in the 
permanent loss of up to 600 acres (243 hectares) of the mesquite shrub 
and grassland vegetation community and associated habitat functions. 
Construction activities could result in the death of slow-moving 
terrestrial species not able to escape the path of construction 
equipment. Noise associated with construction could result in wildlife 
displacement and behavioral changes that could have minimal impacts on 
reproductive success. Noise associated with plant operations will have 
negligible long-term effects on wildlife, because the wildlife will 
become accustomed to it. Land at the plant site is suitable for the 
Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) (state listed, threatened) as 
well as 11 other state-listed rare species. DOE requires, as a 
condition of its decision, measures to protect listed species (see 
Mitigation).
    Construction of the linear facilities will result in the permanent 
removal of 132 to 1,032 acres (53 to 418 hectares) of mesquite shrub 
and grassland community and associated habitat functions, based on the 
smallest and largest combinations of the linear facility options. An 
additional 246 to 949 acres (100 to 384 hectares) of habitat could be 
temporarily removed or disturbed during construction. Impacts to 
terrestrial species will be similar to those described above. DOE 
requires, as a condition of its decision, measures to protect listed 
species (see Mitigation).
    At the polygen plant site up to 600 acres (243 hectares) of 
suitable habitat for scrubland-nesting migratory birds and their nests 
will be permanently removed. Introduced species (European starlings and 
house sparrows) commonly associated with development activities (e.g., 
maintained landscaping, open trash receptacles) could encroach on the 
plant site and displace or out-compete native songbird species. 
Migratory birds could experience noise-related impacts. Additional 
habitat loss for migratory birds will occur from the construction and 
operation of the linear facilities. Furthermore, disturbance from 
access road construction and use could displace migratory birds from 
areas adjacent to these. Bird and bat mortalities due to collisions 
with transmission lines will also occur. DOE requires, as a condition 
of its decision, minimization of impacts to migratory birds (see 
Mitigation).
    If Summit chooses to use solar evaporation ponds for the disposal 
of waste water, the ponds could attract waterfowl to them thereby 
exposing the birds to concentrated brine water, which could cause salt 
toxicosis and salt encrustation of feathers leading to bird deaths. 
Covering ponds with netting would be one option for deterring birds 
from contacting the brines. Others options exist for deterring birds, 
and these would be considered when Summit prepares a bird deterrence 
plan (see Mitigation).

Aesthetics

    Visual impacts caused by the polygen plant were evaluated from a 
number of key observation points in the area. The plant, as viewed from 
most locations (including the Monahans Sandhills State Park) will have 
only minor impacts on the view shed. The view of the plant will be more 
dramatic from the crest of the escarpment to the east, especially as 
seen by motorists traveling west from Odessa on I-20.
    During operations, the height and size of the plant structures and 
coal storage pile will create moderate, adverse, direct impacts as 
viewed from the crest of the escarpment to the east because of the 
strong form, color, and line contrasts with the surrounding landscape. 
Water vapor emitted from the cooling tower will increase the extent of 
visual intrusion.
    Adverse impacts to night sky conditions could occur during both 
construction and operations due to the installation of high-intensity 
lighting within and around the site. Light reflected upward will create 
regionally visible light pollution and sky glow. Strobe lighting (if 
required by the Federal Aviation Administration) on the top of the 
taller plant structures will adversely affect night sky conditions by 
imposing high-intensity flashing lights that will be regionally 
visible.
    Transmission line structures will adversely impact the view-shed 
because of their height and intrusive vertical form contrasts with the 
landscape and because they will be visible from major travel routes. 
Because of existing power lines, however, they will not become a focus 
of viewer attention.
    Minor adverse impacts will occur during construction of pipelines 
because equipment and trenches will be visible and because vegetation 
will be cleared along rights-of-ways. Although pipelines will be 
buried, long-term impacts to aesthetics will occur because rights-of-
ways will be maintained clear of larger vegetation.

Cultural Resources

    Construction and operation of the TCEP are not anticipated to 
impact significant cultural resources; however, utility corridors have 
not been thoroughly investigated and could have resources that deserve 
protection. Near the plant site one historical complex or set of 
buildings, the Rhodes Welding Complex, is considered eligible for the 
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Changes to the setting 
will not affect its NRHP eligibility. DOE requires, as a condition of 
its decision, cultural resource surveys to be completed for options and 
linear facility routes tentatively chosen by Summit (see Mitigation).

Land Use

    The plant site is currently used for ranching and oil and gas 
production, and these will be displaced on the 600-acre plant site by 
the TCEP. Existing subsurface rights will continue to be available for 
exploration and production of oil and gas. Operation of the polygen 
plant will not be incompatible with most of the surrounding land uses. 
However, the project will directly affect at least one and perhaps 
other nearby residential units in the mostly abandoned community of 
Penwell.
    For the linear facilities, existing land uses will be briefly and 
temporarily affected by construction. During operations, impacts to 
land use will be limited to the rights-of-way. The rights-of-way land 
requirements vary by facility type, and the associated impacts will 
last for at least the life of the utilities. The linear facilities will 
be consistent with the intent of the zoning districts through which 
they pass. Generally, existing land uses will be expected to continue 
after the linear facilities are constructed.

Socioeconomics and Community Services

    Impacts to local and regional population during construction will 
be minor because most workers will commute from nearby communities. 
Impacts to population during operations will be negligible because most 
of the 150 permanent workers will come from the local population, 
although some may come from outside the area. Existing housing and 
hotel supply will be adequate to meet demands during operations and 
most of the construction phase. Because TCEP workers will come 
primarily from the existing nearby

[[Page 60486]]

populations, no changes are anticipated in the demand for law 
enforcement, emergency response, health services, schools, and 
recreational opportunities in the region.
    During most of the construction, GDP in the region of influence 
(Ector, Midland, Crane and Ward Counties) is estimated to increase by 
more than 0.4 percent. During the final year of construction, it will 
increase an estimated 0.67 percent. During operations, it will increase 
by about 0.16 percent, representing a long-term and beneficial impact 
for the region. Tax revenue from the TCEP will have a beneficial and 
long-term impact to the region as revenue will be redistributed to 
counties, which in turn will allocate and redistribute to local 
communities.

Environmental Justice

    Construction and operation of the proposed project are not 
anticipated to have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on 
minority or low-income populations in the area around the TCEP. Ector 
County has a higher concentration of minority populations than the 
state as a whole, and many areas of the county have higher 
concentrations of low-income individuals and families. Minority and 
low-income populations were not identified in the immediate vicinity of 
the TCEP (e.g., region of influence for operational noise). Project 
emissions are not expected to cause significant air quality impacts or 
exceed regulatory thresholds. Impacts to surface and ground water 
resources are not expected to be high. Construction-related traffic 
congestion and traffic noise would temporarily increase significantly 
in some road segments very near the plant site, but these impacts are 
not expected to be disproportionate. Noise generated by operations and 
construction of the project would be significant locally; however, 
these impacts would not be disproportionate on environmental justice 
populations.
    In general, the project could disproportionally harm minority and 
low-income communities in regard to housing availability (primarily 
short-term housing, such as motels), utility rates, and safety issues 
associated with increased traffic, but these impacts are not expected 
to be high. Short-term beneficial impacts could include an increase in 
employment opportunities and higher wages during construction.

Utility Service

    To accommodate the electricity generated by the TCEP, there may be 
a need for system upgrades associated with the electrical 
interconnection to either the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 
(ERCOT) grid or the Southwestern Power Pool (SPP) grid. The nature of 
the upgrades will be further defined as interconnection studies are 
completed. These upgrades could involve local installation of larger 
conductors, new power transmission line segments, and upgrades of other 
local system components.

Transportation

    Several routes were considered as potential new access roads to the 
polygen plant site. One route is directly from the community of 
Penwell, linking FM 1601 to the plant site via an underpass beneath the 
railroad at the southern border of the plant. The other routes are from 
the east and northeast of the plant site, connecting either to FM 866 
or an I-20 frontage road.
    During the period of plant construction, local traffic will 
increase as a function of the employment levels at the plant site. 
Delays associated with merging traffic and increased percent of time 
spent following slow vehicles will affect the level of service (LOS) of 
each road to which a plant site access road may be connected. 
Construction activities will result in temporary localized traffic 
delays, and most impacts will occur during shift changes.
    During TCEP operations, there will be an average of four additional 
150-car unit-trains per week along the railroad (Union Pacific), 
amounting to a 3 percent increase over the existing rail traffic on 
this line. Under the peak urea production option, there would be an 
average of approximately six additional 150-car unit-trains per week 
along the railroad, amounting to a five percent increase in rail 
traffic. Neither option represents an increase that would exceed system 
capacity nor cause delay to existing railway operations. Because the 
loading and unloading of TCEP-related materials will occur on the 
railroad spur, no impacts to the railroad will occur.

Materials and Waste Management

    No impacts will occur from the management of construction 
materials. Furthermore, no impacts will occur to the supply of 
construction materials as a result of the demand from the project. 
Operations materials will include coal, natural gas, process water, 
process chemicals, and commercially marketable products. No impacts 
from the management of these materials are expected. Plans for 
delivery, handling, and storage of operations materials will be in 
place before operations begin.

Human Health, Safety, and Accidents

    During construction, Summit will follow established procedures to 
provide a safe and healthy environment for workers, contractors, 
visitors, and the community. Based on industry workplace hazard 
statistics, the TCEP construction workforce could experience 91.65 
nonfatal, recordable incidents and 48.75 lost workdays. Statistics 
suggest that fatalities are unlikely (0.19 fatality) during the three-
year construction period.
    Design features and safety programs will be established by Summit 
to minimize hazards during operations of the TCEP and linear 
facilities. Based on industry workplace hazard statistics, over the 
life of the project the TCEP operations workforce could experience 158 
recordable incidents, 122 lost workdays, and less than one fatality.
    Adverse impacts to human health and safety, although unlikely, 
could result from various types of accidents or acts of sabotage and 
terrorism, ranging from small pipeline leaks to, in an extremely 
unlikely case, an explosion at the polygen plant. The greatest risks to 
human health and safety are associated with sudden, unconstrained 
releases of toxic gases, such as ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen 
sulfide (H2S). Exposure modeling of unmitigated releases 
using worst-case atmospheric conditions was used to evaluate the risks 
of various levels of harm. These analyses were made assuming no 
mitigations are used; therefore, these risks can be reduced with the 
appropriate measures, such as planning, design and engineering 
controls. While the probability of intentional acts like sabotage and 
terrorism cannot be easily predicted, the consequences could be similar 
to the accidents analyzed in the risk assessment.
    During operations of the polygen plant, the risk of someone being 
killed by exposure to a toxic gas in the event of a release would vary 
depending on his location relative to the release. The risk per year 
ranges from one in 1,000 to one in 100,000,000 of being killed in the 
project area. Toxic substance hazards are dominated by the potential 
releases of ammonia gas from the pipeline leading from the ammonia 
synthesis unit to the urea synthesis plant, or through ammonia 
production or storage processes. Risks are greatest to those workers 
closest to the ammonia synthesis unit.

Noise and Vibration

    During construction, equipment noise will be perceptible outdoors 
at the Penwell receptor locations north of I-

[[Page 60487]]

20; however, people south of I-20 will likely not hear a substantial 
increase in noise owing to existing noise from vehicles on I-20. 
Intermittent increases in noise will result from steam venting prior to 
and during plant startup and commissioning. Although this venting will 
briefly exceed acceptable Federal Transit Administration (FTA) levels 
for residential areas (there will be a series of short loud blasts over 
a two-week period), the FTA's commercial-area construction threshold 
levels will not be exceeded.
    Construction of some linear facilities (WL3, TL5, TL6, NG1-NG3, and 
AR1) will likely create temporary, adverse noise impacts to residents 
where the proposed lines are located close to residential areas.
    During polygen plant operations, several plant components (e.g., 
generators, pumps, fans, vents, relief valves, coal delivery/handling 
system) will generate noise. This operational noise will exceed the 
EPA's 55 dBA Ldn outdoor noise threshold at the two closest noise-
sensitive receptors in Penwell (exceeding the threshold by 6 and 4 
dBA). Long-term indoor noise levels are expected to be in compliance 
with EPA health and safety guidelines.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    From a local perspective, the no-action alternative is 
environmentally preferable because it would result in no changes to the 
existing environmental conditions. However, from a national 
perspective, DOE's Proposed Action is the environmentally preferred 
alternative because it could hasten the deployment of carbon capture 
and sequestration practices at power plants and other industrial 
facilities around the world in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions that otherwise will occur with the continued combustion of 
fossil fuels, especially coal, in stationary facilities. In addition to 
demonstrating carbon capture from a power plant and sequestration of 
captured CO2 through EOR, the TCEP will encourage faster 
deployment of several other technologies that, if widely deployed by 
industry, could help reduce environmental impacts: (1) Integrated 
gasification combined-cycle technology, which allows for the production 
of more electricity from a given quantity of coal compared to 
convention power plants; (2) polygeneration, which may allow for lower 
cost and more efficient production of electricity and various other 
products (including products made using captured CO2, such 
as urea); (3) dry cooling, which greatly reduces water consumption or 
usage by various industrial processes; (4) zero liquid discharge or 
water reuse concepts, which help reduce water consumption and minimize 
the quantity of waste water.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

    DOE received comments, both oral and written, from U.S. EPA's 
Region 6 on the Final EIS concerning the lack of identification of 
preferred alternatives and the need to further investigate potential 
impacts to resources in association with some of the options.
    EPA's Region 6 found that DOE's revisions to the Draft EIS were 
generally improvements, but it remains concerned that a preferred 
alternative for each of the linear facilities was not identified in the 
Final EIS. Region 6 understood that Summit could not identify a 
preferred alternative for each of the linear facilities until 
additional investigations occur.
    For the TCEP, DOE identified its preferred alternative in the Final 
EIS, which is to fund the project. Subject to the mitigations required 
by this ROD and given the information presented in the Final EIS, DOE 
has no preference among the options not dismissed from further 
consideration by this ROD. DOE finds all the remaining options to be 
equally acceptable, provided that Summit undertakes the mitigations 
required by this ROD.
    EPA's Region 6 also requested that DOE make a commitment in the ROD 
that, if field investigations reveal that an option chosen by Summit 
has impacts greater than those identified in the EIS, DOE would prepare 
a supplemental analysis. EPA further requested that the supplement 
analysis be provided to all regulatory agencies, including the EPA, for 
review. DOE will gather additional information and, if that information 
reveals potential impacts that are not adequately addressed in the EIS, 
it will prepare a Supplement Analysis to assist DOE in determining 
whether a supplemental EIS is needed.
    DOE also received comments in writing from the Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department (TPWD) on the Final EIS concerning protection of 
wildlife and habitat.
    TPWD recommended that DOE review TPWD's comments and 
recommendations submitted during the public scoping and comment periods 
as many of these remain applicable to the project described in the 
Final EIS. As requested, DOE has again reviewed these two submittals 
and has factored TPWD's previous comments and recommendations into this 
ROD, particularly in the section on Mitigation.
    TPWD notes that because few water sources exist on or near the 
project site, resident and migratory birds may be attracted to the 
proposed evaporation ponds spanning 160 acres in this arid area. TPWD 
therefore recommends a bird deterrent system be developed for the 
evaporation ponds. In anticipation of this request, this ROD includes a 
requirement for a bird deterrent plan and the implementation of the 
plan, if Summit chooses to use solar evaporation ponds (see 
Mitigation). More specifically, this ROD requires that high salinity 
ponds be designed and constructed to be ready for the installation of 
netting. TPWD further asks that it be contacted to discuss specific 
details of a bird deterrent system. DOE and Summit will consult with 
TPWD during the development of the bird deterrent plan.
    TPWD supports Summit's preferred option of using Midland's 
municipal waste water as a supply for the polygen plant. However, TPWD 
believes that waterline option WL1 appears to better minimize adverse 
impacts to surface waters than WL5 because it has fewer crossings of 
Monahans Draw. To minimize impacts to the draw, TPWD recommends that 
the TCEP use directional drilling rather than trenching for pipeline 
crossings regardless of the waterline route chosen. The EIS notes that 
trenching, if this method of pipeline installation is chosen, would 
include restoration procedures, such as stream bank stabilization and 
revegetation. Further site investigations into the technical 
feasibility, costs, and potential for adverse impacts would be 
completed before determining the exact stream crossing locations, 
method of pipeline installation at streambeds, and mitigation methods.
    One individual submitted comments on the Final EIS. These comments 
encourage the use of desalinated brackish or brine ground water 
(particularly water co-produced with oil and gas) and provided an 
Internet address for an article on emerging desalination technologies 
that may cost less for waters produced from oil fields. The comments 
also suggest that Summit should consider a larger desalination system 
that could serve both the TCEP and some portion of the municipal water 
supply needs of Odessa. In response, Summit indicates that it is 
investigating various desalination systems and currently plans to size 
its system to meet the TCEP's needs assuming that brackish water from 
the Capitan Reef Complex Aquifer would be the source. Summit further 
indicates that it has engaged in preliminary discussions with 
representatives of the city of Odessa regarding the possibilities

[[Page 60488]]

for cooperation in the desalination of water.

    Issued in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on this 22nd of September 
2011.
Anthony V. Cugini,
Director, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2011-25070 Filed 9-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```