```

[Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 65)]
[Notices]               
[Page 17397-17401]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06ap10-43]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Warren-Alquist 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 17398]]

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

[[Page 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, low-lying 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 fuel-
handling 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.

[[Page 17400]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ HECA initially selected another site; it subsequently 
decided to move the project when it discovered the existence of 
sensitive biological resources at the initial site.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 17401]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ No 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (9) Safety and Health: Construction- and 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 cross-examined. 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
```