Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 30901 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before June 24, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in 

response to this notice should be 

submitted electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by selecting 

Docket ID number ED–2013–ICCD–0067 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. Please note that 

comments submitted by fax or email 

and those submitted after the comment 

period will not be accepted. Written 

requests for information or comments 

submitted by postal mail or delivery 

should be addressed to the Director of 

the Information Collection Clearance 

Division, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 

2E105, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Electronically mail 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please do not 

send comments here. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of Education (ED), in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general 

public and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed, 

revised, and continuing collections of 

information. This helps the Department 

assess the impact of its information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. It also 

helps the public understand the 

Department’s information collection 

requirements and provide the requested 

data in the desired format. ED is 

soliciting comments on the proposed 

information collection request (ICR) that 

is described below. The Department of 

Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology. Please note 

that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

Title of Collection: Part D 

Discretionary Grant Application— 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (1894–0001). 

OMB Control Number: 1820–0028. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of an existing collection of 

information. 

Respondents/Affected Public: State, 

Local, or Tribal Governments. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 800. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 20,000. 

Abstract: Under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act discretionary 

grants are authorized to support 

technology, State personnel 

development, personnel preparation, 

parent training and information, and 

technical assistance activities. This 

grant application provides the forms 

and information necessary for 

applicants to submit an application for 

funding, and information for use by 

technical reviewers to determine the 

quality of the application. 

Dated: May 20, 2013. 

Stephanie Valentine, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and 

Records Management Services, Office of 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12334 Filed 5–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision and Wetland/ 

Floodplain Statement of Findings for 

the W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2

Capture and Sequestration Project 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) announces its decision to 

provide cost-shared funding to NRG 

Energy, Inc. (NRG) for the W.A. Parish 

Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and 

Sequestration Project (Parish PCCS 

Project) under DOE’s Clean Coal Power 

Initiative (CCPI) Program. DOE prepared 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) to evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

DOE’s proposed action of providing 

financial assistance for the Parish PCCS 

Project. The EIS also evaluated the 

impacts associated with construction 

and operation of the proposed Parish 

PCCS Project, as submitted by NRG. 

DOE’s proposed action is to provide 

limited financial assistance through a 

cooperative agreement with NRG for a 

new post-combustion carbon dioxide 

(CO2) capture and compression system 

that would be added to Unit 8 of the 

existing W.A. Parish power plant, with 

the captured CO2 piped to the West 

Ranch oil field for use in enhanced oil 

recovery (EOR). 

ADDRESSES: The EIS and this Record of 

Decision (ROD) are available on DOE’s 

National Environmental Policy Act 

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

nepa/ and on the DOE National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL) Web site 

at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/ 

others/nepa/index.html. Copies of these 

documents may also be obtained by 

contacting Mr. Lusk, NEPA Document 

Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Energy Technology Laboratory, 

3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, 

WV 26507–0880; telephone, 304–285– 

4145; or email: Mark.Lusk@netl.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

obtain additional information about the 

project or the EIS, contact Mr. Mark W. 

Lusk at the address provided above. For 

general information on DOE’s 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; 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 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.), and in compliance 

with the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations 

for NEPA (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] parts 1500 through 

1508) and DOE’s NEPA implementing 

procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and 

DOE’s Compliance with Floodplain and 

Wetland Environmental Review 

regulations (10 CFR Part 1022). This 

ROD is based on DOE’s EIS for the W.A. 

Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture 

and Sequestration Project (DOE/EIS– 

0473, February 2013) and other program 

considerations. 

Background and Purpose and Need for 

Agency Action 

Public Law 107–63, enacted in 

November 2001, first provided funding 

for the CCPI program, a federal program 

to accelerate the commercial readiness 

of advanced technologies in existing 

and new coal-based power plants. The 

program encompasses a broad spectrum 

of commercial-scale demonstrations that 

target today’s most pressing 

environmental challenges, including 

reducing mercury and greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions. When integrated with 

other DOE initiatives, the program will 

help the nation successfully 

commercialize advanced power systems 

to produce electricity at greater 

efficiencies, release almost no 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30902 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 

emissions, create fuels, and employ CO2

management capabilities. 

The purpose of DOE’s proposed 

action under the CCPI program is to 

meet program goals by providing costshared funding for this proposed project 

to demonstrate the feasibility of 

advanced coal-based technologies at a 

commercial scale that capture and 

geologically sequester CO2 emissions. 

The principal need addressed by DOE’s 

proposed action is to satisfy the 

responsibility Congress imposed on 

DOE to demonstrate advanced coalbased technologies that can generate 

clean, reliable, and affordable electricity 

in the United States Successful 

commercial-scale demonstration of 

amine-based carbon capture technology 

at NRG’s W.A. Parish Plant with 

beneficial use of the CO2 at an existing 

oil field would also generate technical, 

environmental, and financial data from 

the design, construction, and integrated 

operation of the CO2 capture facility, 

pipeline, EOR, and CO2 monitoring 

facilities at the oil field. These data 

would be used to evaluate whether the 

deployed technologies could be 

effectively and economically 

implemented at a commercial scale. 

NEPA Process 

DOE formally initiated the NEPA 

process by publishing a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal 

Register (FR) on November 14, 2011, 

under Docket ID No. FR Doc. 2011– 

29333; (76 FR 70429). DOE conducted a 

scoping process that included two 

public scoping meetings and 

consultation with interested 

governmental agencies and 

stakeholders. DOE held public scoping 

meetings on November 30, 2011, in 

Needville, Texas, and December 1, 2011, 

in Edna, Texas. The public scoping 

period ended on December 15, 2011, 

after a 30-day opportunity to submit 

comments. The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE both 

published a notice of availability (NOA) 

for the draft EIS on September 21, 2012. 

DOE’s NOA (77 FR 58533) also 

announced its plans for two public 

hearings. Public hearings on the draft 

EIS were held in Thompsons, Texas, on 

October 10, 2012, and Edna, Texas, on 

October 11, 2012. 

DOE received one verbal comment on 

the draft EIS at the two public hearings 

and listened to questions and concerns 

during informal sessions before the 

hearings. During the 45-day public 

comment period, which ended 

November 5, 2012, DOE received 

comment letters from the Department of 

Interior, EPA, and the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department. Comments 

included concerns about: (1) Use of coal 

as fuel for electricity generation; (2) use 

of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emission 

credits to offset volatile organic carbon 

(VOC) emissions; (3) use of horizontal 

directional drilling to cross under 

waterways; (4) mitigation of wetland 

impacts; (5) impacts on state or global 

rare plant communities; (6) adequacy of 

the environmental justice analysis; (7) 

mitigation measures for constructionrelated emissions; (8) impacts on 

threatened and endangered species, 

including whooping cranes; (9) impacts 

to nesting bald eagles; (10) protection of 

freshwater mussel species; and (11) 

impacts on migratory birds. EPA rated 

the draft EIS as LO—‘‘Lack of 

Objections’’. 

DOE distributed the final EIS during 

the last week of February 2013. The U.S. 

EPA published a NOA in the FR on 

March 8, 2013, (75 FR 28612). In the 

final EIS, DOE updated project 

information, refined analyses, and 

responded to comments on the draft 

EIS. DOE received no comments on the 

final EIS. 

Decision 

DOE has decided to provide NRG 

with $167 million in cost-shared 

funding for its proposed project through 

a cooperative agreement under DOE’s 

CCPI program. The project and its 

potential environmental impacts, as 

analyzed in the EIS, and required 

mitigation measures are described 

below. 

Basis of Decision 

DOE based its decision on the 

importance of achieving the objectives 

of the CCPI program and a careful 

review of the potential environmental 

impacts presented in the EIS. The 

proposed project would help DOE meet 

its congressionally mandated mission to 

support advanced clean-coal technology 

projects. Post-combustion CO2 capture 

offers the greatest near-term potential 

for reducing power sector CO2

emissions because it can be used to 

retrofit existing coal-based power plants 

and can also be tuned for various levels 

of CO2 capture, which may accelerate 

market acceptance. A successful 

commercial-scale demonstration of 

amine-based carbon capture technology 

at NRG’s W.A. Parish Plant with 

beneficial use of the CO2 at an existing 

oil field would also generate technical, 

environmental, and financial data from 

the design, construction, and operation 

of the CO2 capture facility, pipeline, and 

CO2 monitoring facilities at the oil field. 

The data would be used to help DOE 

evaluate whether the deployed 

technologies could be effectively and 

economically implemented at a 

commercial scale. 

This decision incorporates all 

practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm. DOE plans to 

verify the environmental impacts 

predicted in the EIS and the 

implementation of appropriate 

avoidance and mitigation measures. 

Mitigation 

DOE’s decision incorporates measures 

to avoid or minimize adverse 

environmental impacts during the 

design, construction and operation of 

the project. DOE requires that recipients 

of financial assistance comply with all 

applicable federal, state, and local 

environmental laws, orders, and 

regulations. During project planning, 

NRG incorporated various mitigation 

measures and anticipated permit 

requirements into its project, and the 

analyses completed for the EIS assumed 

that such measures would be 

implemented. These measures are 

identified in Chapter 4 of the EIS, 

described as needed in each resource 

section of Chapter 3, and incorporated 

into this ROD as conditions for DOE’s 

financial assistance under the 

cooperative agreement between DOE 

and NRG. Additional mitigation 

measures or measures specific to certain 

impacts or comments received are 

further discussed below in the section 

entitled Potential Environmental 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. 

Mitigation measures beyond those 

typically specified in permit conditions 

will be addressed in a Mitigation Action 

Plan (MAP). DOE will prepare the MAP, 

consistent with 10 CFR 1021.331, to 

establish how the mitigation measures 

will be planned, implemented, and 

monitored. The MAP will be an 

adaptive management tool; therefore 

mitigation conditions in it would be 

removed if equivalent conditions are 

otherwise established by permit, 

license, or law. Compliance with 

permit, license or regulatory 

requirements is not considered 

mitigation subject to DOE control and 

would therefore not be included in a 

MAP. 

DOE will ensure that commitments in 

the MAP are met through management 

of its cooperative agreement with NRG, 

which requires that NRG fulfill the 

monitoring and mitigation requirements 

specified in this ROD. DOE will make 

copies of the MAP available for 

inspection in the appropriate locations 

for a reasonable time. Copies of the 

MAP and any annual reports required 

by the MAP will also be available upon 

written request. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 30903 

Project Description and Location 

The Parish PCCS Project would result 

in the construction and operation of a 

CO2 capture facility utilizing an 

advanced amine-based absorption 

technology to capture at least 90 percent 

(approximately 1.6 million tons) of CO2

annually from a flue gas slipstream 

taken from Unit 8 at the W.A. Parish 

Plant. This existing power plant is 

located on 4,880 acres in rural Fort 

Bend County within the incorporated 

area of the town of Thompsons, Texas. 

Up to 5,475 tons per day of captured 

CO2 would be dried, compressed, and 

transported via a newly constructed 

approximately 81-mile long pipeline to 

the West Ranch oil field where it would 

be used in EOR operations. The four 

primary components of the project are: 

(1) CO2 Capture Facility—A postcombustion CO2 capture facility would 

be constructed and attached to Unit 8 at 

the existing W.A. Parish Plant in Fort 

Bend County, Texas. A new 80-MW 

natural gas-fired turbine, currently 

under construction at the plant site, 

would produce the auxiliary electricity 

and steam needed by the CO2 capture 

system. 

(2) CO2 Pipeline—Captured CO2

would be transported via a new, 

approximately 81-mile-long, 12-inchdiameter pipeline to the West Ranch oil 

field, located near Vanderbilt, Texas, in 

Jackson County. The pipeline route 

crosses mostly rural and sparselydeveloped agricultural lands in Fort 

Bend, Wharton, and Jackson Counties. 

NRG plans to use existing mowed and 

maintained utility ROWs to the extent 

practicable to minimize environmental 

impacts and avoid sensitive resources. 

A joint venture between NRG and 

Hillcorp Energy Company (HEC), known 

as Texas Coastal Ventures LLC (TCV), 

would operate the pipeline. 

(3) EOR Operations—The proposed 

project would deliver up to 1.6 million 

tons of CO2 per year to the West Ranch 

oil field for its use in EOR. The CO2

would be injected into the 98–A, 41–A, 

Glasscock, and Greta sand units of the 

Frio Formation, approximately 5,000 to 

6,300 feet below ground surface (bgs). 

The portions of the oil field in which 

EOR operations would be conducted are 

currently owned or leased by TCV. HEC 

has been contracted to conduct the EOR 

operations. TCV plans to make 

additional investments outside of the 

DOE funded program to modernize and 

prepare the oil field to safely accept CO2

injection, but the activities are included 

in this project description because they 

are integrated into the project concept 

and considered connected actions. 

(4) CO2 Monitoring Program—TCV 

would implement a program to monitor 

the injection and migration of CO2

within the geologic formations at the 

EOR site based on a CO2 Monitoring 

Plan developed in cooperation with the 

Texas Bureau of Economic Geology 

(BEG). The monitoring program would 

be established and operated in 

accordance with requirements of the 

CCPI program and Railroad Commission 

of Texas (RRC) regulations for 

certification of CO2 storage related to 

EOR operations (i.e., as specified in 16 

TAC 5.305) and provisions of 

underground injection control permits 

for injection wells at the West Ranch oil 

field (i.e., existing permits for existing 

injection wells and new permits that 

would be required for newly installed 

injection wells). 

The W.A. Parish Plant occupies an 

industrial area located next to relatively 

undeveloped lands. Scattered ranches 

and residences are located to the east 

and southwest, and Smithers Lake (a 

2,430-acre man-made water body used 

for plant cooling water) is located to the 

north. The proposed CO2 capture 

facility would have a footprint of 

approximately 400 feet by 400 feet (3.3 

acres) within the existing W.A. Parish 

Plant. Including the CO2 capture 

facility, the combustion turbine and 

heat recovery steam generator (CT/ 

HRSG) area, two large laydown areas, 

and other project areas, a total of 

approximately 29 acres within the 

existing plant boundaries would be used 

during construction. Construction of the 

proposed project is planned to begin in 

mid-2013, at the earliest, and would 

take approximately 24 months to 

complete. Within the existing plant site, 

up to 22 acres of land would be required 

for two temporary construction staging 

and laydown areas for storage of 

materials and equipment. Construction 

materials and equipment would be 

delivered by truck and rail. The number 

of workers would vary during the twoyear construction period, ranging from 

250 to 600 during the various phases of 

construction and averaging 

approximately 300 personnel. The 

largest demand for construction workers 

would likely occur approximately six 

months after the start of construction, 

when approximately 600 construction 

workers would be on site. Construction 

water needs would be supplied by the 

existing plant’s water system. Electricity 

would be provided by on-site 

maintenance power sources or by new 

metered service from a local retail 

provider. Potential construction-related 

environmental impacts would be typical 

of those associated with a large 

industrial construction project and 

would primarily be related to air 

emissions, construction traffic, fugitive 

dust from disturbance, and storm water 

runoff from construction areas. Best 

management practices (BMPs) would be 

implemented and all necessary permits 

would be obtained to minimize 

potential impacts and to comply with 

regulatory requirements during 

construction. For the purposes of this 

EIS, DOE assumes the CO2 capture 

system would continue to operate for 20 

years. The capture facility and 

associated equipment installed as part 

of the project would require an increase 

of approximately 15 full-time personnel 

divided among shifts (i.e., an increase of 

approximately 4 percent over current 

conditions). Also, up to five additional 

new positions may be required at the 

plant. 

During operation of the project, 

process-related chemicals would be 

transported to the W.A. Parish Plant 

either by truck or rail. In addition to 

regulatory requirements, NRG would 

follow the chemical suppliers’ 

recommendations and procedures in 

storing and handling all chemicals. 

DOE’s Proposed Action 

DOE’s proposed action is to provide 

$167 million in cost-shared funding 

through a cooperative agreement with 

NRG for its proposed project. DOE has 

already provided $7 million to NRG 

under Phase I for preliminary design 

and related preliminary activities of the 

project, as described above. The 

estimated total project cost is $845 

million. 

Alternatives 

Congress directed DOE to pursue the 

goals of the CCPI program by means of 

partial funding of projects owned and 

controlled by non-federal sponsors. This 

statutory requirement places DOE in a 

much more limited role than if it were 

the owner and operator of the project. 

Here, the purpose of, and need for, DOE 

action is defined by the CCPI program 

(and its enabling legislation, Pub. L. 

107–63). Given these programmatic 

purposes and needs, reasonable 

alternatives available to DOE prior to 

the selection of this project under the 

CCPI program were other projects that 

met the eligibility requirements. Other 

applications (and their potential 

environmental, safety, and health 

impacts) were considered during the 

selection process. Pursuant to 10 CFR 

1021.216, a publicly-available synopsis 

of the environmental review and 

critique completed for the selection 

process has been included as Appendix 

A of the EIS. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30904 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 

The alternatives considered by DOE 

were limited to the applications 

submitted to DOE in response to 

requirements specified in the CCPI 

Round 3 solicitation. DOE considered 

all the applications that met the 

mandatory eligibility requirements as 

expressed in the funding opportunity 

announcement. DOE’s action 

concerning these applications was to 

decide which projects would receive 

DOE financial assistance from among 

the eligible applications submitted. 

Unlike a project owned by DOE, when 

projects are selected in a competitive 

process in response to a funding 

opportunity announcement, DOE does 

not make decisions concerning the 

location, layout, design, or other 

features of the project. In other words, 

DOE must select among the eligible 

projects submitted to DOE by the 

applicants. DOE’s initial decision is to 

select projects to receive federal 

financial assistance for a project 

definition phase prior to DOE’s decision 

on whether to fund the project’s 

construction and operation. 

After 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, and the no-action 

alternative. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, DOE 

would not provide cost-shared funding 

for the proposed W.A. Parish PCCS 

Project. In the absence of DOE costshared funding, NRG could still elect to 

construct and operate the proposed 

project. Therefore, under the DOE noaction alternative, DOE assumes the 

proposed project would not be built or 

it would be built by NRG without the 

benefit of DOE funding. 

DOE assumes that if NRG proceeded 

with project development in the absence 

of DOE funding, the project would 

include the features, attributes, and 

impacts as described for the proposed 

project. However, without DOE’s 

participation, it is possible that the 

project would be canceled. Therefore, 

for the purposes of analysis in this EIS, 

DOE’s no-action alternative is defined as 

the no-build alternative. This means 

that the project would not be built and 

environmental conditions would not 

change from the current baseline (i.e., 

no new construction, resource use, or 

CO2 capture and storage would occur). 

Therefore, under the no-action 

alternative, the project technologies (i.e., 

large-scale CO2 capture and geologic 

storage) may not be implemented in the 

near term. Consequently, timely 

commercialization of these technologies 

for large-scale, coal-fired electric 

generation facilities would be 

postponed and may not be realized. 

This scenario would not contribute to 

the CCPI goals to invest in the 

demonstration of advanced coal-based 

power generation technologies that 

capture and sequester, CO2 emissions. 

While the no-action alternative would 

not satisfy the purpose and need for 

DOE’s proposed action, this alternative 

was retained for comparison to the 

effects of the proposed project, as 

required under CEQ Regulations (40 

CFR 15012.14). The no-action 

alternative reflects the current baseline 

condition and serves as a benchmark 

against which the effects of the 

proposed action can be evaluated. 

NRG has begun construction and 

plans to operate certain individual 

project components such as the natural 

gas-fired turbine without DOE funding 

for other purposes not related to the 

Parish PCCS project. The construction 

of the natural gas-fired turbine would 

not be part of the cooperative agreement 

with DOE. This facility would begin 

operation in 2013 and would provide 

peaking power unrelated to the Parish 

PCCS Project. At a later date, possibly 

2015, the natural gas-fired turbine 

would be used to power the 

compressors of the carbon capture 

facility. This would result in a variation 

of the no-action alternative that would 

have minor environmental impacts, 

primarily in the area of air quality. If 

NRG decided to pursue the project 

without DOE funding, potential impacts 

would be similar to those evaluated 

under DOE’s proposed action. 

Potential Environmental Impacts and 

Mitigation Measures 

In making its decision, DOE 

considered the environmental impacts 

of NRG’s proposed project, DOE’s 

proposed action, and the no-action 

alternative on potentially affected 

environmental resource areas. These 

included: Air quality and climate; 

greenhouse gas emissions; geology; 

physiography and soils; surface waters; 

ground water; floodplains; wetlands; 

biological resources; cultural resources; 

land use; aesthetics; traffic; 

transportation; noise; materials and 

waste management; human health and 

safety; utilities; community services; 

socioeconomics; and environmental 

justice. The EIS also considers the 

impacts from project facilities combined 

with those from other past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

(i.e., cumulative impacts). The following 

sections discuss the potential impacts in 

these areas. 

Air Quality and Climate 

Construction of the CO2 capture 

facility, CO2 pipeline, and CO2

monitoring infrastructure would result 

in short-term, localized increased 

tailpipe and fugitive dust emissions. 

Emission rates for criteria pollutants 

would be less than 1 percent of the total 

emissions in the region of influence 

(ROI), except PM10 emissions during 

2013, which would account for 3.1 

percent of total ROI emissions. Emission 

rates for ozone precursors (i.e., VOC and 

nitrogen oxides [NOX ]) during the 

construction phase of the project would 

be lower than thresholds documented in 

the EPA rules for General Conformity 

(40 CFR 94.153). 

Operational emissions from the 

pipeline corridor would be negligible. 

Operational emissions of criteria 

pollutants from the CO2 capture facility 

and related infrastructure (e.g., CT/ 

HRSG) and the CO2 recycle facility 

would be less than 1 percent of the total 

emissions in the ROI. Operational 

emissions of NOX and VOC would 

exceed the thresholds documented in 

the Conformity Rules. NRG is required 

to obtain and retire 1.3 tons of credits 

or allowances, as applicable, for each 

ton of NOX and VOC emissions increase 

related to the proposed project. NRG 

owns and has assigned the appropriate 

amount of NOX emission credits 

approved for use in the Houston 

Galveston Brazoria Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (HGB MSA) to the 

Parish PCCS Project. 

NRG would be required to purchase 

and retire 1.3 tons of credits or 

allowances, as applicable, for each ton 

of emission increase related to the 

proposed project. Due to the 1.3 to 1 

retirement ratio of emission reduction 

credits and allowances, the proposed 

project would result in no net adverse 

impact on air quality in the HGB MSA 

with regard to ozone. Therefore, adverse 

impacts to air quality in the ROI due to 

operational emissions from the 

proposed project would be considered 

negligible to minor with some beneficial 

impacts in the form of elimination of 

sulfur dioxide and other emissions from 

Unit 8’s flue gas slipstream. 

As part of the state air permit 

application process, NRG was required 

to complete an air quality analysis to 

determine the effect of anticipated 

project air emissions on area air quality. 

The analysis included dispersion 

modeling, which compared the 

predicted ambient air quality 

concentrations to the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

analysis supported the conclusion that 

predicted emissions resulting from the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 30905 

project would not cause or contribute to 

a violation of the NAAQS. The Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) approved the analysis and 

issued the air permit on December 2012. 

Mitigation: To control fugitive dust, 

NRG must stabilize open piles and 

disturbed areas by covering and/or 

applying water or other dust control 

additive. NRG must also limit the speed 

of non-earthmoving equipment to 15 

mph and earthmoving equipment to 10 

mph to prevent spilling hauled 

materials. Disturbed areas shall be 

revegetated as soon as possible. 

To control mobile and stationary 

source emissions, NRG must use 

modern, well-maintained dieselpowered equipment during construction 

and limit idling of heavy equipment. 

EPA recommended limiting idling to 

less than five minutes. 

Greenhouse Gasses 

Construction of the CO2 capture 

facility, CO2 pipeline, and CO2

monitoring infrastructure would 

generate up to approximately 4,900 tpy 

(4,400 metric tons per annum) of CO2

emissions over the two-year 

construction period. Operation of the 

CO2 capture facility and CO2 recycle 

facility would result in approximately 

785,000 tpy (0.71 million metric tons 

per annum [MMTA]) of new CO2

emissions. However, the proposed 

project would result in the capture of 

approximately 1.6 million tpy (1.5 

MMTA) of existing CO2 emissions, 

resulting in a net reduction of 

approximately 815,000 tpy (0.74 

MMTA) of CO2 emissions during 

operations. 

The capture and geological storage of 

existing GHG emissions by the project 

would produce a minor beneficial 

cumulative effect on a national and 

global scale. The reduction in CO2

emissions resulting from the Parish 

PCCS Project would incrementally 

reduce the rate of GHG accumulation in 

the atmosphere and help to 

incrementally mitigate climate change 

related to atmospheric concentrations of 

GHGs. 

Mitigation: NRG must design and 

construct the Parish PCCS Project to 

capture at least 90 percent of the carbon 

in the fossil fuels when operating under 

normal conditions, and use best efforts 

to achieve at least a 90 percent capture 

rate during the demonstration period. 

Geology 

Construction of the CO2 capture 

facility, pipeline, and recycle facility 

would result in negligible impacts to 

geologic resources. New well 

construction in the EOR area would 

result in removal of geologic media 

through the drilling process. This 

process would not be unique to the area 

and would not affect the availability of 

local geologic resources. Existing wells 

used by the project would be reworked, 

resulting in a potential beneficial impact 

to geologic resources by reducing the 

risk of leakage. 

Operation of the CO2 capture facility 

and pipeline would not affect geologic 

resources. In the EOR area, the potential 

for CO2 migration upward through the 

caprock seal is considered unlikely; 

however, leakage from one or more 

previously plugged and abandoned 

wells, oil-producing wells, injection 

wells, or observation wells might occur 

if any casing and/or cement placed in or 

around a well were to leak. To mitigate 

the potential for impacts related to 

casing or annular seal issues associated 

with wells in the proposed injection 

area, TCV would correct deficiencies 

prior to the use of such wells. These 

improvements to existing wells would 

result in a potential beneficial impact to 

geological resources by reducing the 

chance of leakage due to improperly 

sealed wells. 

Preliminary reservoir modeling 

indicates that injected CO2 and 

associated zones of increased pressure 

would not be expected to migrate 

laterally outside the area at the West 

Ranch oil field that is leased and 

operated by TCV. No known major 

faults exist within the West Ranch oil 

field or within the area of maximum 

predicted EOR-induced impacts to 

geologic formations. Therefore, the 

potential for the proposed project to 

increase seismic activity or for seismic 

activity to impact proposed project 

activities or facilities is low. 

The addition of CO2 to a geologic unit 

(i.e., a target geologic unit or an 

overlying unit, if leakage were to occur) 

could make the fluids within the unit 

more acidic. The creation of potentially 

more corrosive conditions could result 

in increased costs for later oil and gas 

development. However, DOE expects 

the injection of CO2 to beneficially 

impact oil and gas resources at the West 

Ranch oil field by increasing production 

from the target geologic units. 

Furthermore, the presence of 

infrastructure for CO2 floods may make 

oil production from other geologic units 

at the oil field more feasible, which 

could result in an indirect beneficial 

impact. 

Mitigation: NRG must develop a CO2

monitoring plan, in coordination with 

the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology 

(BEG) and DOE, to account for the CO2

used for EOR and ultimately 

sequestered. Subsequent reports 

submitted to the state of Texas must also 

be submitted to DOE. 

Physiography and Soils 

Potential minor impacts to 

physiography and soils during 

construction would include disturbance 

of soils and the potential for increased 

soil erosion from grading, soil 

excavation activities, earthwork 

compaction, and installation of 

impermeable surfaces over soils at some 

locations. At the CO2 capture facility, up 

to 29 acres of soil within the plant 

boundary would be disturbed or lost. 

Soils in this area are classified as Prime 

Farmland, but they have been 

previously impacted and would not be 

used for agricultural purposes. For the 

proposed pipeline development, up to 

1,197 acres of soils would be disturbed; 

however, the disturbed areas would be 

restored following construction and 

overall impacts would be minimized 

through use of existing ROW for most of 

its length. Approximately 819 acres in 

the construction ROW is classified as 

Prime Farmland and approximately 43 

acres classified as more than slightly 

erodible (i.e., moderately to severely 

erodible). In agricultural areas, impacts 

to soil would be minimized by 

segregating topsoil from underlying soil 

and placing the topsoil back as the top 

layer when the trench is filled. For the 

EOR area, construction and operational 

activities would be conducted in 

existing operational areas; therefore, 

impacts to soils would be similar to 

existing impacts. Potential soil impacts 

in all construction areas would be 

avoided or mitigated as described in a 

project-specific storm water pollution 

prevention plan (SWPPP). 

Operational activities associated with 

the CO2 capture facility, CO2 pipeline, 

and CO2 monitoring infrastructure 

would be anticipated to result in 

negligible impacts to soil resources, 

primarily due to disturbance of soils 

from vehicle traffic and an increased 

potential for erosion. 

Ground Water 

The potential for groundwater 

contamination during construction is 

considered low as potential spills and 

unintentional releases of wastes or 

petroleum-based materials to 

groundwater would be avoided or 

mitigated as described in a projectspecific spill prevention, control and 

countermeasures (SPCC) plan. 

Operation of the CO2 capture facility 

would require an additional 0.2 to 0.3 

million gallons per day (mgd) of 

groundwater from existing onsite wells 

(an approximately 13 percent increase 

as compared to current groundwater 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30906 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 

usage rates). The existing wells at the 

W.A. Parish Plant offer adequate 

capacity to supply the CO2 capture 

facility with potential minor impacts to 

on-site groundwater supplies. 

There are currently no plans to 

withdraw groundwater or to discharge 

directly to groundwater during 

construction of the proposed pipeline. 

Water supply wells near the West 

Ranch oil field are not anticipated to be 

affected by injected or displaced fluids 

due to the relatively shallow depths of 

existing groundwater supply wells as 

compared to the depths of the proposed 

CO2 injection wells in the Frio 

Formation (approximately 5,000 to 

6,200 feet bgs) and the existing 

produced water injection wells in the 

Catahoula Sandstone (approximately 

4,250 to 4,500 feet bgs); the presence of 

the approximately 400-foot-thick, lowpermeability confining caprock 

formation (i.e., the Anahuac Formation) 

and the approximately 2,000-foot-thick 

low-permeability Burkeville confining 

system; and the absence of known faults 

in the EOR area. 

DOE considers it unlikely that CO2

would leak from the injection zone. 

However, the possibility exists for 

impacts to occur to shallower geologic 

units if leakage of CO2 from the 

injection reservoir units occurred. As 

part of the proposed CO2 monitoring 

program, TCV and BEG would conduct 

studies to detect migration of injected or 

displaced fluids, should migration 

occur, so that potential long term 

impacts to groundwater resources may 

be minimized or avoided. 

In the EOR area, the potential for CO2

to migrate upward through fractures in 

the caprock seal is considered unlikely. 

However, leakage from one or more 

wells might occur if any casing and/or 

cement placed in or around a well 

failed. TCV and BEG would conduct 

well integrity testing prior to EOR 

operations and TCV would correct 

deficiencies prior to use of such wells 

in order to mitigate the potential for 

impacts. Additionally, existing wells 

used by the project would be reworked. 

Improvements to existing wells would 

result in a potential beneficial impact to 

groundwater resources by reducing the 

chance of leakage due to improperly 

sealed wells. 

Surface Water 

Construction of project-related 

facilities has the potential to cause 

increased sedimentation and turbidity 

in adjacent water bodies and increase 

the potential for surface water 

contamination from material spills. A 

SWPPP would be developed and 

implemented to avoid or minimize 

potential impacts to surface waters 

during construction activities. 

Negligible impacts to the surface 

water supply at the W.A. Parish Plant 

would be expected due to the 

approximately 12,000 gallons per day 

(gpd) required during construction for 

dust suppression, vehicle wash down, 

and other construction-related uses. 

Operation of the CO2 capture facility 

(including supporting infrastructure and 

facilities, such as the CT/HRSG and 

cooling water tower), would require 

approximately 3.5 to 4.9 mgd more 

surface water from Smithers Lake than 

is currently used by the W.A. Parish 

Plant. Including this approximately 10 

percent increase in surface water usage, 

the plant would use a total of 38 to 55 

mgd of surface water. Minor impacts on 

surface water supplies would be 

expected. NRG’s projected surface water 

usage would also be well below its 

current 99 mgd of surface water rights. 

During construction of the proposed 

pipeline, approximately 1.75 million 

gallons of water would be trucked in 

from outside sources or obtained from 

nearby surface water. NRG must 

discharge spent hydrostatic test water to 

upland areas according to RRC and EPA 

discharge permits and guidelines, as 

applicable. Additional mitigation 

measures, as identified in 

communication from the Texas Parks 

and Wildlife Department (TPWD) must 

be employed when crossing or working 

near Ecologically Significant Stream 

Segments. Some of these streams will be 

crossed using horizontal directional 

drilling (HDD) construction techniques. 

Crossings of the San Bernard River and 

Caney Creek are not expected to 

exacerbate existing water quality 

impairments in these water bodies. 

Construction-related impacts are 

expected to be negligible to moderate 

and temporary. Normal pipeline 

operations are not expected to impact 

surface waters. 

Negligible to minor impacts to surface 

water features at the West Ranch oil 

field would be expected to occur as a 

result of construction activities within 

the proposed EOR area. During EOR 

operations, the potential exists for a CO2

well blow-out, with some injected 

material being ejected and deposited 

into nearby surface waters. If that were 

to occur, such effects would be highly 

localized, minor, and readily 

remediated. 

Mitigation: NRG must implement the 

additional mitigation measures, e.g., 

double silt fencing, identified by the 

TPWD in a March 20, 2012, letter when 

crossing or working near Ecologically 

Significant Stream Segments during 

pipeline construction. 

Floodplains and Wetlands 

In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022 

(DOE regulations on Compliance with 

Floodplain and Wetland Environmental 

Review Requirements), DOE considered 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

project and its connected actions on 

wetlands and floodplains in the affected 

area. An assessment of impacts to 

wetlands and floodplains is included in 

the EIS. NRG selected sites and a 

pipeline route that would minimize 

impacts to wetlands and floodplains, 

and has committed to implementing 

methods designed to further reduce 

impacts. Overall, the proposed project 

would result in minor, direct short-term 

impacts to wetlands and negligible 

impacts to floodplains. 

No wetlands or floodplains exist 

within the area proposed for the CO2

capture facility at the W.A. Parish Plant 

or within the area proposed for the CO2

recycle facility at the West Ranch oil 

field. However, construction of projectrelated facilities has the potential to 

cause increased sedimentation and 

turbidity in adjacent wetlands and 

increase the potential for contamination 

from materials spills. A SWPPP utilizing 

appropriate spill prevention, control 

and countermeasures would be 

developed and implemented to avoid or 

minimize potential impacts to wetland 

and floodplain areas during 

construction activities, resulting in 

negligible to minor impacts. 

Approximately 81 acres of wetlands 

would be temporarily impacted during 

pipeline construction and 

approximately 4 acres of wetlands may 

be permanently impacted. Topsoil in 

wetland areas would be segregated from 

other excavated material during 

trenching and returned to the surface to 

promote revegetation of disturbed areas 

and to restore preexisting soil 

conditions. NRG plans to reduce the 

width of the construction ROW in 

wetland areas and/or use timber mats or 

low ground pressure equipment to 

minimize wetland impacts, as 

appropriate. Impacts to large riverine 

features and any adjacent wetlands 

would be avoided through the use of 

HDD methodology. Based on the current 

project design and field survey data 

collected to date, compensatory wetland 

mitigation would likely not be required 

for NRG’s proposed project by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or 

the state of Texas. At this time, DOE 

anticipates that wetland impacts will 

require Nationwide Permits for all 

stream and water body crossings. If 

conditions or plans become altered, any 

changes in permitting strategy or the 

need for compensatory wetland 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 30907 

mitigation would come under the 

jurisdiction of the USACE. Mitigation 

requirements would be detailed as part 

of the permitting process. 

The pipeline route would cross 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) 100-year and 500-year 

floodplains in 25 locations. DOE does 

not expect that the minor, temporary 

impacts from construction would reach 

a level of endangering human health or 

property or conflict with any state, 

local, or federal floodplain ordinances 

or plans. Following pipeline 

installation, the construction ROW 

would be returned to its original 

topography to the extent practicable. 

Five main line valves would be 

constructed within the FEMA 100-year 

floodplain in Wharton County. Changes 

to the flood elevation or the flow of 

water in the floodplain as a result of 

these valves would be negligible. No 

other aboveground facilities are planned 

within floodplain areas. Additionally, 

BMPs (as specified in a site-specific 

SWPPP) would be implemented to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts to 

wetland and floodplain areas during 

construction activities, resulting in 

negligible to minor impacts. 

During pipeline operations, a 30-foot 

permanent ROW would be mowed and 

maintained along the pipeline route for 

pipeline inspection and maintenance 

activities, which could result in minor 

long-term impacts due to the potential 

changes to wetland quality and function 

in the approximately 31 acres of 

wetlands located within the proposed 

permanent ROW. Impacts to floodplains 

would be minor during pipeline 

operations. 

DOE does not expect EOR operations 

or related CO2 monitoring activities to 

impact floodplains or wetlands within 

the West Ranch oil field. Activities 

would be conducted on existing well 

pads and within existing ROWs as much 

as possible. 

Mitigation: NRG must implement the 

mitigation techniques described above 

and analyzed in the EIS, including but 

not limited to reducing the construction 

ROW width in wetland areas, use of 

timber mats or low ground pressure 

equipment, and the use of HDD to cross 

sensitive areas. If compensatory wetland 

mitigation becomes necessary as part of 

any USACE permit, NRG must 

implement additional mitigation as 

required and described in the permit. 

Biological Resources 

Construction and operations activities 

at the CO2 capture facility and EOR area 

would be expected to have negligible 

impacts to biological resources. Affected 

habitats at these locations have been 

disturbed by past and ongoing industrial 

and oil production activities. Impacts to 

wildlife from construction of the 

pipeline corridor would be negligible to 

minor. Approximately 75 percent of the 

proposed pipeline corridor would be 

constructed within or immediately 

adjacent to existing mowed and 

maintained utility corridors. Also, 

approximately 60 percent of the 

pipeline corridor is currently in 

agricultural use, which is of limited use 

to wildlife. The pipeline route was 

chosen to minimize the overall effect to 

wildlife and fragmentation of wildlife 

habitat. Construction activities, 

including land clearing, would cause a 

negligible loss of wildlife habitat. The 

potential would exist for invasive 

species to colonize newly disturbed 

areas following construction, which 

could result in long-term moderate 

adverse impacts to biological resources. 

Except in cultivated fields or unless 

requested by the landowner, NRG 

would revegetate areas of disturbed soil 

along the pipeline construction ROW 

following construction with an 

appropriate mix of seeds for perennial 

grasses and forbs native to the area or 

with a seed mixture requested by the 

landowner to reduce the potential for 

establishment of invasive plant species. 

Depending on the season in which 

construction is completed, NRG may 

also seed with a cold-weather annual 

grass species, such as Gulf Coast 

ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), to 

establish a temporary vegetative cover 

until conditions become favorable for 

growth of perennial grasses and forbs. 

One active bald eagle nest was 

observed during field surveys in the 

ROI. The proposed pipeline route has 

been located approximately one mile 

from this nest, thus avoiding any 

impact. 

One state-listed threatened mussel 

species (smooth pimpleback, Quadrula 

houstonensis) was observed during field 

surveys in the ROI. This species has also 

been proposed for federal listing. 

Impacts to this mussel species, and 

mussel habitat in general, would be 

avoided by using HDD and by careful 

placement of temporary water intakes 

and discharges at this location. 

Similarly, HDD methodology will be 

employed at other river crossing 

locations classified as Ecologically 

Significant Stream Segments by the state 

of Texas. 

NRG would limit land-clearing 

activities in previously undisturbed 

areas to periods outside of migratory 

birds’ nesting seasons, to the extent 

practicable, to minimize the potential 

for impacts to migratory birds. If 

clearing vegetation during the nesting 

season or whooping crane migration 

period is unavoidable, previously 

undisturbed areas within the 

construction area would be surveyed 

prior to construction to verify that 

whooping cranes or nests with eggs or 

young would not be disturbed by 

construction activities. The proposed 

pipeline corridor would cross the 

whooping crane migratory pathway. 

Any areas being temporarily used by 

whooping cranes during its migration at 

the time of construction must be 

avoided until the cranes have left the 

area. 

Mitigation: NRG must continue 

consultation with the TPWD to 

minimize potential impacts on statelisted mussel species at pipeline 

crossings at larger rivers. As described 

in the EIS, HDD methods must be 

employed at these and other crossings, 

with appropriate actions taken to locate 

soil borings and temporary water 

intakes and discharges to minimize 

impacts to nearby mussel beds. If 

mussel relocations become necessary, 

NRG must coordinate its efforts with the 

TPWD. 

NRG must avoid ground disturbing 

activities during migratory birds’ 

nesting and breeding seasons to protect 

species protected by the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. If this is not practicable, a 

qualified biologist must survey 

potentially affected areas prior to 

ground disturbing activities and 

determine the appropriate actions 

needed to avoid impacts. 

During the whooping crane migration 

period (late March to early April; and 

late October to mid-December), if 

whooping cranes are observed in areas 

planned for pipeline construction, NRG 

must temporarily suspend activities in 

those immediate areas until the cranes 

leave. 

NRG, in coordination with DOE, must 

continue consultation with the TPWD 

and should request technical assistance 

from the USFWS if project changes 

require additional disturbance at new 

locations. This may occur if the 

currently proposed pipeline route needs 

to be altered or for other unforeseen 

areas of ground disturbance not 

included in the EIS. NRG must complete 

any additional surveys and identified 

mitigation prior to construction in those 

areas. 

NRG must revegetate disturbed areas 

using methods approved by the state of 

Texas and with coordination with land 

owners. 

Cultural Resources 

The THC identified the following 

Native American Tribes that may have 

an interest in activities in the proposed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30908 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 

project area: The Alabama-Coushatta 

Tribe of Texas, the Apache Tribe of 

Oklahoma, the Comanche Nation of 

Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of 

Louisiana, the Kiowa Indian Tribe of 

Oklahoma, the Mescalero Apache Tribe 

of the Mescalero Reservation, the 

Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, 

and the Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of 

Louisiana. DOE sent letters to these 

tribes, and only the Coushatta Tribe of 

Louisiana responded. The Coushatta 

Tribe of Louisiana concurred with 

DOE’s findings of ‘‘no historical 

properties affected.’’ 

DOE determined, and the THC has 

concurred, that no impacts to historic 

properties listed, or eligible for listing, 

in the Nation Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) would be expected from 

construction or operational activities for 

the CO2 capture facility or EOR areas. 

Additionally, based on cultural 

resources survey data collected to date, 

DOE has determined that no historic 

properties listed, or eligible for listing, 

in the NRHP would be impacted by the 

construction and operation of the 

proposed pipeline. Additional 

investigation activities (i.e., mechanized 

trenching) found no deeply buried 

archaeological deposits at HDD entry 

and exit locations near several proposed 

river crossings. DOE submitted its 

findings regarding pipeline corridor 

surveys to the THC for review, and 

consultation with the THC is ongoing. 

Mitigation: NRG, in coordination with 

DOE, must continue consultation with 

the Texas Historical Commission (State 

Historical Preservation Office) for areas 

not previously surveyed for cultural 

resources. This may occur if the 

currently proposed pipeline route needs 

to be altered or for other unforeseen 

areas of ground disturbance not 

included in the EIS. NRG must complete 

any additional surveys prior to 

construction in those areas. 

Land Use and Aesthetics 

The proposed construction and 

operation of the CO2 capture facility at 

the W.A. Parish Plant and CO2

monitoring infrastructure at the West 

Ranch oil field is consistent with 

existing land use and would result in 

negligible to minor impacts. 

Construction of the proposed CO2

pipeline would temporarily impact 

approximately 386 acres of agricultural 

lands, but no permanent loss of 

agricultural lands would occur. Less 

than 0.3 acres would be converted for 

aboveground pipeline facilities (one 

meter station and 12 main line valves). 

Impacts to aesthetic values would be 

negligible at the CO2 capture facility and 

EOR field as the existing aesthetic 

character would generally remain 

unchanged. Along the proposed CO2

pipeline route, minor to moderate 

aesthetic impacts to adjacent property 

owners would occur in some locations 

due to construction noise, truck traffic, 

fugitive dust emissions, and vegetation 

clearing. Operational aesthetic impacts 

would be negligible to minor and would 

be related to placement of pipeline 

markers, periodic vegetation clearing, 

and other maintenance activities. 

The impact of lighting during 

construction would be temporary and 

minor. The impact of lighting for 

operations at the proposed CO2 capture 

facility, the CO2 monitoring facilities, 

and the pipeline meter station would be 

negligible to minor as lighting would be 

consistent with existing operations. 

Lighting along the pipeline would be 

limited to the meter station. Meter 

station lighting would be down shielded 

to avoid interference with wildlife, 

which would result in minor impacts. 

Mitigation: NRG must install downshielded lighting for permanent light 

needs wherever possible. 

Traffic and Transportation 

A temporary increase in traffic during 

construction (up to 1,100 workers) is 

expected and would be easily 

accommodated by the existing road 

systems with only minor temporary 

disruptions. Continuing operation of the 

W.A. Parish Plant, the pipeline, and the 

West Ranch oil field would have 

negligible effects as a relatively small 

number of commuting employees (10 to 

15) would be added as well as a 

relatively small amount of additional 

material deliveries. 

Noise 

Construction of the CO2 capture 

facility would result an estimated 0.3 dB 

increase over existing noise levels for 

nearby receptors (i.e., nearby residential 

areas), which is below the threshold of 

human perception. Increased truck 

traffic during daytime hours may result 

in minor, short-term noise impacts 

along transportation corridors. 

Residences within 500 to 1,000 feet of 

pipeline construction would experience 

a short-term increase in ambient noise 

and vibrations from construction 

activity. Receptors near HDD locations 

could experience elevated temporary 

ambient noise levels as high as 78 dBA. 

Overall, noise and vibrations would 

result in minor to moderate impacts to 

receptors, depending on the distance 

from the receptor to the construction 

area. Construction and operations at the 

West Ranch oil field would result in an 

estimated 0.8 dB increase over existing 

noise levels for nearby individuals (i.e., 

in Vanderbilt), which is below the 

threshold of human perception, 

resulting in negligible to minor impacts 

to receptors. 

Materials and Waste Management 

Construction materials, equipment 

and supplies are readily available 

within the ROI and quantities required 

to support the proposed project are 

expected to be well within the capacity 

of material suppliers. Some specialized 

equipment may be required from 

outside the ROI; however, it is expected 

that this equipment would also be 

within existing supplier capacities. As a 

result, impacts to regional and national 

construction material resources and 

special equipment suppliers would be 

negligible. 

The W.A. Parish Plant is currently a 

conditionally exempt small quantity 

generator and generates approximately 

200 pounds of hazardous waste per 

year. During operations, the generation 

of approximately 2,712 pounds per day 

of reclaimer effluent, a hazardous 

material, would cause the plant to be 

classified as a large quantity generator. 

Approximately 24 shipments of 

reclaimer effluent would be sent to a 

permitted treatment, storage and 

disposal facility (TSDF) per year. The 

amounts sent for disposal would not 

substantially affect the capacities of the 

TSDF selected. 

Adequate non-hazardous solid waste 

disposal capacity exists within the ROI. 

Based on the over 20 million tons of 

capacity available in regional waste 

disposal facilities and the relatively low 

volumes of solid waste that would be 

generated by the proposed project (e.g., 

up to approximately 60 tons per year 

from the CO2 capture facility), adequate 

regional capacity exists for solid waste 

disposal with negligible impacts to 

waste management service providers. 

Human Health and Safety 

The potential for worker injuries and 

fatalities would be present during the 

construction of the proposed CO2

capture facility, CO2 pipeline, and CO2

monitoring infrastructure. Based on 

historical records for related industries, 

no worker fatalities would be expected. 

During facility operation, workers could 

be subject to physical and chemical 

hazards, which would be typical of 

those associated with similar power 

plant, pipeline, and oil field operations. 

An estimated nine to 12 OSHA 

recordable incidents would be 

anticipated during project construction 

based on national incidence rates for 

comparable industries. 

A human health risk assessment was 

performed for the EIS to analyze the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 30909 

potential health and safety impacts 

associated with CO2 and amine releases 

from proposed project components. The 

potential for CO2 pipeline ruptures or 

punctures is considered to be unlikely. 

The upper bound impact from a 

pipeline release of CO2 would be 

transient and reversible effects for up to 

12 people. More severe impacts would 

affect less than one person for all other 

pipeline release scenarios. If a release 

were to occur with workers present, the 

workers would likely experience the 

physical effects of an accident or a 

higher concentration exposure to CO2

than the surrounding population. 

Potential exposure would be limited 

because the pipeline would be buried 

underground. Additionally, NRG plans 

to install 12 main line valves to stop the 

release of CO2 should a puncture or 

rupture occur. These valves, along with 

pipeline pressure monitoring 

equipment, would be linked to the CO2

capture system operations control room, 

which would be staffed at all times 

when the system is in operation. In the 

event of a pressure drop indicating a 

pipeline rupture, the control room 

operator would shut down the system 

and remotely activate the main line 

valves to prevent further damage to the 

pipeline and minimize impacts to 

people in the surrounding area and the 

environment. 

The potential for release of CO2 from 

the EOR area is considered to range 

from unlikely to incredible (i.e., 

extremely unlikely), with less than one 

person affected for all release scenarios. 

In the extremely unlikely occurrence of 

an injection well blowout, the main 

adverse outcome would be the potential 

for ejection of CO2, possibly as dry ice 

particles, and formation fluids from the 

wellhead. Effects would be expected to 

be localized to the area around the 

affected wellhead and events of this 

type would be avoided or minimized by 

incorporating high pressure piping, 

overpressure protection valves, and 

blowout preventers into the design of 

the injection wells. A leak of aminebased solvent from a storage tank was 

also evaluated. Such a release would be 

unlikely and effects would be confined 

to the plant property. No nearby 

residents or the general public in the 

vicinity of the plant would be affected. 

Plant workers would need to take 

appropriate response actions, since lifethreatening concentrations of the 

solvent in air could occur within the 

plant site to a distance of 0.3 miles from 

the release. No nearby residents or other 

individuals in the vicinity of the plant 

would be affected beyond mild irritation 

if an amine-based solvent tank release 

occurred, although an odor may be 

detectable depending on wind 

conditions. 

Utilities 

The construction and operations 

phases of the proposed project would 

increase demand for potable and 

industrial water; and wastewater 

treatment services. Construction-related 

impacts to water supplies would be 

short term and negligible to minor. 

Construction-related impacts to 

wastewater treatment would be 

negligible. Operations impacts to water 

supplies would be negligible. 

Operations of the CO2 capture facility 

would result in negligible impacts to the 

natural gas supply as compared to 

existing use (i.e., much less than 1 

percent of the current maximum usage). 

EOR operations may require 

additional natural gas supply and 

electricity, which may result in minor 

impacts to the local utility 

infrastructure. Beneficial impacts to oil 

supplies would be provided in the long 

term as a result of increased production 

of oil in the ROI as a result of EOR 

operations. 

Community Services 

A temporary workforce of up to 1,100 

workers would be required for 

construction of the proposed project. 

Long-term operation of the project 

would require up to 20 new employees. 

Many of these workers are expected to 

be employed from within the ROI. 

Negligible impacts on community 

services would be expected due to a 

relatively small population increase 

during the construction and operation 

phases of the Parish PCCS Project. 

Existing community services (i.e., law 

enforcement, emergency response, 

hospitals, and education) are expected 

to be adequate to address the needs of 

the population in the ROI, including 

project personnel. 

Socioeconomics 

The project would be expected to 

contribute minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on the local economy and 

employment activities, as well as taxes 

and revenue through increased 

employment opportunities and 

expenditures in the local economy. 

Housing demand may increase slightly 

during construction if a portion of the 

1,100 construction workers temporarily 

relocate to the area; however, this would 

be a negligible, short-term effect. TCV 

estimates that using CO2 floods (i.e., 

EOR), the West Ranch oil field could 

produce an additional 55 to 75 million 

barrels of oil. This projected increase in 

oil production would translate directly 

into additional revenues for the State of 

Texas, even after taking into account the 

tax exemptions related to use of CO2

from anthropogenic sources for EOR. 

Environmental Justice 

Three census tracts in the ROI qualify 

as minority environmental justice areas 

of concern using the threshold of 50 

percent minority in the corresponding 

county. However, the proposed project 

is not expected to have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental impacts 

on minority populations. The overall 

impacts of the proposed project would 

be negligible or minor, depending on 

the resource area evaluated, and would 

not be directed at any particular 

minority group. Significant or adverse 

impacts on potential environmental 

justice areas of concern would not 

occur. In addition, the proposed project 

is expected to create economic benefits 

for local communities, regardless of 

race, by generating employment 

opportunities, local expenditures by 

workers, and compensation for 

proposed project-related easements to 

local landowners. Mitigation measures 

for resource areas impacted have been 

identified to further reduce 

environmental impacts and adhere to 

policies and regulations for the 

protection of the environment and local 

public health. Therefore, the proposed 

project would not create 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental impacts 

on minority populations during 

construction or operation. 

Because there is no low-income 

population in the ROI to be affected, 

there would be no adverse 

environmental justice impacts 

associated with the proposed project. 

However, DOE expects the proposed 

project would create economic benefits 

for local communities during 

construction and operation. 

Potential Environmental Impacts of the 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, DOE 

assumed the only development at the 

facility would be the construction and 

operation of a natural gas-fired turbine 

at the W.A. Parish Plant that would 

begin operation in 2013. The impacts 

under the no-action alternative (i.e. no 

development) were evaluated in the EIS 

and compared to the proposed action. 

Under the no-action alternative, the 

W.A. Parish Plant, pipeline corridor, 

and the EOR area at the West Ranch oil 

field would remain in their current 

condition with respect to the following: 

Geologic resources; physiography and 

soils; groundwater resources; surface 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30910 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 

waters; wetlands and floodplains; 

biological resources; cultural resources; 

land use and aesthetic resources; noise; 

material use and waste generation; 

human health and safety; community 

services; and environmental justice. 

Construction and operation of a 

natural gas-fired turbine at the W.A. 

Parish Plant under the no-action 

alternative would be a new source with 

emissions of criteria pollutants and 

GHG. The criteria pollutant emissions 

associated with the facility are 

estimated to be: 102.1 tpy of CO, 37.6 

tpy of NOX, 75.1 tpy of PM10, 71.7 tpy 

of PM2.5, 6.9 tpy of SO2, and 12.88 tpy 

of VOC. These potential emission 

increases were evaluated by TCEQ, and 

are authorized in the permit that it 

issued on December 21, 2012. The GHG 

emissions associated with the turbine 

are estimated to be: 582,328 tpy of CO2, 

2.44 tpy of H2SO4, and 34.2 tpy of NH3. 

Since there will be no emission 

reductions to offset the emission 

increases from the turbine; there would 

be an overall increase in GHG 

emissions. These GHG emission 

increases would have to be authorized 

under a PSD permit from the EPA. 

There would also be no commercialscale demonstration of advanced coalbased power generation technologies to 

capture CO2 for EOR and ultimate 

sequestration. 

Construction of the natural gas-fired 

turbine at the W.A. Parish Plant would 

temporarily increase traffic during 

construction (up to 100 workers), but 

would be easily accommodated by the 

existing road systems with only minor 

temporary disruptions. The personnel 

employed during construction of the 

turbine would result in minor shortterm beneficial impacts by consumption 

of goods and services. Construction of 

the natural gas-fired turbine would 

likely result in a moderate, beneficial 

impact to taxes and revenue within the 

ROI. 

The construction and operations 

phases of the natural gas-fired turbine 

would increase demand for potable and 

industrial water; and wastewater 

treatment services. Construction-related 

impacts to water supplies would be 

short term and negligible to minor. 

Construction-related impacts to 

wastewater treatment would be 

negligible. Operations impacts to water 

supplies would be negligible. 

Operations of the turbine would result 

in negligible impacts to the natural gas 

supply as compared to existing use (i.e., 

much less than 1 percent of the current 

maximum usage). The turbine would 

supply electricity that would be 

available for commercial sale through 

the power grid, and would be a 

beneficial impact until the electricity 

and steam are needed for the capture 

facility. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

From a local perspective, the noaction alternative is the environmentally 

preferable alternative because it would 

result in no changes to the existing 

environmental conditions, with the 

exception of the natural gas-fired 

turbine, which NRG has begun 

constructing and plans to operate with 

or without DOE funding. However, from 

a national perspective, DOE’s proposed 

action is the environmentally preferred 

alternative. Successful demonstration of 

the proposed project could facilitate the 

deployment of carbon capture, 

utilization and storage (sequestration) 

practices at power plants and other 

industrial facilities in an effort to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions that would 

otherwise occur with the continued 

combustion of fossil fuels, especially 

coal, from large stationary sources. 

Issued in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on this 

8th of May 2013. 

Anthony V. Cugini, 

Director, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12280 Filed 5–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Idaho 

National Laboratory 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the Environmental 

Management Site-Specific Advisory 

Board (EM SSAB), Idaho National 

Laboratory. The Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 

770) requires that public notice of this 

meeting be announced in the Federal 

Register. 

DATES: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:00 

a.m.–5:00 p.m. 

The opportunities for public comment 

will be at 9:45 a.m. and 2:45 p.m. 

These times are subject to change; 

please contact the Federal Coordinator 

(below) for confirmation of times prior 

to the meeting. 

ADDRESSES: Hilton Garden Inn, 700 

Lindsay Boulevard, Idaho Falls, Idaho 

83402. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert L. Pence, Federal Coordinator, 

Department of Energy, Idaho Operations 

Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS– 

1203, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415. Phone 

(208) 526–6518; Fax (208) 526–8789 or 

email: pencerl@id.doe.gov or visit the 

Board’s Internet home page at: http:// 

inlcab.energy.gov/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 

the Board is to make recommendations 

to DOE–EM and site management in the 

areas of environmental restoration, 

waste management, and related 

activities. 

Tentative Topics (agenda topics may 

change up to the day of the meeting; 

please contact Robert L. Pence for the 

most current agenda): 

• Recent Public Involvement 

• Idaho Cleanup Project Progress to 

Date 

• Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment 

Plant Update 

• Results of Remote-Handled 

Transuranic Waste Negotiations with 

the State 

• Discuss Hanford Cleanup Issues— 

Hanford 101 

• National Transportation Stakeholders’ 

Forum—Overview 

• Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 101 

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, 

Idaho National Laboratory, welcomes 

the attendance of the public at its 

advisory committee meetings and will 

make every effort to accommodate 

persons with physical disabilities or 

special needs. If you require special 

accommodations due to a disability, 

please contact Robert L. Pence at least 

seven days in advance of the meeting at 

the phone number listed above. Written 

statements may be filed with the Board 

either before or after the meeting. 

Individuals who wish to make oral 

presentations pertaining to agenda items 

should contact Robert L. Pence at the 

address or telephone number listed 

above. The request must be received five 

days prior to the meeting and reasonable 

provision will be made to include the 

presentation in the agenda. The Deputy 

Designated Federal Officer is 

empowered to conduct the meeting in a 

fashion that will facilitate the orderly 

conduct of business. Individuals 

wishing to make public comments will 

be provided a maximum of five minutes 

to present their comments. 

Minutes: Minutes will be available by 

writing or calling Robert L. Pence, 

Federal Coordinator, at the address and 

phone number listed above. Minutes 

will also be available at the following 

Web site: http://inlcab.energy.gov/ 

pages/meetings.php. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES