Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Notices 17397 

1 DOE anticipates that, pursuant to Cal. Pub. Res. 

Code section 21000 et seq., California agencies will 

impose mitigation measures to address potential 

impacts and project design elements to verify the 

sequestration of CO2 injected for EOR. 

will meet to review, develop and 

provide recommendations on all aspects 

of the academic and administrative 

policies of the University; examine all 

aspects of professional military 

education operations; and provide such 

oversight and advice, as is necessary, to 

facilitate high educational standards 

and cost effective operations. The Board 

will be focusing primarily on the 

internal procedures of the Marine Corps 

University. All sessions of the meeting 

will be open to the public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Friday, April 30, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Marine Corps University President’s 

Conference Room (Hooper Room). The 

address is: 2076 South Street, Quantico, 

Virginia 22134. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Lanzillotta, Executive Secretary, 

Marine Corps University Board of 

Visitors, 2076 South Street, Quantico, 

Virginia 22134, telephone number 703– 

784–4037. 

Dated: March 30, 2010. 

A.M. Vallandingham, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7730 Filed 4–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Hydrogen Energy California’s 

Integrated Gasification Combined 

Cycle Project, Kern County, CA— 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Notice of Potential Floodplain and 

Wetlands Involvement 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of intent and notice of 

potential floodplain and wetlands 

involvement. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the Department) 

announces its intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), 

and DOE’s NEPA regulations (10 CFR 

part 1021) to assess the potential 

environmental impacts of providing 

financial assistance for the construction 

and operation of a project proposed by 

Hydrogen Energy California LLC 

(HECA). DOE selected this project for an 

award of financial assistance through a 

competitive process under the Clean 

Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) program. 

The project proposed by HECA would 

demonstrate Integrated Gasification 

Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology with 

carbon capture in a new baseload 

electric generating plant in Kern 

County, California. The plant would use 

blends of coal and petroleum coke 

(petcoke) or petcoke alone as its 

feedstock, and would demonstrate 

carbon capture and sequestration on a 

commercial scale. 

The HECA project would gasify the 

coal and petcoke to produce synthesis 

gas (syngas), which would then be 

processed and purified to produce a 

hydrogen-rich fuel. The hydrogen 

would be used to power a combustion 

turbine, generating electricity while 

minimizing emissions of sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, mercury, and 

particulates compared to conventional 

coal-fired power plants. In addition, the 

project would achieve a carbon dioxide 

(CO2) capture efficiency of 

approximately 90 percent at steady-state 

operation. The captured CO2 would be 

compressed and transported via 

pipeline to the adjacent Elk Hills Field 

(owned and operated by Occidental of 

Elk Hills, Inc.) for injection into deep 

underground oil and gas reservoirs for 

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and 

geologic sequestration. 

The EIS will inform DOE’s decision 

on whether to provide financial 

assistance under its CCPI Program to the 

project proposed by HECA, which has 

an estimated capital cost of $2.3 billion. 

DOE’s financial assistance (or ‘‘cost 

share’’) would be limited to $308 

million, about 11 percent of the project’s 

total cost. DOE’s financial assistance is 

also limited to certain aspects of the 

power plant, carbon capture, and 

sequestration. The EIS will evaluate the 

potential impacts of DOE’s proposed 

action (provision of financial 

assistance), the project proposed by 

HECA and any connected actions, and 

reasonable alternatives to DOE’s 

proposed action. The purposes of this 

Notice of Intent are to: (1) Inform the 

public about DOE’s proposed action and 

HECA’s proposed project; (2) announce 

the public scoping meeting; (3) solicit 

comments for DOE’s consideration 

regarding the scope and content of the 

EIS; (4) invite those agencies with 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise 

to be cooperating agencies in 

preparation of the EIS; and (5) provide 

notice that the proposed project may 

involve potential impacts to floodplains 

and wetlands. 

DOE does not have regulatory 

jurisdiction over the HECA project. Its 

decisions are limited to whether and 

under what circumstances it would 

provide financial assistance to the 

project. There are a number of state and 

federal agencies that do have regulatory 

authority over the project; one of them 

is the California Energy Commission 

(CEC), which is responsible for power 

plant licensing under the WarrenAlquist Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code section 

25500 et seq.). This licensing process, 

which will consider all relevant 

environmental aspects of HECA’s 

proposed project and related facilities, 

is defined by California law, and under 

state law is certified as fulfilling the 

requirements of the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Cal. 

Pub. Res. Code section 21000 et seq.). 

Under this certified process, CEC holds 

public hearings, makes a final staff 

assessment, conducts evidentiary 

hearings, and issues a decision based on 

the hearing record, which includes the 

staff’s and other parties’ assessments. 

Through this process, the CEC staff will 

conduct an independent analysis of the 

proposed project and prepare an 

independent assessment of its potential 

environmental impacts, conditions of 

certification (e.g. mitigation measures), 

and alternatives. The staff will consult 

with interested Native American tribes 

and local, regional, state, and federal 

agencies, and CEC will coordinate its 

environmental review with other 

agencies, including the California 

Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal 

Resources (DOGGR). DOE understands 

that, pursuant to California law and a 

grant of primacy from the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

regarding Class II wells under section 

1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 

DOGGR has responsibility for 

permitting EOR injection and extraction 

wells, and is likely to have the 

regulatory lead for the CO2 sequestration 

aspects of the proposed project, and 

would impose permit conditions on 

these aspects of the project that are 

needed to ensure the HECA project’s 

compliance with California’s 

requirements regarding CO2 emissions 

from power plants.1

DOE intends to coordinate its NEPA 

review of the HECA project with the 

environmental review conducted by 

CEC as lead agency under CEQA. It will 

work closely with CEC throughout its 

regulatory processes in order to 

integrate the NEPA and CEQA processes 

in an efficient and expeditious manner. 

In particular, DOE will work with CEC 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
17398 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Notices 

on making the environmental analyses 

conducted for CEC’s regulatory 

processes as useful as possible in DOE’s 

NEPA process. 

DATES: DOE invites comments on the 

proposed scope and content of the EIS 

from all interested parties. Comments 

must be received by May 24, 2010, to 

ensure consideration. DOE will consider 

scoping comments submitted after this 

date to the extent practicable. In 

addition to receiving comments in 

writing and by telephone, DOE will 

conduct a public scoping meeting in 

which agencies, organizations, and 

individuals are invited to present oral 

and written comments and suggestions 

with regard to DOE’s proposed action, 

alternatives, and potential impacts of 

HECA’s project that DOE will consider 

in the EIS. The scoping meeting will be 

held in Salon A of the Bakersfield 

Marriott at the Convention Center, 801 

Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, 

California, at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, 

April 14, 2010. The public is also 

invited to learn more about the 

proposed project at an informal session 

at this location beginning at 5 p.m. 

Displays and other information about 

DOE’s proposed action and the HECA 

project will be available, and 

representatives from DOE and HECA 

will be present at the informal session 

to discuss the proposed project, DOE’s 

CCPI program, and the EIS process. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

scope of the EIS and requests to 

participate in the public scoping 

meeting should be addressed to: Dr. R. 

Paul Detwiler, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, 

P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236– 

0940. Individuals who would like to 

provide oral or electronic comments 

should contact Dr. Detwiler directly by 

telephone: 412–386–7349; toll-free 

number: 1–866–269–6493; fax: 412– 

386–6127; or electronic mail: 

heca.eis@netl.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this project or to 

receive a copy of the draft EIS when it 

is issued, contact Dr. Detwiler as 

described above. 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 20585–0103; 

telephone: 202–586–4600; fax: 202– 

586–7031; or leave a toll-free message at 

1–800–472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the early 1970s, DOE and its 

predecessor agencies have pursued 

research and development programs 

that include large, technically complex 

projects in pursuit of innovation in a 

wide variety of coal technologies 

through the proof-of-concept stage. 

However, helping a technology reach 

the proof-of-concept stage does not 

ensure its continued development or 

commercialization. Before a technology 

can be considered seriously for 

commercialization, it must be 

demonstrated at a sufficient scale to 

prove its reliability and economically 

competitive performance. The financial 

risk associated with such large-scale 

demonstration projects is often too high 

for the private sector to assume in the 

absence of strong incentives. 

The CCPI program was established in 

2002 as a government and private sector 

partnership to implement the 

recommendation in President Bush’s 

National Energy Policy to increase 

investment in clean coal technology. 

Through cooperative agreements with 

its private sector partners, the program 

advances clean coal technologies to 

commercialization; these technologies 

often involve combustion 

improvements, control systems 

advances, gasifier design, pollution 

reduction (including greenhouse gas 

reduction), efficiency increases, fuel 

processing, and others. 

The Congress established criteria for 

projects receiving financial assistance 

under this program in Title IV of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109– 

58) (EPACT 2005). Under this statute, 

CCPI projects must ‘‘advance efficiency, 

environmental performance, and cost 

competitiveness well beyond the level 

of technologies that are in commercial 

service’’ (Pub. L. 109–58, section 402(a)). 

In February 2009, the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Pub. L. 111–5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 

2009)) (ARRA) appropriated $3.4 billion 

to DOE for ‘‘Fossil Energy Research and 

Development;’’ the Department intends 

to use a significant portion of these 

funds to provide financial assistance to 

CCPI projects. 

The CCPI program selects projects for 

its government-private sector 

partnerships through an open and 

competitive process. Potential private 

sector partners may include developers 

of technologies, utilities and other 

energy producers, service corporations, 

research and development firms, 

software developers, academia and 

others. DOE issues funding opportunity 

announcements that specify the types of 

projects it is seeking, and invites 

submission of applications. 

Applications are reviewed according to 

the criteria specified in the funding 

opportunity announcement; these 

criteria include technical, financial, 

environmental, and other 

considerations. DOE selects the projects 

that demonstrate the most promise 

when evaluated against these criteria, 

and enters into a cooperative agreement 

with the applicant. These agreements 

set out the project’s objectives, the 

obligations of the parties, and other 

features of the partnership. Applicants 

must agree to provide at least 50 percent 

of their project’s cost; for most CCPI 

projects, the applicant’s cost share is 

much greater. 

To date the CCPI program has 

conducted three rounds of solicitations 

and project selections. The first round 

sought projects that would demonstrate 

advanced technologies for power 

generation and improvements in plant 

efficiency, economics, and 

environmental performance. Round 2 

requested applications for projects that 

would demonstrate improved mercury 

controls and gasification technology. 

Round 3, which DOE conducted in two 

phases, sought projects that would 

demonstrate advanced coal-based 

electricity generating technologies 

which capture and sequester (or put to 

beneficial use) carbon dioxide 

emissions. DOE’s overarching goal for 

Round 3 projects was to demonstrate 

technologies at commercial scale in a 

commercial setting that would: (1) 

Operate at 90 percent capture efficiency 

for CO2; (2) make progress towards 

capture and sequestration at less than a 

10 percent increase in the cost of 

electricity for gasification systems and a 

less than 35 percent increase for 

combustion and oxycombustion 

systems; and (3) make progress toward 

capture and sequestration of 50 percent 

of the facility’s CO2 output at a scale 

sufficient to evaluate the full impacts of 

carbon capture technology on a 

generating plant’s operations, 

economics and performance. The HECA 

project was one of two selected in the 

first phase of Round 3. DOE entered into 

a cooperative agreement with HECA on 

September 30, 2009. 

Purpose and Need for DOE Action 

The purpose and need for DOE 

action—providing limited financial 

assistance to HECA’s project—are to 

advance the CCPI program by funding 

projects that have the best chance of 

achieving the program’s objective as 

established by the Congress: The 

commercialization of clean coal 

technologies that advance efficiency, 

environmental performance, and cost 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Notices 17399 

competitiveness well beyond the level 

of technologies that are currently in 

commercial service. 

Site of the Project Proposed by HECA 

HECA proposes to construct its IGCC 

baseload electric generating facility on a 

site currently used for agriculture in 

Kern County, California. The 1,101 acre 

site (473 acres of which would be used 

for the project and 628 acres for a 

controlled buffer area) is located in 

south-central California near the 

unincorporated community of Tupman, 

approximately 7 miles west of the city 

of Bakersfield. The site’s topography is 

characterized by relatively flat, lowlying terrain that slopes very gently 

from southeast to northwest. 

The IGCC facilities would occupy 

approximately 250 acres (or less than 25 

percent) of the site. Most of the 

remainder of the site would continue to 

be used for agriculture; some areas 

would be occupied by new process and 

potable water pipelines, a transmission 

line, a natural gas supply pipeline, a 

CO2 pipeline, access roads and fuelhandling facilities. 

Proposed Generating Plant 

The HECA project would demonstrate 

IGCC and carbon capture technology on 

a commercial scale in a new power 

plant consisting of three gasifiers with 

gas cleanup systems, a gas combustion 

turbine, a heat recovery steam generator, 

a steam turbine, and associated 

facilities. 

The plant proposed by HECA would 

gasify petcoke and coal to produce 

syngas, which would then be processed 

and purified to produce a hydrogen-rich 

fuel. The hydrogen would be used to 

drive the gas combustion turbine. Hot 

exhaust gas from the gas combustion 

turbine would generate steam from 

water in the heat recovery steam 

generator to drive the steam turbine; 

both turbines would generate baseload 

electricity. At full capacity, the plant 

would be expected to use about 3,200 

tons of feedstock per day (about 1.2 

million tons per year). HECA would 

transport petcoke to the site by truck. 

Coal would be brought to a nearby 

railhead and transferred to trucks for 

delivery to the site. 

Combined, the gas combustion and 

steam turbines would generate 

approximately 390 MW gross capacity 

(250 MW net) of low-carbon baseload 

electricity. This combined-cycle 

approach of using gas and steam 

turbines in tandem increases the 

amount of electricity that can be 

generated from the feedstock. 

The plant would include a system 

capable of capturing about 90 percent of 

CO2 generated during steady-state 

operation. The CO2 would be piped 

offsite for EOR and geologic 

sequestration in the Elk Hills Field, 

located approximately 4 miles 

southwest of the project’s location. 

The proposed plant would minimize 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

mercury, and particulate emissions as 

compared to conventional coal-fired 

power plants. It is expected to remove 

in excess of 99 percent of the sulfur 

dioxide produced by the plant and 

would also control emissions of 

nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and 

volatile organic compounds. In 

addition, over 99 percent of the mercury 

in the feedstock would be removed and 

over 99 percent of the particulates in the 

syngas would be removed using liquid 

scrubbing. 

Solids generated by the gasifiers 

would be accumulated onsite and made 

available for appropriate recycling or 

beneficial use, and if these options are 

not available, disposed of in accordance 

with applicable laws. It is anticipated 

that a significant fraction of the 

gasification solids with fuel value can 

be segregated and returned to the 

gasification process; the solids without 

fuel value would be beneficially used or 

properly disposed of. This return of 

solids with fuel value to the gasification 

process limits the amount of solids that 

must be disposed of as waste or 

beneficially used for another purpose. 

In addition to the gasifiers and 

turbines, the plant’s equipment would 

include stacks, mechanical-draft cooling 

towers, syngas cleanup facilities, and 

particulate filtration systems. The height 

of the tallest proposed stack would be 

approximately 260 feet above ground. 

The plant would also require systems 

for feedstock handling and storage, as 

well as on-site roads, administration 

buildings, water and wastewater 

treatment systems, and management 

facilities for handling gasification 

solids. 

Proposed Linear Facilities 

Linear facilities are the pipelines and 

electrical lines that transport materials 

and power to and from the plant. The 

source of process water for the plant 

would be brackish groundwater 

supplied by the Buena Vista Water 

Storage District; approximately 5 

million gallons per day would be 

required for cooling water makeup, 

steam cycle makeup, and other 

processes. The process water pipeline 

would be approximately 15 miles in 

length. Potable water for drinking and 

sanitary use would be supplied by the 

West Kern Water District, located to the 

southeast of the site. The potable water 

line would be approximately 7 miles in 

length. The project would recycle water 

and would incorporate zero liquid 

discharge (ZLD) technology for process 

and other wastewater from plant 

operations. Therefore, there would be 

no industrial wastewater discharge. 

Sanitary wastewater would be disposed 

of in an onsite leach field (e.g., a septic 

system) in accordance with applicable 

law. 

The site of the proposed project is 

about 8 miles southeast of Pacific Gas & 

Electric Company’s Midway Substation. 

A 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line 

would be constructed to interconnect 

the project to the grid at this existing 

substation, and to provide firm 

transmission service for the plant’s 

output. This transmission line would 

follow a relatively direct route between 

the plant and the substation, and 

therefore would be about 8 miles long. 

Rights-of-way (ROW) up to 175 feet in 

width would be required for this new 

line. 

HECA would also construct an 

approximately 8-mile natural gas supply 

pipeline extending southeast from the 

site, and an approximately 4-mile CO2

pipeline extending from the site to a 

custody transfer point where Occidental 

would take possession of the CO2 and 

continue its transportation via pipeline 

to the Elk Hills Field for EOR use and 

geologic sequestration. The ROW for 

these underground pipelines would be 

approximately 50 feet wide. 

Proposed Use of CO2 for EOR and 

Sequestration 

According to HECA’s proposal, the 

project would result in the sequestration 

of about two million tons of CO2 per 

year during the demonstration phase 

funded in part by DOE; HECA 

anticipates this rate would continue for 

the operational life of the power plant. 

The captured CO2 would be compressed 

and transported via pipeline to the Elk 

Hills Oil Field approximately 4 miles 

from the power plant. The CO2 would 

enable additional domestic oil 

production, contributing to the nation’s 

energy security. 

The EOR process involves the 

injection and reinjection of CO2 to 

reduce the viscosity and enhance other 

properties of the trapped oil that 

facilitate its flow through the reservoir, 

improving extraction. During EOR 

operations, the pore space left by the 

extracted oil is occupied by the injected 

CO2, sequestering it in the geologic 

formation. EOR operations would be 

monitored to ensure the injected CO2

remains in the formation. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
17400 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Notices 

2Because of the requirements of California law, 

DOE believes that the HECA project would need to 

continue sequestering CO2 throughout the 

operational life of the plant. 

3HECA initially selected another site; it 

subsequently decided to move the project when it 

discovered the existence of sensitive biological 

resources at the initial site. 

Proposed Project Schedule 

The project proposed by HECA 

includes engineering and design of the 

generating plant, permitting of the plant 

and associated facilities, equipment 

procurement, construction, startup, 

operations, and demonstration of using 

the CO2 for EOR followed by verified 

sequestration. HECA anticipates that it 

would take about four years to 

construct, commission and commence 

operation of the plant. It plans to start 

construction by 2012, and commercial 

operation by 2016. This schedule is 

contingent upon HECA receiving the 

necessary regulatory authorizations 

(which would be preceded by the 

hearings and others events mandated by 

the regulatory agencies’ procedures) and 

upon DOE deciding to provide limited 

financial assistance for the construction 

and demonstration phases of the project 

(a decision that would occur after 

completion of the EIS). 

Connected and Cumulative Actions 

Under the cooperative agreement 

between DOE and HECA, DOE would 

share the costs of the gasifiers, syngas 

cleanup systems, a combustion turbine, 

a heat recovery steam generator, a steam 

turbine, supporting facilities and 

infrastructure, and a demonstration 

phase in which the project would use at 

least 75 percent coal (calculated on a 

fuel input basis) to generate low-carbon 

electricity and capture CO2 for EOR and 

sequestration.2 Under this agreement, 

DOE would not share in the cost of the 

air separation unit, CO2 EOR and 

sequestration facilities, or certain other 

facilities. Accordingly, the EIS will 

evaluate the potential impacts of these 

aspects of HECA’s project as connected 

actions. 

DOE will also analyze the cumulative 

impacts of both the proposed project 

and any connected actions. The 

cumulative impacts analysis will 

include analysis of greenhouse gas 

emissions and global warming, other air 

emissions, and other incremental 

impacts that, when added to past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

impacts, may have significant effects on 

the human environment. 

Alternatives 

NEPA requires that an EIS evaluate 

the range of reasonable alternatives to 

an agency’s proposed action. The range 

of reasonable alternatives encompasses 

those alternatives that would satisfy the 

underlying purpose and need for agency 

action. The purpose and need for DOE 

action—providing limited financial 

assistance to the HECA IGCC project— 

are to advance the CCPI program by 

selecting projects that have the best 

chance of achieving the program’s 

objective as established by the Congress: 

the commercialization of clean coal 

technologies that advance efficiency, 

environmental performance, and cost 

competitiveness well beyond the level 

of technologies that are currently in 

service. 

DOE’s NEPA regulations include a 

process for identifying and analyzing 

reasonable alternatives in the context of 

providing financial assistance through a 

competitive selection of projects 

proposed by entities outside the federal 

government. The range of reasonable 

alternatives in competitions for grants, 

loans and other financial support is 

defined in large part by the range of 

responsive proposals DOE receives. 

Unlike projects undertaken by DOE 

itself, the Department cannot mandate 

what outside entities propose, where 

they propose to do it, or how they 

propose to do it beyond establishing 

requirements in the funding opportunity 

announcement that further the 

program’s objectives. DOE’s decision is 

limited to selecting among the 

applications submitted by project 

sponsors that meet CCPI’s goals. 

Recognizing that the range of 

reasonable alternatives in the context of 

financial assistance and contracting is in 

large part determined by the number 

and nature of the proposals submitted, 

section 216 of DOE’s NEPA regulations 

requires the Department to prepare an 

‘‘environmental critique’’ that assesses 

the environmental impacts and issues 

relating to each of the proposals that the 

DOE selecting official considers for an 

award. See 10 CFR 1021.216. This 

official considers these impacts and 

issues, along with other aspects of the 

proposals (such as technical merit and 

financial ability) and the program’s 

objectives, in making awards. DOE 

prepared a critique of the proposals that 

were deemed suitable for selection in 

this round of awards for the CCPI 

program. 

Once DOE selects a project for an 

award, the range of reasonable 

alternatives becomes the project as 

proposed by the applicant, any 

alternatives still under consideration by 

the applicant or that are reasonable 

within the confines of the project as 

proposed (e.g., the particular location of 

the generating plant on the 1,101-acre 

site or the ROWs for linear facilities), 

and a no action alternative. Regarding 

the no action alternative, DOE assumes 

for purposes of the EIS that, if it were 

to decide to withhold financial 

assistance from the project, the project 

would not proceed. DOE currently plans 

to analyze the project as proposed by 

HECA (with and without any mitigating 

conditions that DOE may identify as 

reasonable and appropriate); 

alternatives to HECA’s proposal that it 

is still considering (e.g., the ROWs for 

linear facilities); and the no action 

alternative. 

As noted above, DOE will analyze any 

‘‘project-specific’’ alternatives that HECA 

is still considering such as the location 

of the facility within the site 

boundaries, alternative routes for the 

process water supply pipeline, CO2

pipeline and transmission line, and 

other reasonable alternatives that may 

be suggested during the scoping period. 

Under the no action alternative, DOE 

would not provide funding to HECA. In 

the absence of financial assistance from 

DOE, HECA could reasonably pursue 

two options. It could build the project 

without DOE funding; the impacts of 

this option would be essentially the 

same as those of DOE’s proposed action. 

Or, HECA could choose not to pursue its 

project, and there would be no impacts 

from the project. This option would not 

contribute to the goal of the CCPI 

program, which is to accelerate 

commercial deployment of advanced 

coal technologies that provide the 

United States with clean, reliable, and 

affordable energy. However, as required 

by NEPA, DOE analyzes this option as 

the no action alternative in order to 

have a meaningful comparison between 

the impacts of DOE providing financial 

assistance and withholding that 

assistance. 

Alternatives considered by HECA in 

developing its proposed project will be 

discussed in the EIS. HECA analyzed 

several alternative sites and determined 

that the only reasonable site alternative 

was its proposed site based on, among 

other things, the presence or absence of 

sensitive resources; the availability of 

land; and the site’s proximity to the 

brackish groundwater supply, to electric 

transmission and natural gas facilities, 

and to a CO2 storage reservoir.3 The EIS 

will describe HECA’s site selection 

process. However, DOE does not plan to 

analyze in detail the alternatives sites 

considered by HECA because HECA is 

no longer considering these alternatives, 

they were not part of HECA’s proposal, 

and therefore they are no longer 

reasonable alternatives. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Notices 17401 

4No threatened or endangered species have been 

identified at the proposed plant site; three listed 

plant species and eight listed wildlife species may 

occur in the ROWs of the linear facilities. 

Floodplains and Wetlands 

The footprint of the proposed electric 

generating and carbon capture facility 

would not affect any wetlands or 

floodplains. Wetland and floodplain 

impacts, if any, from the construction of 

pipelines and transmission lines would 

be avoided by the use of horizontal 

direction drilling. In the event that the 

EIS identifies that wetlands or 

floodplains would be affected by the 

project (including its linear facilities) or 

connected actions, DOE will prepare a 

floodplain and wetland assessment in 

accordance with its regulations at 10 

CFR part 1022 and include the 

assessment in the EIS. 

Preliminary Identification of 

Environmental Issues 

The following environmental issues 

have been tentatively identified for 

analysis in the EIS. This list (which was 

developed from the environmental 

critique of the proposed project, permit 

applications that HECA has filed, 

comments by regulatory agencies on 

those applications, and information 

from similar projects) is neither an 

inclusive nor a predetermined set of 

potential impacts. This preliminary list 

is presented to facilitate public 

comment on the planned scope of the 

EIS. Additions to or deletions from the 

list may occur as a result of this scoping 

process. The preliminary list of 

potential environmental issues includes: 

(1) Atmospheric Resources: Potential 

air quality impacts resulting from 

emissions during construction and 

operation of the proposed HECA project 

and connected actions (e.g., effects of 

ground-level concentrations of criteria 

pollutants and trace metals—including 

mercury—on surrounding areas, 

including those of special concern such 

as Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Class I areas). Potential 

cumulative effects of greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

(2) Water Resources: Potential effects 

of groundwater withdrawals and water 

use by the project, including potential 

impacts resulting from construction and 

operation of the project, including linear 

facilities and any connected actions. 

(3) Infrastructure and Land Use: 

Potential effects on existing 

infrastructure and land uses resulting 

from the construction and operation of 

the proposed project and connected 

actions. For example, potential traffic 

effects resulting from the proposed 

project and potential land use impacts 

of committing farm land to a power 

plant. 

(4) Solid Waste: Pollution prevention 

and waste management issues, 

including potential impacts from the 

generation, treatment, transport, storage, 

and management of wastes. 

(5) Visual: Potential aesthetic impacts 

of new stacks, mechanical-draft cooling 

tower, flares, and other structures of the 

proposed plant, of the linear facilities, 

and of connected actions. 

(6) Floodplain: Potential impacts (e.g., 

impeding floodwaters, re-directing 

floodwaters, possible property damage) 

of siting structures on a floodplain. 

(7) Wetlands: Potential effects to 

wetlands due to construction and 

operation of the power plant, linear 

facilities, and connected actions. 

(8) Ecological: Potential onsite and 

offsite impacts to vegetation, terrestrial 

and aquatic wildlife, threatened and 

endangered species,4 and ecologically 

sensitive habitats due to the 

construction and operation of the power 

plant, linear facilities, and connected 

actions. 

(9) Safety and Health: Constructionand operation-related safety, process 

safety, and management of process 

chemicals and materials. 

(10) Construction: Potential impacts 

associated with noise, traffic patterns, 

and construction-related emissions. 

(11) Community Impacts: Potential 

congestion and other impacts to local 

traffic patterns; socioeconomic impacts 

on public services and infrastructure 

(e.g., police protection, schools, and 

utilities); noise associated with project 

operation; and environmental justice 

issues with respect to nearby 

communities. 

(12) Cultural and Archaeological 

Resources: Potential impacts to such 

resources from construction of the 

project and connected actions. 

(13) Cumulative Effects: Incremental 

impacts of the proposed project (e.g., 

incremental air emissions affecting 

ambient air quality) that, when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, including 

connected actions, may have potentially 

significant impacts on the environment. 

This analysis will include potential 

impacts on climate. 

The level of analysis of issues in the 

EIS will be in accordance with their 

level of importance. The most detailed 

analyses are likely to focus on potential 

impacts to air, water, and ecological 

resources. 

Public Scoping Process 

To ensure that all issues related to 

DOE’s Proposed Action and HECA’s 

proposed project are properly evaluated, 

DOE will conduct an open process to 

define the scope of the EIS. The public 

scoping period will end on May 24, 

2010. Interested agencies, organizations, 

and individuals are encouraged to 

submit comments or suggestions 

concerning the content of the EIS, issues 

and impacts that should be addressed, 

and alternatives that should be 

considered. Scoping comments should 

clearly describe specific issues or topics 

that the EIS should address in order to 

assist DOE in defining the EIS’s scope. 

Written, e-mailed, faxed, or telephoned 

comments should be submitted by May 

24, 2010 (see ADDRESSES). 

In addition, DOE will conduct a 

public scoping meeting in Salon A of 

the Bakersfield Marriott at the 

Convention Center, 801 Truxtun 

Avenue, Bakersfield, California, at 7 

p.m. on Wednesday, April 14, 2010. The 

public is also invited to learn more 

about the proposed project at an 

informal session at this location 

beginning at 5 p.m. DOE requests that 

anyone who wishes to speak at this 

public scoping meeting contact Dr. R. 

Paul Detwiler, by phone, fax, e-mail, or 

letter (see ADDRESSES). 

Individuals who do not make advance 

arrangements to speak may register at 

the meeting and will be given the 

opportunity to speak following 

scheduled speakers. Speakers who need 

more than five minutes should indicate 

the length of time desired in their 

request. Depending on the number of 

speakers, DOE may need to limit 

speakers to five-minute presentations 

initially, but will provide additional 

opportunities as time permits. Speakers 

can also provide written material to 

supplement their presentations. Oral 

and written comments will be given 

equal weight. 

DOE will begin the formal meeting 

with an overview of the proposed HECA 

project. DOE will designate a presiding 

officer to chair the meeting. The meeting 

will not be conducted as an evidentiary 

hearing, and speakers will not be crossexamined. However, speakers may be 

asked questions to ensure that DOE fully 

understands their comments or 

suggestions. The presiding officer will 

establish the order of speakers and any 

additional procedures necessary to 

conduct the meeting. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 30th day of 

March 2010. 

James J. Markowsky, 

Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7723 Filed 4–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES