60478 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical 

Advisory Committee (HTAC) 

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 

Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC) 

was established under section 807 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) (Pub. 

L. 109–58; 119 Stat. 849). The Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that publish 

notice of these meetings be announced 

in the Federal Register. 

DATES: Thursday, November 3, 2011; 

9 a.m.–6:15 p.m. 

Friday, November 4, 2011; 9 a.m.– 

2:45 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: L’Enfant Plaza Hotel DC, 

480 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, 

DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please send an e-mail to: 

HTAC@nrel.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Meeting: To provide 

advice, information, and 

recommendations to the Secretary on 

the program authorized by Title VIII of 

EPAct. 

Tentative Agenda: (Subject to change; 

updates will be posted on the website 

at: http://hydrogen.energy.gov and 

copies of the final agenda will available 

the date of the meeting). 

• Public Comment. 

• Coordination with Efficiency and 

Renewable Advisory Committee. 

• Impact of Natural Gas Supply on 

Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Market. 

• Industry Presentations. 

• Status Cost and Performance of 

Battery Technology. 

• Vehicle Battery Charging Cost. 

• European Large-Scale Hydrogen 

Storage of Renewable Electricity. 

• Financing Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 

Technologies. 

• State Initiatives. 

Public Participation: Members of the 

public are welcome to observe the 

business of the meeting of HTAC and to 

make oral statements during the 

specified period for public comment. 

The public comment period will take 

place between 9:15 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. 

on November 3, 2011. To attend the 

meeting and/or to make oral statements 

regarding any of the items on the 

agenda, please send an e-mail to: 

HTAC@nrel.gov at least five business 

days before the meeting. Please indicate 

if you will be attending the meeting, 

whether you want to make an oral 

statement, and what organization you 

represent (if appropriate). Members of 

the public will be heard in the order in 

which they sign up for the public 

comment period. Oral comments should 

be limited to two minutes in length. 

Reasonable provision will be made to 

include the scheduled oral statements 

on the agenda. The Chair of the 

committee will make every effort to hear 

the views of all interested parties and to 

facilitate the orderly conduct of 

business. If you would like to file a 

written statement with the committee, 

you may do so either by submitting a 

hard copy at the meeting or by 

submitting an electronic copy by e-mail 

to: HTAC@nrel.gov. 

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting 

will be available for public review at the 

following Web site: http:// 

hydrogen.energy.gov. 

Issued at Washington, DC on September 

23, 2011. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25058 Filed 9–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

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 thirdparties. 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; tollfree 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 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 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 productionrelated 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 coalbased 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 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60480 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 

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 thirdparty 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 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 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 combinedcycle 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 turbinegenerator, a heat recovery steam 

generator (HRSG), a steam turbinegenerator, 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 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60482 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 

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 costshare 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 costshare 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 ‘‘nobuild’’ 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 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 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. Constructionrelated 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-ofways but not the temporary rights-ofways 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 nonpotable 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 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60484 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 

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 TCEPrelated 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 ultrafiltration 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. 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 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 statelisted 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 outcompete native songbird species. 

Migratory birds could experience noiserelated 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 rightsof-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 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60486 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 

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 lowincome 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 shortterm 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 TCEPrelated 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 threeyear 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– 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 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 noaction 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 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60488 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Notices 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 14145–001] 

Pacific Green Power, LLC; Notice of 

Intent To File License Application, 

Filing of Pre-Application Document, 

Denying Use of the Traditional 

Licensing Process, Commencement of 

Licensing Proceeding, Scoping, and 

Solicitation of Study Requests and 

Comments on the PAD and Scoping 

Document 

a. Type of Filing: Notice of Request To 

Use the Traditional Licensing Process. 

b. Project No.: 14145–001. 

c. Dated Filed: July 25, 2011. 

d. Submitted by: Pacific Green Power, 

LLC. 

e. Name of Project: Two Girls Creek 

Hydroelectric Project. 

f. Location: On Two Girls Creek River, 

in Linn County, Washington. The 

project occupies United States lands 

administered by the Forest Service. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the 

Commission’s regulations. 

h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mr. 

David G. Harmon, P.E., Pacific Green 

Power, LLC, P.O. Box 44, Sweet Home, 

Oregon 97386; phone: (541) 405–5236. 

i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper at 

(202) 502–6136; or e-mail at 

Jennifer.Harper@FERC.gov. 

j. Pacific Green Power, LLC filed its 

request to use the Traditional Licensing 

Process on July 25, 2011. With this 

notice, the Director of the Division of 

Hydropower Licensing denies Pacific 

Green Power, LLC’s request to use the 

Traditional Licensing Process. 

k. With this notice, we are initiating 

informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA 

Fisheries under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and the joint 

agency regulations thereunder at 50 

CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries 

under section 305(b) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act and implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) 

the Oregon State Historic Preservation 

Officer, as required by section 106, 

National Historical Preservation Act, 

and the implementing regulations of the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2. 

l. Pacific Green Power, LLC filed a 

Pre-Application Document (PAD; 

including a proposed process plan and 

schedule) with the Commission, 

pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the 

Commission’s regulations. 

m. A copy of the PAD is available for 

review at the Commission in the Public 

Reference Room or may be viewed on 

the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.ferc.gov), using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ 

link. Enter the docket number, 

excluding the last three digits in the 

docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, contact FERC 

Online Support at 

FERCONlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. A copy is also available 

for inspection and reproduction from 

the applicant listed in paragraph h. 

Register online at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related 

to this or other pending projects. For 

assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support. 

n. With this notice, we are soliciting 

study requests, as well as comments on 

the PAD and Scoping Document 1 

(SD1). All study requests, as well as 

comments on the PAD and SD1 should 

be sent to the address above in 

paragraph h. In addition, all study 

requests, comments on the PAD and 

SD1, requests for agency cooperator 

status and all communications to and 

from Commission staff related to the 

merits of the potential application must 

be filed with the Commission. 

Documents may be filed electronically 

via the Internet. See 18 CFR 

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

on the Commission’s Web site http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 

Commenters can submit brief comments 

up to 6,000 characters, without prior 

registration, using the eComment system 

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support. 

Although the Commission strongly 

encourages electronic filing, documents 

may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, 

mail an original and seven copies to: 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

All filings with the Commission must 

include the project name and number, 

and bear the heading ‘‘Study Requests,’’ 

‘‘Comments on Pre-Application 

Document,’’ ‘‘Comments on Scoping 

Document 1,’’ ‘‘Request for Cooperating 

Agency Status,’’ or ‘‘Communications to 

and from Commission Staff.’’ Any 

individual or entity interested in 

commenting on the PAD must do so by 

November 22, 2011. 

o. At this time, the Commission 

intends to prepare an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) on the project, in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, as 

determined by the issues identified 

during the scoping process. If an EIS is 

determined to be required for the 

project, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers has requested to be a 

cooperating agency. 

Scoping Meetings 

Commission staff will hold two 

scoping meetings in the vicinity of the 

project at the time and place indicated 

below. The daytime meeting will focus 

on resource agency and nongovernmental organization (NGO) 

concerns, while the evening meeting is 

primarily for receiving input from the 

public. We invite all interested 

individuals, organizations, and agencies 

to attend one or both of the meetings, 

and to assist staff in identifying 

particular study needs, as well as the 

scope of environmental issues to be 

addressed in the environmental 

document. The times and locations of 

these meetings are as follows: 

Daytime Scoping Meeting 

Dates: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 

Time: 1 p.m.–4 p.m., 

Place: Sweet Home Ranger District 

Office, 4431 Highway 20, Sweet Home, 

OR 97386. 

Evening Scoping Meeting 

Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 

Time: 6 p.m.–9 p.m., 

Place: Sweet Home Senior and 

Community Center, 880 18th Ave, 

Sweet Home, OR 97386. 

Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which 

outlines the subject areas to be 

addressed in the environmental 

document, was mailed to the 

individuals and entities on the 

Commission’s mailing list. Copies of 

SD1 will be available at the scoping 

meetings, or may be viewed on the web 

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

‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Follow the directions 

for accessing information in paragraph 

n. Based on all oral and written 

comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) 

may be issued. SD2, if needed, would 

include a revised process plan and 

schedule, as well as a list of issues, 

based on the scoping process. 


tkelley on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES