35174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 

Social Security Number (SSN) and 

full name are required to determine if 

the system contains a record relative to 

any specific individual. Valid proof of 

identity is required. 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: 

The Air Force rules for accessing 

records, and for contesting contents and 

appealing initial agency determinations 

are published in Air Force Instruction 

37–132; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be 

obtained from the system manager. 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Information obtained from 

individuals, supervisors, from Air Force 

Technical Training Centers and from the 

Recruiting Activities Management 

Support System (RAMSS). 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

None. 

[FR Doc. E9–17151 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 

Reservation 

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), Oak Ridge 

Reservation. 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: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 8 

a.m.–4:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: RT Lodge, 1406 Wilkinson 

Pike, Maryville, Tennessee 37803. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat 

Halsey, Federal Coordinator, 

Department of Energy Oak Ridge 

Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM– 

90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 

576–4025; Fax (865) 576–2347 or e-mail: 

halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web 

site at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ 

ssab. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 

the Board is to make recommendations 

to DOE in the areas of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and 

related activities. 

Tentative Agenda: The focus of the 

annual retreat will be a review of Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2009 and the development of 

work plans for FY 2010. 

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, 

Oak Ridge, 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 Pat Halsey 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 statements pertaining to the agenda 

item should contact Pat Halsey at the 

address or telephone number listed 

above. Requests 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 comment will 

be provided a maximum of five minutes 

to present their comments. 

Minutes: Minutes will be available by 

writing or calling Pat Halsey at the 

address and phone number listed above. 

Minutes will also be available at the 

following Web site: http:// 

www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/ 

minutes.htm. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on July 14, 

2009. 

Rachel Samuel, 

Deputy Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–17160 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 

Reservation 

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), Oak Ridge 

Reservation. 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, August 12, 2009—6 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 

475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat 

Halsey, Federal Coordinator, 

Department of Energy Oak Ridge 

Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM– 

90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 

576–4025; Fax (865) 576–2347 or e-mail: 

halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web 

site at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ 

ssab. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 

the Board is to make recommendations 

to DOE in the areas of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and 

related activities. 

Tentative Agenda: The main meeting 

topic will be general board business in 

preparation for the board’s annual 

retreat. 

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, 

Oak Ridge, 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 Pat Halsey 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 statements pertaining to the agenda 

item should contact Pat Halsey at the 

address or telephone number listed 

above. Requests 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 comment will 

be provided a maximum of five minutes 

to present their comments. 

Minutes: Minutes will be available by 

writing or calling Pat Halsey at the 

address and phone number listed above. 

Minutes will also be available at the 

following Web site: http:// 

www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/ 

minutes.htm. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on July 14, 

2009. 

Rachel Samuel, 

Deputy Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–17158 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision, FutureGen Project 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) prepared an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

(DOE/EIS–0394) to assess the potential 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 35175 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action of providing 

Federal financial assistance to the 

FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc. 

(Alliance) for the FutureGen Project. 

The Alliance, which is a non-profit 

industrial consortium led by the coalfueled electric power industry and the 

coal production industry, intends to 

plan, design, construct and operate a 

coal-fueled electric power plant that 

will be integrated with capture and 

geologic sequestration of the by-product 

carbon dioxide (CO2). Based on DOE’s 

review and consideration of relevant 

factors, including potential 

environmental consequences associated 

with the proposed Project at four 

alternative sites, and subject to future 

technical, cost, business and 

environmental decision points, DOE has 

decided to proceed with financial 

assistance for the FutureGen Project. All 

practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harms have been 

adopted. 

During June 2008, DOE discontinued 

support for the Project allowing its 

cooperative agreement with the Alliance 

to expire without continuation or 

renewal. More recently, DOE reassessed 

that decision and reached an agreement 

with the Alliance to complete a 

preliminary design, a revised cost 

estimate and a funding plan pursuant to 

a new eight- to ten-month limited-scope 

cooperative agreement valued at 

approximately $17.5 million. Prior to 

the expiration of this cooperative 

agreement, DOE and the Alliance will 

make a mutual decision on whether to 

move forward into the subsequent 

phases. 

Federal financial assistance for the 

subsequent phases (i.e., detailed design, 

construction and operations) would 

occur under the terms of a new fullscope cooperative agreement to be 

negotiated between DOE and the 

Alliance sometime during early 2010. 

As of early 2007, the project cost 

estimate was approximately $1.7 billion 

(in as spent dollars), based on a 

conceptual design and generic cost data. 

DOE and the Alliance recognize that the 

costs may be as much as $700 million 

higher and will use the new limitedscope cooperative agreement to explore 

cost reduction options and refine the 

estimate. If the Project continues, DOE 

anticipates committing $1 billion in 

funds under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111– 

5) plus remaining funds from prior year 

annual appropriations. The balance of 

project funding is expected to come 

from (1) the Alliance ($400 to 600 

million), (2) revenues from sales of 

electricity, and (3) other funding sources 

to be identified in the project funding 

plan. 

The FutureGen Project includes the 

planning, design, construction and 

operation by the Alliance of a coalfueled electric power plant that features 

sub-systems for capture and geologic 

sequestration of the by-product carbon 

dioxide (CO2) fully integrated into the 

power generation system. Electricity 

will be generated using an integrated 

gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) 

system sized for a nominal 275- 

megawatt (MW) output. The plant will 

be designed for at least 90 percent CO2

capture but may be operated in the early 

years at 60 percent capture to validate 

plant integration and sequestration 

capability before increasing the capture 

rate to 90 percent by the third year of 

operation. The plant will compress the 

captured CO2 and pipe the captured CO2

to one or more injection wells, where 

the CO2 will be injected into saline 

reservoirs located thousands of feet 

beneath the land surface. The plant will 

also be designed to reduce air emissions 

of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, 

mercury, and particulates to very low 

levels. The Project will include an 

option for a research platform to support 

development of technologies for future 

power plants that capture and sequester 

CO2. 

DOE considered four sites as 

reasonable alternatives: (1) Mattoon, 

Illinois; (2) Tuscola, Illinois; (3) Jewett, 

Texas; and (4) Odessa, Texas. After 

careful consideration of the potential 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

project at each of the four alternative 

sites, along with consideration of 

program goals and objectives in 

accordance with its obligations under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), DOE has decided to provide 

financial assistance to the Alliance to 

implement the FutureGen Project at any 

one of the four alternative sites. In 

addition, DOE considered potential 

mitigation opportunities in the EIS, and 

several mitigation requirements are 

specified in this Record of Decision 

(ROD). Floodplain and wetland 

environmental review requirements (10 

CFR Part 1022) were incorporated into 

the EIS and NEPA process. This ROD 

briefly describes mitigation steps to be 

taken. 

DOE issued the Final EIS on 

November 9, 2007, and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Notice of Availability of the EIS 

was published in the Federal Register 

on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64619 

(2007)). The cooperative agreement in 

effect at that time gave the Alliance the 

right to select the site after DOE issued 

a ROD. The Alliance announced their 

preference for the Mattoon site in 

December 2007. Therefore, DOE 

acknowledges that the Alliance intends 

to formally select Mattoon after issuance 

of this ROD. Since December 2007, the 

Alliance has acquired property at the 

Mattoon site (without using Federal 

funds) and has continued to conduct 

preliminary design work. 

ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available 

on the DOE NEPA Web site at: http:// 

www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/final-EIS– 

0394.htm and on the DOE National 

Energy Technology Laboratory Web site 

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

technologies/coalpower/futuregen/EIS. 

This ROD also is available on the same 

Web sites. Copies of the Final EIS and 

this ROD may be obtained from Mr. 

Mark L. McKoy, Environmental 

Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Energy Technology Laboratory, 

P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507– 

0880, ATTN: FutureGen Project EIS; 

telephone: 304–285–4426; toll-free 

number: 1–800–432–8330 (ext 4426); 

fax: 304–285–4403; or e-mail: 

FutureGen.EIS@netl.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

obtain additional information about this 

project, the EIS or the ROD, contact Mr. 

Mark. L. McKoy by the means specified 

above under ADDRESSES. For general 

information on the DOE NEPA process, 

contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, 

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 

Compliance (GC–20), U.S. Department 

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone: 

202–586–4600; fax: 202–586–7031; or 

leave a toll-free message at: 1–800–472– 

2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

prepared this ROD pursuant to Council 

on Environmental Quality regulations 

for implementing the procedural 

provisions of NEPA [40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500—1508] 

and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 

1021). This ROD is based in part on 

DOE’s Final EIS for the FutureGen 

Project (DOE/EIS–0394, November 

2007). 

Background 

On February 27, 2003, then President 

Bush announced that the United States 

would undertake a large-scale research 

project to build the world’s first coalfueled power plant to produce 

electricity and hydrogen gas (H2) with 

near-zero emissions, including CO2. In 

response to this announcement, DOE 

developed plans for the FutureGen 

Project, which was intended to establish 

the technical and economic feasibility of 

producing electricity and H2 from coal— 

a low-cost and abundant energy 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
35176 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 

resource—while capturing and 

geologically storing the CO2 generated 

in the process. 

On April 21, 2003, the Department of 

Energy (DOE) issued a Request for 

Information (RFI) in the Federal 

Register seeking public comment in the 

form of expressions of interest from 

prospective consortia. FutureGen is 

anticipated to be a complex 

undertaking; therefore, DOE believes 

project success is best achieved through 

a collaboration of the industries most 

heavily impacted by potential future 

limitations on carbon emissions. Thus, 

DOE outlined a plan to enter into a 

noncompetitive cooperative agreement 

with a consortium led by the coal-fueled 

electric power industry and the coal 

production industry. In response to the 

RFI, the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, 

Inc. was proposed to represent the 

industry collaboration, and on July 27, 

2005, the Alliance was incorporated. A 

limited-scope cooperative agreement 

was signed by DOE and the Alliance on 

December 2, 2005 to initiate the Project 

with a project definition phase that 

yielded a conceptual design report and 

project plans. This phase also led to the 

signing of a full-scope cooperative 

agreement on March 23, 2007 that was 

intended to establish the remainder of 

the Project. 

On June 15, 2008, in response to 

DOE’s concerns about escalating costs, 

DOE allowed the cooperative agreement 

to expire without continuation or 

renewal. During February 2009, the 

General Accounting Office issued a 

report (GAO–09–248), which concluded 

that DOE’s decision to restructure the 

FutureGen Project should be based on a 

comprehensive analysis of costs, 

benefits and risks. Subsequently, the 

Department reassessed the Project and 

determined that additional information 

is required for DOE and the Alliance to 

make an informed decision on whether 

to continue the Project to completion. In 

a June 12, 2009 press release, Secretary 

Chu announced an agreement for the 

Alliance to begin performance of the 

following activities: 

• Rapid restart of preliminary design 

activities. 

• Completion of a site-specific 

preliminary design and up-dated cost 

estimate. 

• Expansion of the Alliance 

sponsorship group. 

• Development of a complete funding 

plan. 

• Potential additional subsurface 

characterization. 

These activities would occur pursuant 

to a new eight- to ten-month limitedscope cooperative agreement valued at 

approximately $17.5 million. Prior to 

the expiration of this cooperative 

agreement and based on the new 

information (preliminary design, revised 

cost estimate, and funding plan, 

anticipated early in 2010), DOE and the 

Alliance will make a mutual decision on 

whether to move forward. The preferred 

outcome is a mutual decision to move 

forward and to establish a full-scope 

cooperative agreement for the detailed 

design, construction and operation of 

the Project, subject to additional NEPA 

review as appropriate. 

Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

The purpose of the agency action is to 

implement the FutureGen Initiative, and 

support the Nation’s climate change 

mitigation strategy through the 

application of technologies currently 

feasible for carbon capture and storage 

(CCS) and large-scale production of H2. 

The Federal action is to fund the 

construction and operation of the 

cleanest coal-fueled power plant system 

in the world for producing electricity 

from H2. As the Nation’s most abundant 

fossil fuel, coal is expected to have an 

important role in the Nation’s energy 

future. However, fossil fuel combustion 

has been identified as a major source of 

CO2 concentration increases in the 

atmosphere. Electric power generation 

contributes 40 percent of all CO2

emissions in the U.S. In 2006, 82 

percent of all electricity productionrelated CO2 emissions resulted from the 

burning of coal. 

EIS Process 

On February 26, 2006, DOE published 

in the Federal Register (71 FR 8283) an 

Advance Notice of Intent to prepare an 

EIS. Subsequently, on July 28, 2006, 

DOE published a Notice of Intent to 

prepare the FutureGen EIS and to hold 

public scoping meetings (71 FR 42840). 

DOE held a public scoping meeting near 

each of the four alternative sites during 

the public scoping period, which ended 

September 13, 2006. DOE addressed 

scoping comments in the Draft EIS. 

On June 1, 2007, DOE published in 

the Federal Register (72 FR 30572) a 

Notice of Availability and an 

announcement of public hearings for the 

Draft EIS. The four public hearings also 

were announced in local newspapers. 

One public hearing was held near each 

of the four alternative sites. Comments 

were solicited at the public hearings and 

throughout the public comment period, 

which ended July 16, 2007. Comments 

on the Draft EIS included statements of 

support as well as concerns about 

public health and safety, aesthetics, 

noise, air emissions and air quality, 

water consumption and protection 

(surface water and groundwater), 

monitoring methods and permanence of 

geologic storage, co-sequestration of 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S), employment, 

impacts on farming, disposal of wastes, 

public outreach, technology 

development, and promotion of 

alternate sources of energy. In the Final 

EIS, DOE considered and, as 

appropriate, responded to public 

comments on the Draft EIS. DOE issued 

the Final EIS during November 2007, 

and the Environmental Protection 

Agency published a Notice of 

Availability for the Final EIS in the 

Federal Register on November 16, 2007 

(72 FR 64619). On December 18, 2007, 

the Alliance announced its intention to 

select the Mattoon site, pending the 

issuance of DOE’s Record of Decision. 

Under the terms of the cooperative 

agreement in effect at that time, the 

Alliance would select the FutureGen 

site from among the sites found to be 

acceptable by DOE, as published in the 

ROD. Since December 2007, the 

Alliance has acquired property at the 

Mattoon site (without using Federal 

funds) and has continued to conduct 

preliminary design work. 

Proposed Action and Project 

Description 

The Proposed Action is for DOE to 

provide financial assistance to the 

Alliance for the FutureGen Project. 

Under the terms of a new $17.5 million 

limited-scope cooperative agreement, 

DOE and the Alliance will complete a 

preliminary design, a revised cost 

estimate and a funding plan for the 

FutureGen Project. Based on these work 

products, DOE and the Alliance will 

mutually decide prior to the expiration 

of this agreement whether to move 

forward into subsequent phases. 

In an effort to reduce costs, improve 

plant reliability, and generate revenue 

from sales of electricity, DOE and the 

Alliance will consider several design 

and operational features not presented 

in the Final EIS, including the following 

specific features: 

• Design the facility for at least 90 

percent CO2 capture but operate in the 

early years at 60 percent capture to 

validate plant integration and 

sequestration capability before 

increasing the capture rate to 90 percent 

by the third year of operation. 

• Design the combined-cycle power 

generation portion of the facility so that 

it may be operated on natural gas during 

the period when the gasification plant is 

under construction, and thereafter if 

syngas is not available. 

• Design the facility so that it is 

optimized for a single coal type, which 

may decrease capital costs of the 

facility. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 35177 

As explained herein (see sections on 

‘‘Air Quality’’ and ‘‘Climate and 

Meteorology’’), DOE believes 

incorporation of these features into the 

Project does not significantly change the 

environmental impacts of the project as 

presented in the Final EIS. 

If DOE and the Alliance mutually 

decide in early 2010 to move forward 

with the remainder of the Project, DOE 

would share costs in the planning, 

design, construction, and operation of 

the Project, as specified in a follow-on 

full-scope cooperative agreement. The 

Alliance is a non-profit corporation that 

represents a global coalition of coal and 

energy companies that would share in 

the Project costs. 

As of early 2007, the Project cost 

estimate was approximately $1.7 billion 

(in as spent dollars), based on a 

conceptual design and generic cost data. 

DOE and the Alliance recognize that the 

costs may be as much as $700 million 

higher and will use the new limitedscope cooperative agreement to explore 

cost reduction options and refine the 

estimate. If the Project continues, DOE 

anticipates committing $1 billion in 

funds under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111– 

5) plus remaining funds from prior year 

annual appropriations. The remainder 

of project funding is expected to come 

from (1) the Alliance ($400 to 600 

million), (2) revenues from sales of 

electricity, and (3) other funding sources 

to be identified in the project funding 

plan. 

The FutureGen Project will be a lowemissions coal-fueled power plant 

supporting cutting-edge research to 

develop promising new energy-related 

technologies on a commercial scale. 

Low carbon emissions will be achieved 

by integrating CO2 capture and 

sequestration operations with the power 

generation system. Performance and 

economic test results from the 

FutureGen Project will be shared among 

the participants, the industry, the 

environmental community, and the 

public. 

The power plant will be a nominal 

275-megawatt (MW) output IGCC 

system. Geologic storage of CO2 is 

planned to occur at an operational rate 

of at least 1.1 million tons [1 million 

metric tons (MMT)] of CO2 per year. The 

following are major components of the 

FutureGen Project: A power plant and 

plant infrastructure; a sequestration site 

for one or more CO2 injection wells and 

related infrastructure; a deep saline 

reservoir (an underground geologic 

formation whose pore space contains 

salt water); utility connections and 

corridors (water supply pipeline, 

sanitary wastewater pipeline, electricity 

transmission line, natural gas pipeline, 

and CO2 pipeline); and rail and truck 

transportation of coal and other 

materials consumed or generated by the 

power plant. 

Construction is anticipated to begin in 

2011, with initial startup of the facility 

in 2014. DOE-sponsored activities will 

include design, construction and four 

years of plant operation, testing, and 

research, followed by two years of 

additional geologic monitoring of the 

sequestered CO2. After DOE-sponsored 

activities conclude, the Alliance or its 

successor will manage and operate the 

plant, likely as a commercial venture. 

DOE expects the plant will operate for 

at least 20 to 30 years, and potentially 

up to 50 years. 

As preliminary design for the 

FutureGen Project continues and more 

information regarding the site and costs 

becomes available, it may become 

necessary to modify the design and/or 

goals of the Project. Changes made to 

the Project and additional information 

about the selected site will be examined 

in a Supplement Analysis, which DOE 

will use to determine if a Supplemental 

EIS is warranted. 

Site Alternatives 

DOE analyzed four reasonable 

alternative sites for the FutureGen 

Project. These sites were identified by 

the Alliance through a rigorous 

competitive solicitation and screening 

process. DOE reviewed the Alliance’s 

process and findings to ensure that all 

reasonable alternatives were considered 

for analysis in the EIS. 

As noted above, the Alliance has 

stated its intention to formally select the 

Mattoon site, pending the issuance of 

DOE’s Record of Decision. The 

following paragraphs briefly describe 

each alternative site, as conditions 

existed at the time the EIS was 

prepared. 

Mattoon, Illinois. The Mattoon Site 

consists of approximately 444 acres of 

flat-lying farmland about 1 mile 

northwest of the City of Mattoon, Coles 

County, Illinois. The power plant and 

sequestration site would be located in 

the same area. Currently, the site is 93 

percent farmland and 3 percent public 

rights-of-way (ROW), with the 

remainder being rural residential 

development and woodlands. 

Tuscola, Illinois. The Tuscola Site 

consists of approximately 345 acres of 

flat-lying farmland about 1.5 miles west 

of the City of Tuscola, Douglas County, 

Illinois. The site is currently farmland 

and is located adjacent to facilities of 

the Cabot Corporation and LyondellEquistar Chemical Company. The 

sequestration site is a 10-acre parcel 

located 11 miles south of the power 

plant site in Douglas County. The 

sequestration site currently consists of 

agricultural land located south of the 

City of Arcola. 

Jewett, Texas. The Jewett Site is 

located in east-central Texas on 

approximately 400 acres of formerly 

mined land about 7 miles northwest of 

the City of Jewett. The site is located at 

the intersection of Leon, Limestone, and 

Freestone counties. The area is 

characterized by very gently rolling 

grassed areas (reclaimed mine lands) 

and post oak forest adjacent to an 

operating lignite mine and the NRG 

Limestone Generating Station. The 

sequestration wells would be located on 

private ranchland and/or state-owned 

land approximately 33 miles northeast 

of the plant site in Anderson and 

Freestone counties. Land at the 

sequestration sites is used for ranching 

and agriculture and includes part of the 

property of a state prison farm. 

Odessa, Texas. The Odessa Site is 

located on approximately 600 level 

acres about 15 miles southwest of the 

City of Odessa, Ector County, Texas. 

The site is north of the town of Penwell 

on land historically used for ranching 

plus oil and gas activities. The 

sequestration site is located 58 miles 

south of the plant site in Pecos County. 

This sparsely populated area is on semiarid land adjacent to Interstate Highway 

I–10, about 13 miles east of Fort 

Stockton. The sequestration site 

property is owned by the University of 

Texas. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

DOE would not share in the cost for 

constructing and operating the 

FutureGen Project. Without DOE 

funding, the Alliance would not likely 

undertake the commercial-scale 

integration of CO2 capture and geologic 

sequestration with a coal-fueled power 

plant. Therefore, the No-Action 

Alternative is considered a ‘‘No-Build’’ 

Alternative. 

Potential Environmental Impacts and 

Mitigation Measures 

In making its decision, DOE 

considered the environmental impacts 

of the Proposed Action and No-Action 

Alternative on potentially affected 

environmental resource areas. These 

include air quality, climate and 

meteorology, geology, physiography and 

soils, groundwater, surface water, 

wetlands and floodplains, biological 

resources, cultural resources, land use, 

aesthetics, traffic and transportation, 

noise and vibration, human health and 

safety (including accidents and sabotage 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
35178 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 

scenarios), socioeconomics, and 

environmental justice. The EIS 

evaluates the impacts of the FutureGen 

Project on these environmental resource 

areas at each of the four candidate sites. 

It also examines potential incremental 

impacts of the Project in combination 

with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions (i.e., 

cumulative impacts). The following 

sections provide key findings related to 

potential environmental impacts and 

mitigation measures. 

Air Quality 

The FutureGen Project will be 

categorized as a major source of air 

pollutants under Clean Air Act 

regulations because emissions of some 

criteria pollutants will exceed 100 tons 

per year. However, compared to 

conventional coal-fueled power plants 

of the same size, the Project will emit 

very low levels of criteria and hazardous 

air pollutants, including those from 

initial startup, restarts and flaring 

events. During these periods, emissions 

will increase temporarily while process 

gases are flared for a short period of 

time. There is less than a two percent 

chance that critical weather conditions 

would coincide with a plant upset or 

restart to cause a local, short-duration 

exceedance of National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards at any of the four 

sites (chance of exceedance of the 3- 

hour sulfur dioxide [SO2] criterion is: 

Mattoon, 0.23 percent; Tuscola, 0.22 

percent; Jewett, 1.66 percent; Odessa, 

0.09 percent). 

Although air quality impacts will be 

small at any of the sites, the FutureGen 

Project will reduce emissions and 

impacts to the fullest extent practicable. 

Specifically, the Project will employ 

advanced particulate control devices 

such that the concentration of 

particulates in the syngas will be less 

than 0.005 lb/MM Btu (pounds per 

million metric British thermal units) of 

coal gasified, which is far lower than 

current environmental standards for 

coal plants. For controlling emissions of 

nitrogen oxides, the Project will use 

state-of-the-art combustion-control 

technologies (e.g., using nitrogen gas 

and/or steam as a diluent in the 

combustion gas turbine to adjust the 

firing temperature and thereby reduce 

the thermal formation of nitrogen 

oxides). Downstream from the gasifier, a 

water-gas-shift reactor will convert 

carbon monoxide (CO) and water into 

CO2 and H2. Further downstream, an 

acid gas removal system will capture 

CO2 and sulfur compounds, thus 

minimizing emissions. 

During the up-coming continuation of 

the preliminary design phase, DOE and 

the Alliance will consider several 

design and operational features not 

presented in the Final EIS: A temporary 

(two to three year period) reduction in 

CO2 capture rate from 90 percent to 60 

percent, short-term periods of firing the 

combustion turbine on natural gas 

(including a potential one-year startup 

period), and the optimization of the 

power plant for gasifying a single coal 

type (see the above section on 

‘‘Proposed Action and Project 

Description’’). Air emissions of criteria 

and hazardous pollutants associated 

with these potential changes in the 

scope of the project are estimated to 

result in no change in the findings of the 

EIS. 

For example, during periods that the 

facility operates on coal at 60 percent 

CO2 capture, emissions of SO2, 

particulates and mercury would be 

unchanged because the syngas and flue 

gas clean-up systems would operate the 

same as they would when the facility 

operates at 90 percent CO2 capture. 

Additionally, when capturing 60 

percent of the CO2, emissions of NOx

and CO are expected to be unchanged. 

Therefore, the estimated emission rates 

of these criteria pollutants at 60 percent 

CO2 capture would be equal to those 

used for air quality modeling in the EIS. 

Estimated emissions of CO2 are 

described in the next section, ‘‘Climate 

and Meteorology’’. 

During short-term periods of 

operation on natural gas, emissions of 

SO2, particulates and mercury would be 

negligible. Emissions of CO are 

estimated to be below the emission rate 

of CO during operation on coal and 

therefore below the emission rates used 

for air quality modeling in the EIS. 

Emissions of NOx when firing natural 

gas are expected to require control using 

selective catalytic reduction and, 

therefore, would be typical of emission 

levels for state-of-the-art natural gas 

combined-cycle power plants. These 

emission rates would be well below the 

emission rates used for air quality 

modeling in the EIS. 

To validate the Project’s 

accomplishments, the Alliance shall 

prepare (at a minimum) annual reports 

during the term of the cooperative 

agreement that document engineering 

and research activities demonstrating 

technical and economic progress toward 

developing the design and operational 

basis for future near-zero emissions 

coal-fueled power plants. Annual 

reports shall include summary 

information on the emissions of criteria 

pollutants and CO2 from the Project. 

These reports shall indicate the 

performance and emissions of the 

Project during normal operations. If air 

emissions data are collected during 

periods of operation outside normal, 

steady-state conditions, this information 

also shall be summarized in the report. 

Climate and Meteorology 

Construction and operation of the 

FutureGen Project will not cause 

measurable impacts on local, regional or 

global climate and meteorology. The 

Project’s primary objective is to test and 

help develop coal-fueled power plants 

that greatly reduce emissions of 

greenhouse gases. If the Project’s 

technologies are widely deployed in 

fossil-fueled power plants built in the 

future, these plants collectively could 

reduce national and world-wide 

greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 

a scenario of not using carbon capture 

and sequestration on new coal-fueled 

power plants), thereby lessening the 

potential for global climate change. 

If the Project adopts potential changes 

in the CO2 capture rate, fuel source and 

plant operations, as discussed in the 

section on ‘‘Proposed Action and Project 

Description’’, the amount of CO2

emitted to the atmosphere would 

increase during the first two or three 

years of project operations. At 60 

percent CO2 capture levels, facility 

operations on coal are estimated to add 

additional emissions of 485,000 to 

685,000 metric tons of CO2 per year of 

operation. One year of facility 

operations on natural gas is estimated to 

add additional emissions of 750,000 

metric tons of CO2. Facility operations 

on natural gas if syngas is not available 

are only expected to result in additional 

emissions during the period when the 

facility is usually operated at 90 percent 

CO2 capture levels. These additional 

emissions are estimated to be between 

110,000 to 215,000 metric tons per year 

of operation. Over the potential 5 year 

project operations period (four years of 

coal-fueled operations plus one year of 

natural-gas-fueled operations prior to 

completion of plant construction), an 

estimated additional 2,200,000 to 

2,400,000 metric tons of CO2 may be 

emitted to the global atmosphere. The 

additional estimated average annual 

CO2 emissions (430,000 to 470,000 

metric tons per year) represent nearly 

double the emissions of CO2 compared 

to the maximum predicted emissions 

when the normally operating plant 

(fueled with coal) captures 90 percent of 

the CO2 (250,000 metric tons per year). 

A principal goal of FutureGen testing 

is to gather operational and cost data on 

a coal-fueled power plant that is 

integrated with CO2 capture and 

geologic sequestration. The FutureGen 

facility will be designed for 90 percent 

CO2 capture. However, since this is a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 35179 

first-of-a-kind project in terms of 

technology integration for large-scale 

electric power plant applications, 

testing may be performed initially at the 

60 percent CO2 capture rate as a risk 

mitigation strategy, and increased later 

during operational testing. Additionally, 

the 60 percent CO2 capture rate will 

demonstrate operation of a coal-fueled 

power plant with a CO2 emission level 

that is comparable to a state-of-the-art 

natural gas combined-cycle power plant. 

Geology 

Construction of the proposed power 

plant and related facilities would not 

significantly change geologic conditions 

at the proposed sites. However, since 

geological sequestration of CO2 is one of 

the Project’s goals, the subsurface target 

reservoirs will be used to store CO2. 

Estimated radii of the plumes of injected 

CO2 would be of the same relative 

magnitude at all four sites (1.0 to 1.7 

miles radius per well after injecting 1.1 

million tons [1.0 MMT] per year for 50 

years), although the number of injection 

wells (and associated plumes) would 

differ among the sites (probably one 

well at the Illinois sites; two to three 

wells at the Jewett site; and three to ten 

wells at the Odessa site). CO2 will be 

injected into an underlying saline 

reservoir at the selected sequestration 

site at a planned operational rate of 

between 1.1 and 2.8 million tons (1.0 to 

2.5 MMT) per year. Although reservoir 

space will be used to store the injected 

CO2, no adverse impacts are expected to 

occur to geological resources. 

DOE will require monitoring of the 

injected CO2 to assess its fate and to 

verify storage integrity. To fully support 

the monitoring and assessment 

activities, the Alliance shall install a 

sufficient number (at least two) of 

monitoring wells into the target 

reservoirs near a primary injection well 

to provide the data to validate the 

expected migration of CO2. One or more 

monitoring wells may serve as backup 

injection wells. After further site 

characterization studies at the selected 

site, and subject to land access and 

property rights, DOE and the Alliance 

will mutually agree on the placement of 

monitoring wells that penetrate the 

primary seal. From a research 

perspective, it would be advantageous 

to locate one monitoring well 

stratigraphically up-dip (or in the 

hydrodynamically favorable flow 

direction, if there is found to be another 

direction of potential flow of injected 

CO2). The other monitoring well should 

then be located in a stratigraphic strike 

direction (or direction perpendicular to 

the horizontal direction between the 

injection wells and the first monitoring 

well) for directional permeability tests 

and lateral monitoring. Ideally, these 

wells should be located near the 

predicted four-year plume front relative 

to the primary injection well. In 

addition to monitoring wells that 

penetrate and sample the target 

injection reservoir(s), shallower 

monitoring wells shall be installed and 

used to demonstrate compliance with 

the required Underground Injection 

Control permit and, as appropriate, to 

meet the research and development 

objectives of the Project. Annual reports 

shall include summary information on 

the sequestration activities, including 

monitoring results, the determined 

location and extent in the subsurface of 

the injected CO2, and quantity of excess 

CO2 sold or released. 

The Alliance shall prepare an 

Emergency Response Plan for use in the 

unlikely event of leaks of the injected 

CO2. The plan shall include generic 

responses to apparent slow leaks that 

could develop into more serious 

problems if no actions are taken. While 

it is perhaps not practical or necessary 

to prepare specific or detailed responses 

for all potential leakage modes, the plan 

shall delineate how to identify a leak 

that could present a hazard if 

unmitigated. Furthermore, the plan 

shall identify the responsible persons 

that would make decisions, develop 

specific response plans and take action. 

The plan should also identify resources 

and organizations that may help in 

making an appropriate response. The 

Emergency Response Plan shall address 

ruptures and large punctures of the CO2

pipeline and rapid releases of fluids 

(i.e., blowouts) through failed injection 

wells or other wells or through other 

routes from the target reservoir, as 

described below in the section on 

‘‘Human Health, Safety, and Accidents’’. 

Although during each year of 

operations the goal is to inject a 

minimum of 1.1 million tons (1.0 MMT) 

of CO2 into deep saline reservoirs, 

excess captured CO2 could be sold for 

use by industry in enhanced oil 

recovery or other subsurface operations. 

Successful technology transfer to future 

power plant projects could result in 

increased oil and natural gas 

production. 

A very low potential exists for adverse 

effects to the facilities from geologic 

hazards. Earthquakes of medium 

intensity are possible but not common 

at these sites. The Alliance shall 

monitor the sequestration site to detect 

and help operators prevent induced 

rock fracturing or reservoir leakage 

caused by over-pressurization of the 

formation. 

The Alliance and DOE will develop a 

mutually acceptable plan for continued 

monitoring of the sequestered CO2 after 

project completion by a responsible 

party for a period of time deemed 

sufficient to verify the sequestration’s 

permanence. 

Physiography and Soils 

Soil disturbance at the power plant 

site will result in permanent removal or 

displacement of soils on up to 200 acres. 

At Mattoon or Tuscola, this would 

include prime farmland soils. At 

Tuscola, an additional 10 acres of soil 

disturbance may occur at the 

sequestration site. Soil disturbance in 

utility corridors is expected to be 

temporary and will vary greatly 

depending on the site selected, ranging 

from 26 to 744 acres with the higher end 

of the range associated with the Texas 

sites. Transportation corridors at the 

power plant site could require up to 

15.9 acres of soil disturbance and is 

generally greater for the Illinois sites. To 

mitigate these impacts, the Project will 

employ best management practices, 

such as those commonly used for 

erosion control as well as spill 

prevention and response measures. 

Groundwater 

Some groundwater use could occur at 

Tuscola and Odessa, but the Jewett site’s 

process water supply would rely 

exclusively on groundwater. 

Groundwater supplies appear more than 

adequate at each site to meet power 

plant consumption rates. Although no 

adverse impacts are expected to occur, 

impacts of water use are likely to be 

more significant for the Odessa site. Best 

management practices, such as water 

conservation (e.g., a zero liquid 

discharge system to recycle wastewater 

and cooling tower blowdown for use in 

the cooling tower, thereby reducing 

cooling tower makeup water 

requirements), spill prevention 

measures and a spill response plan, will 

be implemented to minimize the 

potential for environmental impacts to 

the fullest extent practicable. 

The proposed CO2 injection reservoirs 

are one mile deep or greater at each 

sequestration site, except for the Odessa 

site, where the injection zone is only 0.5 

mile deep. Shale layers (and anhydrite 

layers at the Odessa site) appear 

sufficient to provide secure seals for the 

injected CO2. Compared to the Illinois 

sites, the Texas sites have a greater 

number of existing wells that penetrate 

the seals, and therefore, these two sites 

may have a greater risk of CO2 leakage 

along existing wells. Target formations 

are not underground sources of drinking 

water, and there are no sole-source 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
35180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 

aquifers above them. The Alliance shall 

monitor the sequestration site and 

ensure that underground sources of 

drinking water above the target 

formation are not impacted by the 

injected CO2, as expected to be required 

by the Underground Injection Control 

permit. Annual reports shall include 

summary information on the 

groundwater monitoring activities and 

results, along with summary 

information on other monitoring 

activities addressed by the sequestration 

program. 

The Alliance shall use reasonable 

efforts to locate and verify the integrity 

of abandoned wells penetrating the 

primary seal over the CO2 plume 

footprint and properly seal any wells 

that were not adequately abandoned. 

This mitigation effort shall occur prior 

to the start of injection operations for at 

least the Area of Review defined in the 

Underground Injection Control Permit. 

During injection operations, the 

Alliance must make reasonable efforts to 

track the CO2 plume front and to verify 

and plug, as appropriate, abandoned 

wells that present a risk of becoming a 

leakage path (i.e., if monitoring results 

obtained throughout the injection phase 

suggest that the actual area of plume 

spread would exceed the predicted 

plume footprint). This mitigation 

requirement shall be made a term and 

condition for future owners upon sale or 

donation of the injection facilities at the 

end of the Alliance’s injection activities. 

Surface Water 

Surface water would be used directly 

for the Tuscola and Odessa sites, and 

these surface water resources can 

accommodate the demand. Mattoon 

proposes to use municipal wastewater 

treatment plant effluent, which 

otherwise would flow into two very 

small streams (Kickapoo and Cassell 

creeks) that drain away from Mattoon 

and Charleston. For both of these 

streams, the diversion of wastewater 

may result in more natural flow rates in 

the streams that now receive the 

wastewater, but downstream users 

would suffer a significant reduction in 

flow rates compared to current rates. 

Best management practices, such as 

water conservation (e.g., a zero liquid 

discharge system to recycle wastewater 

and cooling tower blowdown for reuse 

in the cooling tower, thereby reducing 

cooling tower makeup water 

requirements), spill prevention 

measures and a spill response plan, will 

be implemented to minimize the 

potential for impacts. Annual reports 

shall include summary information on 

the releases of industrial wastewater 

from the Project and the effectiveness of 

the Project’s water conservation 

program. 

Wetlands and Floodplains 

Power plant construction and 

operations will not affect floodplains 

since none of the proposed power plant 

sites include areas mapped as 100-yr 

floodplains. However, construction and 

operation of the power plant may 

impact small, low to moderate quality 

wetlands at two of the proposed sites, 

Mattoon and Jewett. The Project’s layout 

will avoid wetlands located on the plant 

site to the maximum extent practicable. 

While the region above the proposed 

sequestration reservoirs includes 

floodplains at some sites, tentatively 

selected well locations are not within 

100-year floodplains. Above the 

proposed sequestration reservoirs at 

Jewett and Tuscola, there are both 

wetlands and floodplains. Within the 

region of influence above Tuscola’s 

target reservoir, wetland areas may 

occupy up to five acres. Jewett’s 

sequestration areas lay on both sides of 

the Trinity River, which has numerous 

wetlands (43 forested, scrub-shrub, and 

emergent wetlands) nearby and along its 

floodplains. About 25 percent of the 

region of influence above the Jewett 

target reservoirs is within a 100-year 

floodplain. Site characterization 

activities (e.g., geophysical surveys) and 

monitoring programs that might impact 

wetlands could require avoidance or 

mitigation measures. Unavoidable 

impacts to wetlands would require 

mitigation in accordance with 

regulatory requirements. It is not 

anticipated that floodplains will be 

adversely affected. 

Utility and transportation corridors 

include wetland areas at all four sites. 

While wetlands can be avoided to a 

great degree by locating structures 

outside of or routing around wetlands 

that are within the corridors, some 

wetland impacts may be unavoidable. 

Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would 

require mitigation in accordance with 

regulatory requirements. Wetland areas 

have been identified within utility and 

transportation corridors in the following 

amounts: Mattoon, up to 29.2 acres; 

Tuscola, up to 4.2 acres; Jewett, over 90 

acres; and Odessa, up to 23.9 acres. 

These numbers include wetlands from 

multiple corridor options, whereby 

some corridor options may have no 

wetlands. Some of the corridors cross 

areas within the 100-year floodplain, 

but potential impacts are not considered 

to be significant, especially in light of 

mitigation measures that will be 

required for anticipated wetland 

impacts. 

Impacts to wetland resources shall be 

avoided to the fullest extent practicable. 

Clean Water Act section 404 permits 

will be obtained for jurisdictional water 

bodies and wetland alterations. As a 

permit condition, mitigation of wetland 

impacts could be in the form of direct 

replacement or other approved Federal 

or state mitigation requirements. 

In compliance with floodplain and 

wetland environmental review 

requirements (10 CFR Part 1022, 

Executive Order 11988, and Executive 

Order 11990), the EIS contains the 

floodplain and wetland assessments 

along with the floodplain statement of 

findings, as allowed under 10 CFR Part 

1022.14(c). DOE assessed the potential 

impacts to wetland and floodplain 

resources based on field verification 

(wetland delineations) and National 

Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping. The 

Mattoon and Tuscola sites included 

field verification for the power plant 

sites and other project components (e.g., 

utility corridors), allowing for a 

quantitative analysis using potential 

acreage (hectares) of impacts. The Jewett 

and Odessa sites included field 

verification for only the power plant 

sites and relied on NWI mapping for all 

other project components, allowing for 

a qualitative assessment limited to the 

identification of wetland types within 

the project component areas. 

Biological Resources 

Land disturbance at the power plant 

and injection sites will result in up to 

210 acres of permanent habitat loss. At 

the Illinois sites, there would be a loss 

of row crops (generally corn or soybean) 

on prime farmland. At the Jewett site, 

this would be primarily a loss of a 

mixture of grasslands and post oak 

forests. At Odessa, it would be a loss of 

arid habitat dominated by mesquitelotebush brush and mesquite-juniper 

brush. 

Additionally, temporary disturbances 

to terrestrial and aquatic organisms will 

occur along utility corridors. These 

disturbances and resulting habitat 

impacts are expected to displace or at 

least temporarily disturb wildlife and 

other biological resources. Potentially 

affected utility corridor lengths at each 

site are: Mattoon, up to 35.3 miles, with 

18.8 miles of new ROW occupied 

primarily by row crops; Tuscola, up to 

31.9 miles, with 16.9 miles of new ROW 

occupied primarily by row crops; 

Jewett, up to 63 miles, with 13 miles of 

new ROW occupied primarily by post 

oak forest and grasslands; Odessa, up to 

128.5 miles with 68.7 miles of new 

ROW occupied primarily by non-arable 

brush lands. Best management practices 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 35181 

will be employed to reduce adverse 

impacts. 

The potential for impacts on 

threatened and endangered species has 

been reviewed in the EIS, and there are 

no known occurrences of threatened 

and endangered species at the proposed 

sites. A biological survey of the selected 

FutureGen site will be conducted as 

required before construction begins to 

verify that no threatened or endangered 

species are present in the areas 

(including utility corridors) that will be 

disturbed. 

Cultural Resources 

Construction and operation of the 

FutureGen Project are not anticipated to 

impact cultural resources at any of the 

proposed power plant sites; however, 

utility corridors have not been 

thoroughly investigated and could have 

construction-related impacts. Phase I 

surveys may be needed for certain 

corridor segments associated with the 

Mattoon and Tuscola sites. Jewett has 35 

known cultural resource sites along its 

proposed CO2 corridors and 33 recorded 

sites within the region of influence of 

the sequestration site. Phase I surveys 

and consultation with the Texas State 

Historic Preservation Officer would be 

required for the CO2 pipeline corridors 

and sequestration site. Odessa would 

require Phase I surveys and consultation 

for all new CO2 pipeline, water supply 

pipeline, and electricity transmission 

line corridors. Furthermore, the Odessa 

site could have invertebrate and 

vertebrate fossil resources in the path of 

the corridors. No impacts to unique or 

irreplaceable invertebrate fossils would 

be expected. Vertebrate fossils, in 

comparison, are much less likely to be 

encountered. For the selected site, 

archaeological and paleontological 

surveys will be conducted, as required, 

to determine the location of cultural 

resources and the possible extent of 

impacts along utility corridor 

alignments after those alignments are 

identified. 

Further consultation with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer for any 

unforeseen areas of construction or 

ground disturbance not included within 

the EIS will be completed before 

construction to determine the need for 

further cultural resource investigations 

and any appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

Land Use 

Depending on the site selected, the 

proposed power plant and related 

facilities will be located on 345 to 600 

acres of land that will be acquired by 

the Alliance for the Project. (Note: the 

Alliance has purchased 420.5 acres at 

the Mattoon site.) Construction and 

operation activities are estimated to 

impact up to 200 acres of that land. 

Land at the selected power plant site 

will be converted from its current 

agricultural, ranch, industrial storage, or 

oil and gas production uses. At the 

Mattoon and Tuscola power plant sites, 

it is estimated that up to 200 acres of 

prime farmland would be converted to 

industrial uses. About 10 acres would 

be converted at the Tuscola 

sequestration site. At the Jewett power 

plant site, which is mostly reclaimed 

mine land, there may be a few acres of 

prime farmland converted. The Jewett 

power plant site is currently used for 

pasture and industrial storage. The 

Odessa power plant site is currently 

used for ranching and for oil and gas 

production. 

There would be a direct impact to 

residential properties located adjacent 

to the proposed power plant sites: two 

residences adjacent to the Mattoon site, 

and three directly adjacent to the 

Tuscola site. Within one mile of the 

proposed power plant sites, there are: 

Mattoon, 20 residences; Tuscola, several 

dozen residences; Jewett, zero 

residences; and Odessa, three 

residences. The Odessa site is at the 

northern edge of Penwell, a mostly 

abandoned small oil town. 

The Mattoon site has been established 

as an enterprise (business) zone. 

Tuscola’s site is zoned for industrial 

uses and has two chemical plants 

immediately to the west. Jewett’s site is 

unzoned and is partially located on 

reclaimed mine land with nearby active 

mine facilities and an existing large 

power plant adjacent to the proposed 

power plant site. Odessa’s site is 

unzoned, with arid ranch land located 

to the north and east, a scrap yard and 

the abandoned town of Penwell to the 

south, and an oil and gas field to the 

west. 

Except at Mattoon, where the 

injection well will be on the power 

plant site, construction and operations 

at the sequestration site are expected to 

impact up to an additional 10 acres of 

land, with current land uses being 

agricultural at the Tuscola sequestration 

site, ranching and state prison farmland 

at the Jewett sequestration site, and 

grazing land with scattered oil and gas 

activities on the Odessa sequestration 

site. Odessa’s sequestration site is on 

land owned by the University of Texas 

and is ordinarily leased to others for oil 

and gas production and for ranching in 

an effort to generate income for the 

University. 

Option contracts existed for the 

mineral rights to 444 acres at the 

Mattoon site; the Alliance has since 

exercised those options. Options for 

mineral rights at Tuscola, Jewett, and 

Odessa have expired. 

For utility corridors, new ROWs 

would be needed in the following 

amounts: Mattoon, up to about 20 miles; 

Tuscola, up to about 17 miles; Jewett, 

between 10 and 13 miles; Odessa, 

approximately 71 miles. The exact 

amount of new ROW will be a function 

of the options selected at the site. 

Generally, current land uses will 

continue after installation of new 

utilities (e.g., CO2 pipeline, water 

supply pipeline, electricity transmission 

line). 

The Alliance could receive options to 

purchase some onsite and adjacent 

residential properties. The Alliance 

would consider exercising these options 

on a case-by-case basis to meet Project 

needs. 

Aesthetics 

At Mattoon, Tuscola and Odessa, the 

proposed power plant may be perceived 

as a major visual intrusion within a 1- 

mile radius of the site. However, at 

Odessa, the visual intrusion would be 

moderated due to the presence of other 

industrial facilities that are visible in 

the general area of Penwell. The Jewett 

site would have the least visual 

intrusion for neighbors and motorists 

driving through the area. For all sites, 

the sequestration facilities will present 

minimal visual intrusion. 

Within the budgetary limits of the 

Project, it is highly desirable that the 

Project’s facilities will be designed and 

constructed to be as aesthetically 

pleasing as practicable to the people in 

the surrounding communities and to the 

public in general. Therefore, the 

Alliance shall implement appropriate 

mitigations that may include: enclosing 

or shielding some of the more 

‘‘industrial’’ components of the plant; 

designing and constructing buildings 

and other structures to have a pleasing 

and appropriate appearance for the 

general public; landscaping around the 

perimeter of the plant site to partially 

screen the plant from nearby residences 

and local motorists; selecting 

appropriate transmission towers to 

reduce their visual profile; and choosing 

an appropriate lighting design (e.g., 

luminaries with controlled candela 

distributions, well-shielded or hooded 

lighting, and directional lighting) to 

minimize light pollution. 

Traffic and Transportation 

Construction of the Project will create 

temporary, localized adverse traffic 

impacts due to the presence of 

additional truck traffic and commuting 

workers. Truck traffic impacts may be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
35182 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 

mitigated through the use of designated 

truck routes to the power plant site. 

Continued use of these routes during 

operations would reduce operational 

impacts. During plant operation, traffic 

near the power plant will be heavier, 

but traffic will not degrade to unstable 

conditions at any site. Installation of 

new traffic controls or changes in traffic 

signal timing may be needed at a few 

intersections. 

For rail traffic at each site, connection 

of new side tracks will have minimal 

and temporary impacts. At Odessa, 

temporary impacts would occur to rail 

operations during construction of a new 

underpass. During plant operation at 

any of the sites, rail traffic will increase 

by up to two trains per day along the 

rail line servicing the plant site. Each 

additional train trip across two at-grade 

crossings near the Mattoon site and 

across one at-grade crossing at the 

Tuscola site would delay traffic by an 

estimated 6 to 7 minutes, on average (for 

a 100-unit train traveling 10 miles per 

hour). Actuated gates and warning lights 

would be required at one at-grade 

crossing at the Tuscola site. 

Noise and Vibration 

The EIS estimates that during 

construction, noise would increase 

greatly at the nearest receptors: Mattoon, 

up to 41 decibels A-weighted (dBA) at 

the nearest two residences; Tuscola, up 

to 45.7 dBA at the nearest three 

residences; Jewett, less than 15 dBA at 

a nearby chapel; Odessa, less than 6 

dBA at the nearest two residences in 

Penwell. An increase of 3 dBA or more 

(the criterion for a significant impact) 

above background levels could be 

experienced at greater distances and 

affect more people: Mattoon, one school 

and several dozen residences within 2.4 

miles of the site boundary; Tuscola, 

numerous residences and much of 

downtown Tuscola within 1.5 miles; 

Jewett, no residences impacted; Odessa, 

as many as 12 churches, 5 schools and 

an undetermined number of residences 

affected by the pipeline construction 

noise but perhaps only 3 residences 

affected by construction at the power 

plant site. Additionally at all sites, noise 

increases would be experienced along 

the trucking routes and nearby roads 

leading construction traffic to the power 

plant site. 

During routine plant operation, noise 

would increase for the nearest receptors: 

Mattoon, 6 to 9 dBA at the nearest two 

residences; Tuscola, up to 12 dBA at the 

nearest three residences; Jewett, less 

than 6 dBA at a nearby chapel; Odessa, 

less than 3 dBA at the nearest two 

residences. At greater distances, an 

increase of 3 dBA or more above 

background levels could be 

experienced: Mattoon, 12 residences 

within 1.5 miles of the site boundary; 

Tuscola, seven residences within 1 mile; 

Jewett, no residences impacted; Odessa, 

two residences near the power plant 

site. Plant startups will generate 

temporary noise that is greater at the 

nearest receptors: Mattoon, up to 21 

dBA; Tuscola, up to 25 dBA; Jewett, less 

than 17 dBA; and Odessa, less than 4.1 

dBA. Additionally, operational noise 

increases will be experienced along the 

trucking routes and nearby roads 

leading to the power plant site. Train 

noises along the rail delivery routes will 

increase from the movement of up to 

two additional trains per day. A special 

concern is that train rail car shakers 

could generate noise that would affect 

neighbors similar to the construction 

activities (described above), if 

unmitigated. 

The Alliance will comply with all 

local noise ordinances and shall reduce 

operational noise impacts to nearby 

residences and sensitive receptors to the 

fullest extent practicable. The Alliance 

shall comply with applicable vibration 

standards to the extent practicable. To 

reduce noise impacts the Alliance may 

use some combination of sound 

enclosures, barrier walls, earthen berms, 

planted vegetation and landscaping, or 

dampening devices, with emphasis on 

facilities (e.g., rail-car unloading 

facilities) that would generate very high 

levels of noise disturbance at nearby 

residences. In addition, alternate site 

configurations shall be considered in an 

effort to position noise-producing 

equipment away from or to shield 

residences and sensitive receptors. The 

design of coal-handling facilities shall 

be evaluated for opportunities to reduce 

noise impacts to adjacent residences 

and sensitive receptors. 

Human Health, Safety, and Accidents 

Adverse impacts to human health and 

safety, although unlikely, could result 

from various types of accidents or acts 

of sabotage and terrorism, ranging from 

small pipeline leaks to, in an extremely 

unlikely case, an explosion at the power 

plant. Two separate risk studies were 

completed to analyze these risks. The 

results of these assessments shall be 

used during the planning, design, 

construction, and operation of the 

FutureGen Project to help reduce risks. 

The greatest risks to human health 

and safety are associated with 

catastrophic accidents or acts of 

sabotage or terrorism. Primarily, the 

concerns will be with sudden, 

unconstrained releases of carbon 

monoxide, SO2 and H2S, with SO2

presenting the greatest risk for harm to 

people offsite. Exposure modeling of 

unmitigated catastrophic failure using 

worst-case atmospheric conditions 

indicates the following quantitative 

estimates of potential irreversible 

damage (e.g., permanent neurological 

damage) resulting from SO2 exposure: 

Mattoon, estimated 143 people (based 

on release modeling of the FutureGen 

facility located in the center of the 

proposed site; the Riddle Elementary 

School was outside of the perimeter of 

irreversible adverse effects); Tuscola, 

estimated 115 people; Jewett, estimated 

92 people; and Odessa, estimated 12 

people. While much lower in terms of 

estimated number of individuals 

potentially exposed, if there is a 

catastrophic failure of certain 

components, risks of life threatening 

impacts from H2S exposure could be as 

high as 10 people (maximum number at 

Mattoon) offsite. These worst-case 

consequence analyses were made 

assuming no mitigations are used; 

therefore, these risks can be reduced 

with the appropriate measures, such as 

planning, design and engineering 

controls. While the probability of 

intentional acts like sabotage and 

terrorism cannot be easily predicted, the 

consequences could be similar to the 

accidents analyzed in the EIS. 

Transport and storage of aqueous 

ammonia presents a risk of harm over a 

very long distance downwind, so three 

accident scenarios were analyzed under 

worst-case conditions of spill, wind, 

and temperatures. For example, 

downwind distances for adverse effects 

could exceed 15,500 ft for a tanker truck 

spill of large surface area during times 

of very hot weather with no wind 

turbulence. 

The assessment of the risks associated 

with CO2 sequestration revealed the fact 

that the greatest risks are associated 

with pipeline ruptures, where the small 

amount of H2S present in the gas 

contributes the greatest health hazard. 

Primarily because of differences in the 

proximity of populations downwind of 

the pipeline corridors and differences in 

pipeline length, the risks of harm to 

people differ among the sites. The atrisk population would be essentially 

zero at Mattoon, which would not have 

an off-site CO2 pipeline, and perhaps 

zero at Odessa due to the very sparse 

population present along the pipeline 

route. For the pipeline rupture scenario, 

up to seven people could experience 

adverse impacts for the Tuscola site and 

up to 52 people for the Jewett site. The 

chance of a pipeline rupture is 

estimated as being less than one 

occurrence in 100 years (unlikely to 

extremely unlikely). Compared to 

pipeline ruptures, fewer people would 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 35183 

be put at risk by pipeline punctures, 

wellhead failures, slow upward leakage 

around injection wells and slow upward 

leakage through other existing wells. 

Slow leaks through the injection wells 

or through other wells are extremely 

unlikely. 

To reduce the potential for adverse 

impacts to the fullest extent practicable, 

the Project will be designed to provide 

safe egress from all confined areas, 

adequate ventilation, fire protection, 

pressure relief to safe locations, and 

real-time monitoring with an alarm 

system for hazardous chemicals. Safety 

training and evacuation policies for 

workers will be instituted to address 

accidents. The Alliance will abide by 

industry safety standards, best 

management practices, and 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) regulations, as 

part of their overarching ‘‘zero 

accidents’’ policy for the workplace. 

In addition, the Alliance shall 

consider alternate operating and storage 

strategies that will minimize the risks 

for accidental releases of aqueous 

ammonia. These strategies shall 

consider reduced ammonia delivery, 

reduced on-site storage, and conducting 

transfer from the tanker truck to the 

pipeline leading to the tank within a 

secondary containment system. At a 

minimum, frequent inspections of the 

tanker truck and connecting pipe valves 

shall be required. 

Due to the proximity of offsite people 

to the proposed power plant at all four 

sites, additional mitigation shall be 

considered to reduce risk associated 

with catastrophic accidents, sabotage, or 

terrorism at the power plant. At the 

chosen site, DOE will require that the 

power plant’s higher-risk components, 

such as the Claus unit, be located at the 

maximum distance that is reasonable 

from the populated areas, particularly 

the most populated nearby area, given 

various risk factors and other 

environmental and cost considerations. 

DOE will require that additional risk 

studies concerning accident scenarios at 

the power plant be performed as the 

site-specific power plant design is 

prepared. To the extent practicable, the 

Alliance shall use facility placement 

and layout, design, and/or engineering 

controls to minimize or eliminate the 

risks of irreversible effects to onsite and 

offsite people from a release of toxic 

gases from the power plant in the event 

of an accident or act of sabotage or 

terrorism. 

At all four sites, the CO2 pipeline will 

be designed, constructed and operated 

in compliance with state and Federal 

regulations and guidance (e.g., 

Department of Transportation, Pipeline 

and Hazardous Material Safety 

Administration). DOE will require that 

additional studies concerning accident 

scenarios for the pipelines and 

wellheads be performed as the sitespecific sequestration facility design is 

prepared. The CO2 pipeline shall be 

designed with automatic emergency 

shut-off valves spaced at intervals of no 

more than 5-miles to reduce the 

quantity of gases that could be released 

in the event of a pipeline rupture. 

Automatic shut-off valves could be 

placed at closer intervals near populated 

areas to further reduce the quantity of 

gases that could be released in the 

unlikely event of a pipeline rupture or 

puncture. DOE will require application 

of an automated system (e.g., a 

Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition system) for monitoring 

wellhead and pipeline pressure, 

temperature, and flow rate. This system 

shall be capable of automatically 

alerting the operator of possible leaks, in 

accordance with Federal regulations. 

The Project’s Emergency Response 

Plan shall include a section to address 

ruptures and large punctures of the CO2

pipeline and rapid releases of fluids 

(i.e., blowouts) through failed injection 

wells (or other wells) or through other 

routes from the target reservoir. The 

plan shall outline sequestration facility 

shutdown procedures, public notice and 

protection procedures, and responsible 

persons that would make decisions. It 

shall also identify teams that would 

respond to incidents, employee 

protection plans, contacts for 

governmental authorities (e.g., Local 

Emergency Planning Committee), 

coordination with local authorities 

(including Memoranda of 

Understanding), and reporting 

requirements. 

Socioeconomics 

Construction of the FutureGen Project 

could decrease values of residential 

properties located within, and adjacent 

to, the proposed power plant site in 

Mattoon and Tuscola, Illinois. 

Furthermore, the facility would 

adversely impact residents living nearby 

in Mattoon and Tuscola through a 

potentially unobstructed view of the 

facility and increases in traffic, noise, 

and perhaps dust or vibrations. 

To the fullest extent practicable and 

within the budgetary limits of the 

Project, the Alliance shall reduce the 

potential impacts to adjacent residences 

with appropriate mitigations, such as 

enclosing or shielding some of the more 

‘‘industrial’’ components of the plant, 

landscaping around the plant site’s 

perimeter to partially screen it from 

nearby residences and from motorists on 

the adjacent roads, selecting appropriate 

transmission towers to reduce the visual 

profile of the transmission towers, and 

lighting design (e.g., luminaries with 

controlled candela distributions, 

shielded or hooded lighting, and 

directional lighting) to minimize light 

pollution. 

Environmental Justice 

Construction and operation of the 

proposed facility are not anticipated to 

have any disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts to minority or lowincome populations in the areas around 

the four alternative power plant and 

sequestration sites. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The Proposed Action is also the 

environmentally preferred alternative 

because it could encourage and hasten 

the deployment of carbon capture and 

sequestration practices at power plants 

across the U.S. and around the world in 

an effort to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions that otherwise will occur 

with the continued combustion of fossil 

fuels, especially coal, in power plants. 

As a research and development project, 

the FutureGen Project will provide an 

opportunity to foster new technologies 

that need to be tested at a commercial 

scale, or near commercial scale, if 

carbon capture and sequestration is to 

be successfully refined and rapidly 

deployed. As a test project, FutureGen 

will establish a cost and design basis, 

and support the development of a 

regulatory program, that will enable the 

planning, design and construction of 

other FutureGen-like power plants that 

will reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

per unit of energy produced. 

As described in the summary of 

impacts for each affected resource area, 

there are differences in potential 

environmental impact among sites. 

These differences do not provide a clear 

basis for discrimination among the sites 

in terms of overall environmental 

preferability. The potential impacts for 

some resource areas, such as noise and 

risks to public health and safety in the 

unlikely event of a release of toxic gases 

from the plant site, are sensitive to 

distance to members of the public. Such 

impacts would be greater at the Illinois 

sites. On the other hand, the Texas 

sequestration sites have a greater 

number of existing wells that pose a 

potential risk of CO2 leakage. As 

described in this ROD, DOE will require 

mitigation for these and other potential 

impacts. 

Comments Received on the Final EIS 

DOE received one comment from the 

general public on the Final EIS. This 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
35184 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 

comment stated that the EIS 

insufficiently responded to some 

previous comments, especially in regard 

to the environmental impacts caused by 

the mining and use of coal. The 

commenter urged DOE to select the NoAction Alternative, at least until the EIS 

is revised to more adequately address 

coal mining and use. The commenter 

further expressed the opinion that 

taxpayer money should be directed to 

projects on sustainable energy 

technologies, such as wind and solar 

power. 

Environmental impacts associated 

with coal mining, coal use, and 

renewable sources of energy have not 

been analyzed in detail in the Final EIS. 

DOE acknowledges the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

coal mining activities and coal use, as 

well as with renewable resources. 

However, DOE considers the 

environmental impacts associated with 

coal mining to be outside the scope of 

the FutureGen Project EIS, because the 

agency’s decision-making does not 

extend to any identified coal mines or 

to the techniques for mining coal that 

will fuel the Project. The Presidential 

Initiatives that established the purpose 

and need for the FutureGen Project 

specifically require that this project 

address the issue of CO2 capture and 

sequestration at coal-fueled power 

plants that can produce electricity and 

hydrogen gas. DOE has no reasonable 

means in its decision-making role to 

impose mitigation requirements on the 

coal suppliers. 

As expressed in the ‘‘Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative’’ section of this 

ROD, DOE believes that balancing all 

environmental and societal benefits, as 

weighed against the Project’s potential 

harms and cumulative adverse impacts, 

favors the selection of the Proposed 

Action. DOE does administer and fund 

other programs focused on energy 

efficiency and sustainable energy 

sources, such as wind and solar. 

Renewable energy alternatives are 

outside the scope of this EIS because the 

Presidential Initiatives expressly 

mandated the use of coal as the energy 

source for this project. When choosing 

programs and projects to fund within its 

discretion, DOE adheres to its belief that 

funding should be allocated to a variety 

of programs and projects that represent 

all promising energy sources (including 

renewable energy alternatives) and 

conservation measures that might best 

ensure future energy security for our 

society. 

The use of coal raises concerns, in 

particular, about increasing atmospheric 

concentrations of CO2 and the resulting 

global climate change. This topic was 

covered briefly in the Draft EIS; 

however, additional information was 

provided in the Final EIS to more fully 

address this topic. See the revised 

Section 3.3.1, Cumulative Impacts of 

FutureGen Technology, in the Final EIS 

regarding potential impacts of 

widespread deployment of carbon 

capture and geologic sequestration. 

The U.S. EPA was the only Federal 

government agency to comment on the 

Final EIS. Based on the results of 

additional site-characterization and sitespecific design, EPA understands that 

DOE will re-examine the potential risks 

as more information becomes available. 

DOE has committed to preparing a 

Supplement Analysis to determine 

whether a Supplemental EIS would be 

required in accordance with 10 CFR 

1021.314. 

Furthermore, EPA’s comment 

recognized the early nature of the design 

work and site investigations. DOE 

believes that the existing conceptual 

design work and site investigations 

provide sufficient basis for site 

selection. EPA noted that DOE is 

funding research for mitigation 

techniques to address the displacement 

of native fluids by the injected carbon 

dioxide. The DOE Carbon Sequestration 

Program encompasses research on this 

topic. Based on its review of the Final 

EIS, EPA did not object to 

implementation of the Proposed Action. 

The Texas Historical Commission 

submitted a copy of DOE’s distribution 

letter for the Final EIS with a stamp and 

signature of concurrence by the State 

Historic Preservation Officer. 

Decision 

After careful consideration of the 

proposed project’s potential 

environmental impacts at each of the 

four alternative sites, along with 

consideration of program goals and 

objectives in accordance with its 

obligations under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and subject 

to future technical, cost, business and 

environmental decision points, DOE has 

decided to provide financial assistance 

to the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, 

Inc. to implement the FutureGen 

Project. DOE reached an agreement with 

the Alliance to complete a preliminary 

design, a revised cost estimate and a 

funding plan pursuant to a new eight to 

ten month limited-scope cooperative 

agreement. Prior to the expiration of this 

cooperative agreement, DOE and the 

Alliance will make a mutual decision on 

whether to move forward into the 

subsequent phases. If DOE and the 

Alliance mutually decide to go forward, 

Federal financial assistance for the 

subsequent phases (i.e., detailed design, 

construction and operations) would 

occur under the terms of a new fullscope cooperative agreement to be 

negotiated sometime during early 2010. 

Based on the information presented in 

the EIS, DOE finds all four alternative 

sites to be acceptable provided the 

Alliance implements the mitigation 

measures described in this ROD, best 

management practices common to the 

industry, and reasonable pollution 

prevention, recycling, and reuse 

measures. DOE has considered potential 

mitigation opportunities for each of the 

four sites in the EIS and during 

development of this ROD. The 

cooperative agreement in effect during 

2007 gave the Alliance the right to select 

the site after DOE issued a ROD. The 

Alliance announced their preference for 

the Mattoon site in December 2007. DOE 

acknowledges that the Alliance intends 

to formally select Mattoon after the 

issuance of this ROD. DOE will prepare 

a Mitigation Action Plan, as required by 

regulation 10 CFR Part 1021.331 to 

address the mitigations specified in this 

ROD as applied to the selected site. 

In compliance with floodplain and 

wetland environmental review 

requirements (10 CFR Part 1022, 

Executive Order 11988, Executive Order 

11990), the FutureGen Project EIS 

contains the floodplain and wetland 

assessments along with the floodplain 

statement of findings. The NEPA 

process fulfilled the requirements for 

public notice and review opportunities. 

A brief statement of steps to be taken by 

the Alliance to minimize potential harm 

to or within the floodplains and 

wetlands has been included in this 

ROD. 

DOE’s decision was made after careful 

review of the potential environmental 

impacts presented in the EIS and 

incorporates all practicable means to 

avoid or minimize environmental harm. 

Based on mutual agreement between 

DOE and the Alliance, the Alliance will 

conduct further characterization studies 

of the selected site (Mattoon) to confirm 

the acceptability of the site and to gather 

additional information that will support 

the site-specific design. Based on the 

results of this site characterization effort 

and site-specific preliminary design to 

be produced by the Alliance, DOE will 

complete a Supplement Analysis 

pursuant to DOE’s NEPA regulations to 

determine whether a Supplemental EIS 

must be prepared (10 CFR Part 

1021.314). If DOE subsequently prepares 

a Supplemental EIS, DOE may issue a 

ROD at the conclusion of that process. 

Both the Supplement Analysis 

determination and a Supplemental ROD 

may contain mitigation requirements 

that supplement or change the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 35185 

requirements presented in this ROD and 

shall be binding on the Alliance, as if 

they were included in this ROD. 

Through this process of future site 

characterization and NEPA activities, 

DOE will reconsider the potential 

environmental impacts analyzed in this 

EIS and may require the Alliance to 

implement the avoidance and mitigation 

measures required by a Supplement 

Analysis determination or 

Supplemental ROD as a condition to 

continued financial assistance. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 14th day 

of July 2009. 

Victor K. Der, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. E9–17156 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Solicitation of Nominations 

for Appointment as a Member of the 

Biomass Research and Development 

Technical Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. App. 2, the U.S. Department of 

Energy is soliciting nominations for 

candidates to fill vacancies on the 

Biomass Research and Development 

Technical Advisory Committee. 

DATES: Deadline for Technical Advisory 

Committee member nominations is 

August 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The nominee’s name, 

resume, biography, and any letters of 

support must be submitted via one of 

the following methods: 

1. E-mail to laura.neal@ee.doe.gov or 

theibel@bcs-hq.com. 

2. Facsimile to 202–586–1640, Attn: 

Laura Neal. 

3. Overnight delivery service to the 

Designated Federal Official for the 

Committee, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Mail Stop EE–2E, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Neal, Designated Federal Official 

for the Committee, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–0937; 

E-mail: laura.neal@ee.doe.gov or T.J. 

Heibel at (410) 997–7778 ext. 223; Email: theibel@bcs-hq.com. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Biomass Research and Development Act 

of 2000 (Biomass Act) [Pub. L. 106–224] 

requires cooperation and coordination 

in biomass research and development 

(R&D) between the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE). The 

Biomass Act was repealed in June 2008 

by Section 9001 of the Food, 

Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 

(FCEA) [Pub. L. 110–246, 122 Stat. 1651, 

enacted June 18, 2008, H.R. 6124]. 

FCEA Section 9008(d) establishes the 

Biomass Research and Development 

Technical Advisory Committee 

(Committee) and lays forth its meetings, 

coordination, duties, terms and 

membership types. The Committee must 

meet quarterly and should not duplicate 

the efforts of other Federal advisory 

committees. The Committee advises the 

DOE and USDA points of contact with 

respect to the Biomass R&D Initiative 

(Initiative) and also makes written 

recommendations to the Biomass R&D 

Board (Board). Those recommendations 

regard whether: (A) Initiative funds are 

distributed and used consistent with 

Initiative objectives; (B) solicitations are 

open and competitive with awards 

made annually; (C) objectives and 

evaluation criteria of the solicitations 

are clear; and (D) the points of contact 

are funding proposals selected on the 

basis of merit, as determined by an 

independent panel of qualified peers. 

The Committee members must 

include: (A) An individual affiliated 

with the biofuels industry; (B) an 

individual affiliated with the biobased 

industrial and commercial products 

industry; (C) an individual affiliated 

with an institution of higher education 

who has expertise in biofuels and 

biobased products; (D) 2 prominent 

engineers or scientists from government 

or academia who have expertise in 

biofuels and biobased products; (E) an 

individual affiliated with a commodity 

trade association; (F) 2 individuals 

affiliated with environmental or 

conservation organizations; (G) an 

individual associated with State 

government who has expertise in 

biofuels and biobased products; (H) an 

individual with expertise in energy and 

environmental analysis; (I) an 

individual with expertise in the 

economics of biofuels and biobased 

products; (J) an individual with 

expertise in agricultural economics; (K) 

an individual with expertise in plant 

biology and biomass feedstock 

development; (L) an individual with 

expertise in agronomy, crop science, or 

soil science; and (M) at the option of the 

points of contact, other members (REF: 

FCEA 2008 Section 9008(d)(2)(A). All 

nominees will be carefully reviewed for 

their expertise, leadership, and 

relevance to an expertise. Appointments 

will be made for three-year terms as 

dictated by the legislation. 

Nominations are being solicited from 

organizations, associations, societies, 

councils, federations, groups, 

universities and companies that 

represent a wide variety of biomass 

research and development interests 

throughout the country. Nominations 

for one individual who fits several of 

the categories listed above or for more 

than one person who fits one category 

will be accepted. In your nomination 

letter, please indicate the specific 

membership category for each nominee. 

Each nominee must submit their resume 

and biography along with any letters of 

support by the deadline above. All 

nominees will be vetted before 

selection. 

Nominations are open to all 

individuals without regard to race, 

color, religion, sex, national origin, age, 

mental or physical handicap, marital 

status, or sexual orientation. To ensure 

that recommendations of the Technical 

Advisory Committee take into account 

the needs of the diverse groups served 

by the Department, membership shall 

include, to the extent practicable, 

individuals with demonstrated ability to 

represent minorities, women, and 

persons with disabilities. 

Appointments to the Biomass 

Research and Development Technical 

Advisory Committee will be made by 

the Secretary of Energy and the 

Secretary of Agriculture. 

Issued at Washington, DC on July 14, 2009. 

Rachel Samuel, 

Deputy Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–17161 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S. 

[Public Notice 122] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Final Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S. 

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and 

comments request. 

Form Title: Application for Exporter 

Short Term Single Buyer Insurance 

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of 

the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

invites the general public and other 

Federal Agencies to comment on the 

proposed information collection, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. Our customers will be able 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES