[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60478-60488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25070]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision, Texas Clean Energy Project
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision to
continue to provide financial support to the Texas Clean Energy Project
(TCEP). DOE prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-
0444) to assess the environmental impacts associated with the TCEP, a
project that Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC (Summit) would design,
construct, and operate. The project will demonstrate advanced power
systems using integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology
to generate 400 megawatts (gross) of electric power from coal and will
put 130 to 213 megawatts on the power grid while capturing
approximately 90 percent of its carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions. The project will sequester approximately 2.5 to 3.0 million
tons (2.3 to 2.7 million metric tonnes) of CO2 per year. The
CO2 will be delivered through a regional pipeline network to
existing oil fields in the Permian Basin of West Texas for use in
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) by third-parties. The plant will also
produce urea, argon, and sulfuric acid for sale in commercial markets.
Because of its multiple products, the facility is referred to as a
polygeneration (polygen) plant. The plant will be built on a 600-acre
(243-hectare) oil field site in Ector County, Texas, north of the
community of Penwell, and will continue in commercial operation for 30
to 50 years.
DOE's proposed action, as described in the EIS, is to provide cost-
shared financial assistance under DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI) using a combination of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111-5) funds and other CCPI program funds. After
careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts and other
factors such as program goals and objectives, DOE has decided to
provide, through a cooperative agreement with Summit, $450 million in
cost-shared funding, which is approximately 26 percent of the project's
total capital cost of $1.73 billion (2009 dollars). The balance of
project funding is expected to come from private sector investors and
lenders.
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available on the National Energy Technology
Laboratory's Web site at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/nepa/index.html and on the DOE NEPA Web site at: http://energy.gov/nepa. Copies of the EIS may be obtained from Mr. Mark L. McKoy,
Environmental Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880;
telephone: 304-285-4426; toll-free number: 1-800-432-8330 (ext 4426);
fax: 304-285-4403; or e-mail: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about
this project, the EIS, or this Record of Decision (ROD), contact Mr.
McKoy by the means specified above under ADDRESSES. For general
information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom,
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department
of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585;
telephone: 202-586-4600; fax: 202-586-7031; or leave a toll-free
message at: 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared this ROD pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) regulations for
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA [40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508], DOE's NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part
1021), and DOE's Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental
Review Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022). This
[[Page 60479]]
ROD is based on DOE's Final EIS for the Texas Clean Energy Project
(DOE/EIS-0444), comments submitted on the EIS and proposed project,
other information, and program considerations.
Background and Purpose and Need for Agency Action
The TCEP involves the planning, design, construction, and operation
by Summit of a coal-fueled electric power and chemicals production
plant integrated with CO2 capture and geologic sequestration
through EOR. Summit is owned jointly by the Summit Power Group, Inc.,
and CW NextGen, Inc., a Clayton Williams company. The project team
includes Summit; Summit Power Group, Inc.; Siemens Energy, Inc.; Linde,
AG; Fluor Corporation; Blue Source, LLC; and others.
DOE selected this project for an award of financial assistance
through a competitive process under the CCPI Round 3 program pursuant
to the process set out in Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) DE-
FOA-0000042. DOE's financial assistance will occur through cost sharing
as specified under the terms of a financial assistance agreement
between DOE and Summit. This project includes a demonstration period
(including plant reliability and operations testing) following the
construction and commissioning of the plant and continuing until the
end of the cooperative agreement's period of performance (July 15,
2017).
As the nation's most abundant fossil fuel, coal is expected to have
an important role in the United States' energy future. However, fossil
fuel combustion is a major source of anthropogenic CO2
emissions. Electric power generation contributes approximately 39
percent of all CO2 emissions in the U.S. In 2009, 81 percent
of all electricity production-related CO2 emissions resulted
from the burning of coal.
Public Law 107-63, enacted in November 2001, established the CCPI
program, which is a cost-shared collaboration between the Federal
government and industry to increase investment in advanced, low-
emissions coal technologies. Later, with Title IV of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) (Pub. L. 109-58), the Congress established
additional criteria for projects receiving financial assistance under
the CCPI program. Under these criteria, CCPI projects must help the
nation successfully commercialize advanced power systems that ``advance
efficiency, environmental performance, and cost competitiveness well
beyond the level of technologies that are in commercial service''
(EPACT 2005, section 402(a)). In February 2009, the Congress
appropriated $3.4 billion to DOE for fossil energy research and
development, with $800 million allocated to the CCPI program. CCPI's
Round 3 seeks to address the challenge of meeting the United States'
dynamic demand for electricity while decreasing emissions of
CO2 from coal-based power generation. This is done through
financial assistance awards to industrial participants for
demonstrations, at commercial scale and in commercial settings, of low-
CO2 emissions coal-based technologies that have
opportunities for timely deployment in the power industry.
DOE's purpose is to provide financial assistance to projects that
have the best chance of achieving the CCPI program's objectives as
established by the Congress. Specifically, DOE's purpose and need for
action is to demonstrate the commercial-readiness of CO2
capture and geologic sequestration fully integrated with a power plant.
The technical, environmental, financial and performance data generated
from the design, construction, and operation of the polygen plant will
provide a commercial reference plant for these technologies.
EIS Process
DOE published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on June 2,
2010 (75 FR 30800) announcing its plan to prepare an EIS and hold a
public scoping meeting. DOE held the scoping meeting in Odessa, Texas,
on June 17, 2010. DOE considered all of the comments it received on the
scope of the EIS and addressed them in the Draft EIS. On March 18,
2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice
of Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register (76 FR 14969).
On March 22, 2011, DOE published in the Federal Register (76 FR 15968)
a Notice of Availability and announced a public hearing in Odessa on
April 5, 2011. Comments were solicited at the public hearing and
throughout the 45-day public comment period, which ended May 2, 2011.
Comments on the Draft EIS included:
Proposed options to use municipal waste water and the
proposed Fort Stockton Holdings water supply pipeline;
Possible changes in discharges to Monahans Draw and salt
loading due to discharge to the draw;
The need to reduce the project's demand for potable water
in light of the limited regional supply;
The choice of West Texas as the site for a coal-fueled
electricity generating plant instead of a site near either the supply
of coal or the demand for the electricity;
The market for electricity and the economic viability of
the project;
DOE's proposed funding of clean coal projects instead of
projects using renewable resources;
The need for a comprehensive CO2 emissions
assessment that extends through the EOR process to the end uses of
produced petroleum products;
Increased railroad traffic and associated coal dust; and
The existence of additional foreseeable projects that
should be included in the cumulative effects section of the EIS.
In the Final EIS, DOE considered and, as appropriate, responded to
comments on the Draft EIS. The EPA published a Notice of Availability
for the EIS in the Federal Register on August 5, 2011 (76 FR 47579). In
addition to responding to comments on the Draft EIS, the Final EIS
included new information related to, among other things, treatment of
process water and the disposal of waste water by two additional
options: evaporation ponds and deep well injection.
Decision
DOE has decided to proceed with $450 million in financial
assistance (i.e., cost-shared funding) under the terms of the
cooperative agreement with Summit for the design, construction and
demonstration of the TCEP.
Basis of Decision
DOE's decision was reached after considering the potential
environmental impacts presented in the EIS, the practicable options for
mitigation of the impacts, the importance of achieving the objectives
of programmatic and legislative mandates (CCPI, EPACT 2005, and ARRA)
and other information. Specifically, the project meets or exceeds the
three primary objectives of CCPI Round 3 and satisfies the programmatic
and legislative objective of demonstrating the technical practicality
of producing electricity and other products from coal while capturing
and beneficially using most of the CO2 produced from coal
gasification.
Furthermore, the project will create jobs and modernize the
nation's infrastructure, meeting the objectives of the ARRA. During
most of the construction period, the gross domestic product (GDP) in
the region of influence (Ector, Midland, Crane and Ward Counties) is
estimated to increase by more than 0.4 percent; during the final year
of construction it will increase by an estimated 0.67 percent. During
plant operations, regional GDP will increase
[[Page 60480]]
by about 0.16 percent, representing a long-term benefit. Property taxes
paid by the project are expected to total $14.5 million annually during
the operations phase, after deducting anticipated abatements and tax
reliefs. Income and sales taxes related to the project will further
benefit local governments.
Summit estimates that an average of 650 construction workers will
be needed to build the plant with a peak at perhaps 1,500 workers.
TCEP's operational work force is expected to be approximately 150
workers. Accounting for indirect and induced jobs, the total number of
jobs resulting from the project will average about 1,000 during
construction and 300 during operations.
This decision incorporates all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental, social, or economic harm. DOE plans to verify
the implementation of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.
Mitigation
As a condition of its decision to provide funding for the design,
construction and operation of the project, DOE is imposing requirements
that will avoid or minimize the environmental impacts of the project.
These conditions are described below. Under the terms of the
cooperative agreement, DOE requires Summit to comply with applicable
Federal, state and local government laws, regulations, permit
conditions, and orders. Mitigation measures beyond those specified in
permit conditions enforceable by other Federal, state and local
agencies are addressed in this ROD and, as appropriate, will be set
forth in a Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) as required by 10 CFR 1021.331.
The MAP will further detail the mitigation measures, explaining how
they will be planned, implemented, monitored and reported. These
mitigation requirements are a condition for continued DOE funding.
DOE will ensure that commitments in this ROD (as further detailed
in the MAP) are met through management of the cooperative agreement,
which makes the conditions in the ROD contractually enforceable. DOE
will make the MAP available for public inspection via postings on the
DOE and NETL Web sites.
During project planning, Summit incorporated various mitigation
measures and anticipated permit requirements. The analyses in the EIS
assumed that these measures would be in effect. These measures are
identified in Tables S2-7 and 2-8 of the EIS as commitments made by
Summit and are incorporated into this ROD as conditions for DOE's
financial assistance under the cooperative agreement.
Mitigations identified in this ROD shall be made a term and
condition for future ownership or management of the TCEP by any other
parties during the period of performance under the cooperative
agreement.
After carefully reviewing the EIS, the comments received on the EIS
and proposed project, and the current events in the region, DOE
requires the following mitigation measures as a condition of its
decision:
(1) Summit shall design and construct the TCEP to capture at least
90 percent of the carbon in the fossil fuels when operating under
normal conditions, and Summit shall use best efforts to achieve at
least a 90 percent capture rate during the demonstration period.
(2) Summit shall develop jointly with the Texas Bureau of Economic
Geology and DOE a plan for monitoring, verification and accounting
(MVA) of CO2 sequestered through EOR. The MVA will be
implemented by third-party buyers of the CO2. Contracts
established between Summit and these buyers (or the field operators who
ultimately use the CO2) shall make the implementation of the
MVA plan a term and condition of the contract and shall, as
appropriate, involve the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology and the Texas
Railroad Commission in the certification of the sequestration of
CO2 via EOR. MVA reports submitted to the State of Texas
shall also be submitted to Summit and to DOE (via Summit).
(3) Summit shall not use the proposed Fort Stockton Holdings
waterline as a primary water supply for the TCEP. If constructed, this
waterline may be used as a backup supply to temporarily provide water
to the TCEP when the primary water supply is not in service.
(4) Summit shall not enter into contracts whereby waste water
discharge into Monahans Draw would increase by more than 0.75 million
gallons per day, as an annual average, and 6 million gallons per day as
a daily maximum, as a result of the TCEP.
(5) The TCEP's power island shall be designed, constructed and
operated with dry cooling towers. If this is found to be technically
infeasible, then a hybrid cooling system (or a wet cooling assist) may
be used. A wet cooling system is acceptable for the chemical plant
component of the TCEP.
(6) If the TCEP uses solar evaporation ponds, Summit shall plan,
design, and construct any high salinity ponds to be ready for
installation of bird deterrent netting. Before completing final design
on solar evaporation ponds, Summit shall prepare, jointly with DOE and
governmental agencies with regulatory jurisdiction, a plan for bird
deterrence, monitoring and reporting; and this plan shall be
implemented during the design, construction and operation of the solar
evaporation ponds.
(7) If Summit chooses to dispose of desalination reject water by
deep well injection, in addition to complying with the terms and
conditions of a permit under Texas's Underground Injection Control
Program, Summit shall install a well near the bottom of the zone of
potentially potable ground water (i.e., ground water with a total
dissolved solids concentration of less than 10,000 milligrams per
liter) and monitor this water for increases in total dissolved solids
and hydrocarbons as indicators of possible leakage of more deeply
injected brine reject water or displaced native fluids. It may be
feasible to use the same well for both monitoring and for supplying
potable water to the polygen plant. Before completing final design on a
system for deep well injection of brine reject water, Summit shall
prepare, jointly with DOE and government agencies with regulatory
jurisdiction, a plan for monitoring well design, construction,
monitoring and reporting; and this plan shall be implemented during the
design, construction and operations of the system for deep well
injection.
(8) Before land disturbance at the plant site and along the utility
corridors, Summit shall survey areas to be disturbed and undertake
measures to protect wetlands, waterways (including non-jurisdictional
waters), playa lakes, rare species (e.g., the sand dune lizard,
Sceloporus arenicolus, Federal candidate for listing) and critical
habitats (e.g., the Shinnery Oak Sand Dune habitat), and state-listed
rare species (particularly the Texas horned lizard), as specified in
the MAP. As appropriate, Summit shall consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department regarding
special natural communities and features, as well as rare species and
their habitats.
(9) To reduce impacts to species protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, ground disturbing activities in areas of potential breeding
habitat shall be avoided during the breeding and nesting season (March
1 through July 31). If this seasonal avoidance is not practicable, a
qualified biologist shall survey the potentially affected area prior to
any ground disturbing activities to determine if nesting is underway;
and buffer areas shall be established as needed to protect eggs and
young birds until they fledge. Owls and hawks may
[[Page 60481]]
nest in this area at other times of year. Surveys shall be conducted
for owl and hawk nests, and buffer areas shall be established around
active nests. If a power transmission line route crosses or is located
near a water body or playa lake bed, the adjacent section of the line
shall have line markers to reduce the potential for bird collisions. To
prevent electrocution of perching raptors and to reduce power outages
and maintenance, Summit shall consider the use of various protection
measures such as adequate line spacing, perch guards, and insulated
jumper wires.
(10) For linear facility routes chosen by Summit, phase I cultural
resource surveys (including archaeological and paleontological
surveys), along with consultations with the Texas State Historic
Preservation Officer and DOE, shall be completed for segments not
previously surveyed but for which surveys are warranted. Further
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer for any
unforeseen areas of construction or ground disturbance not included
within the EIS shall be completed before construction starts to
determine the need for further cultural resource investigations and any
appropriate mitigation measures.
(11) For any pipeline crossings of Monahans Draw, Summit shall
first consider the practicability of pipeline installation beneath the
streambed by directional drilling. If trenching is chosen as the method
of installation of pipeline, Summit shall seek to use crossing
locations and construction techniques whereby impacts to aquatic life,
vegetation and land surface features along the draw would be minimized;
and Summit shall use land surface reconstruction, erosion controls, and
revegetation (with native species) to stabilize and restore the
affected floodplains, stream banks, stream beds, and vegetation.
(12) Where vegetative ground cover remains disturbed or soil
remains exposed after project-related construction activities, Summit
shall strive to achieve beneficial results in terms of erosion control,
land stabilization, long-term vegetative cover and habitat improvement
through revegetation, landscaping and other techniques as appropriate.
Plantings of vegetation shall use species that are native, adaptable to
the planting location, beneficial to wildlife, drought tolerant, and
helpful with water conservation. Where practicable, grass re-seedings
or plantings shall use only native species, usually in a mixture of
grasses and forbs appropriate to address potential erosion problems and
provide long-term cover.
(13) Summit shall prepare annual reports during the term of the
cooperative agreement that document the operations and corresponding
air emissions from the TCEP. Annual reports shall include summary
information on the TCEP's emissions of criteria pollutants, mercury and
other toxic pollutants of concern, and CO2. These reports
shall indicate the performance and emissions of the TCEP during normal
operations. If air emissions data are collected during periods of
operation outside normal steady-state conditions, this information also
shall be summarized in the report.
(14) To reduce visual impacts associated with polygen plant
structures and facilities, including exposed portions of linear
facilities, DOE recommends that Summit choose, where appropriate,
finish coat colors for exterior surfaces that reduce the form, color
and line contrasts between the surrounding landscape and the exteriors
of buildings and structures. Chosen colors should be slightly darker
than the surrounding landscape to achieve optimal benefit. This choice
of color would not apply where regulation, safety, service, material
type, or other reasons dictate the choice of other colors or no paint.
Summit will conduct further resource assessments as the project
planning and design continues. If there are substantial changes in the
TCEP proposal or significant new information relevant to environmental
concerns, as described in 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1), DOE will prepare a
supplemental EIS. If it is unclear whether an EIS supplement is
required, DOE will prepare a Supplement Analysis, in accordance with 10
CFR 1021.314(c), to support the determination. DOE will make Supplement
Analyses available to the public and to regulatory agencies with
jurisdiction for 30 days of review and comment prior to DOE determining
whether a supplemental EIS is required.
Project Description and Location
The project will be located approximately 15 miles (mi) (24
kilometers) southwest of the city of Odessa in Ector County, Texas.
Summit will build the polygen plant on a 600-acre (243-hectare) site
adjacent to the community of Penwell and north of Interstate Highway 20
(I-20) along a Union Pacific Railroad line. Summit chose this site
primarily because of its proximity to an existing CO2
market, a connection point to a CO2 pipeline network, and
multiple oil fields currently performing or suitable for CO2
floods.
The project's linear facilities include one or two electric
transmission lines to connect the plant with one or both of the nearby
power grids; process water supply pipelines; a natural gas pipeline; a
pipeline for captured and compressed CO2; one or two access
roads; and a rail spur.
The TCEP will employ integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC)
technology. Gasification is the process of converting coal into a fuel
called synthesis gas (syngas). A combined-cycle electric power plant is
one that uses both a gas turbine-generator (similar to a jet aircraft
engine) and a steam turbine-generator (which uses steam produced by
exhaust heat from the gas turbine-generator) to produce more
electricity than would be produced by a boiler and conventional steam
turbine-generator alone. Combining (integrating) the gasification
process with a combined-cycle power plant is known as IGCC.
This polygen plant will include CO2 capture and
compression with transport of the CO2 off-site for geologic
sequestration through EOR. Specifically, the plant will have an air
separation unit, a coal gasification system (with two operating
gasifiers), a syngas cleanup system, a mercury (Hg) removal filter, an
acid gas scrubber (for sulfur species and CO2), a
CO2 compressor system, a sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) production plant, a gas turbine-
generator, a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), a steam turbine-
generator, and a urea production plant. The linear facilities will
convey the outputs and inputs of the polygen plant to and from existing
infrastructure.
Summit's TCEP will generate up to 400 megawatts (MW), of which 130
to 213 MW (approximately 1.0 to 1.7 billion net kilowatt-hours of
electricity per year) will be available to the electricity grid. In
addition, the plant will be designed to capture, as CO2, 90
percent or more of the total carbon in the fossil fuels used by the
plant under typical operating conditions. Summit will capture up to 3
million tons (2.7 million metric tonnes) of CO2 annually.
Approximately 2.5 to 3.0 million tons (2.3 to 2.7 million metric
tonnes) of the captured CO2 will be sold under commercial
contracts and subsequently injected into partially depleted oil
reservoirs where it will be used to extract more oil. In addition, the
plant will produce urea for sale as fertilizer. Products from the
gasification process (argon, H2SO4, and inert
slag) will also be sold on the commercial market.
Summit received a financial assistance award in Round 3 of DOE's
CCPI program and qualified for
[[Page 60482]]
investment tax credits under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 48A,
Qualifying Advanced Coal Project. Summit intends to seek tax credits
under IRC section 45Q, Credit for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration.
However, most of TCEP's funding will consist of owner-invested equity
and debt obtained in private capital markets.
DOE's Proposed Action
DOE's Proposed Action, as described in the EIS, is to provide a
total of approximately $450 million in financial assistance for
Summit's TCEP through a cooperative agreement. The financial assistance
would be provided on a cost-share basis for the planning, design,
construction, and demonstration-phase testing and operation of the
project. Under the terms of the agreement, DOE has already made
available approximately $48 million on a cost-share basis for the
project's definition phase, which includes completion of the NEPA
process.
Alternatives
The Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCPI by
providing financial assistance to projects owned by non-Federal
sponsors and using coal for at least 75 percent of the project's fuel
requirement. This approach places DOE in a much more limited role than
if it were the owner and operator of the project. Here, the purpose and
need for DOE action is defined by the CCPI program and the ARRA. Given
that CCPI's programmatic purposes and needs are defined by legislation,
the reasonable alternatives available to DOE, prior to selection of
this project, were the other projects submitted for DOE's consideration
in response to the FOA and that were determined to be responsive to the
FOA's requirements. All projects that were deemed responsive to the FOA
were analyzed in an environmental critique pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.216,
which establishes a specific NEPA process for competitive awards of
financial assistance and contracts. A synopsis of the environmental
critique is included in Appendix B of the EIS.
After DOE selects a project, the reasonable alternatives become:
(1) The project as proposed by the applicant, (2) alternatives or
options still under consideration by the applicant or that are within
reasonable confines of the project as proposed (e.g., the particular
location of the plant on the parcel of land proposed for the project),
and (3) the ``no action'' alternative.
DOE issued the FOA for CCPI Round 3 in August 2008, and reopened it
in June 2009 in response to the addition of ARRA funding to the CCPI
program. Private sector participants submitted 38 proposals in response
to the reopened solicitation. After an initial screening removed from
further consideration those proposals that failed to meet the
eligibility requirements, the remaining 25 responsive proposals were
subjected to environmental review and consideration (during the
selection process) in accordance with 10 CFR 1021.216. From these 25
proposals DOE selected three proposals representing diverse
technologies and using a variety of coals to further the goals of the
CCPI program. DOE selected the TCEP under the reopening of Round 3
because it would demonstrate IGCC power generation integrated with
chemical production and CO2 capture technologies in a
commercial project.
Summit chose the site for its TCEP based on a selection process
that it had completed prior to applying for DOE's financial assistance.
Because of its desire to integrate IGCC technology with CO2
capture, Summit focused its site selection efforts in Texas, which has
both a regional market for CO2 for use in EOR and existing
infrastructure for transporting CO2 to oil fields. Summit
considered several sites in Texas, including Corpus Christi, Oak Grove,
Big Brown, and two sites--Jewett and Odessa--that had been considered
for DOE's FutureGen project. Summit ultimately selected the Odessa site
primarily because of its proximity to an existing CO2
pipeline and multiple oil fields where EOR is or may be used. The
Odessa site also has close access to rail, natural gas, transmission
lines, and sources of water, which the other sites lacked in varying
degrees. The Odessa site enjoys significant community support for the
TCEP.
Under the proposed action alternative, DOE assessed the potential
environmental impacts associated with alternative water supplies,
alternative routes for linear facilities, and options for certain plant
sub-systems (e.g., evaporation ponds versus deep well injection of
reject water from the desalination of supply water) as described in the
EIS. In identifying alternative routes for linear facilities, Summit
considered selection factors such as using or paralleling existing
rights of ways and avoiding developed areas and sensitive areas. In the
EIS, DOE reviewed the potential environmental impacts of these various
project alternatives still under consideration by Summit with the goal
of deciding for each of Summit's alternatives whether any adverse
consequences might be sufficiently objectionable that DOE would
disallow the usage of that alternative in the TCEP as a condition for
DOE's financial assistance.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, DOE would not share in the cost
for detailed design, construction and a three-year demonstration phase
of the TCEP. For purposes of analysis in the EIS, DOE considered the
``no-action'' alternative to be the same as the ``no-build''
alternative.
In the absence of financial assistance from DOE, Summit might
choose to construct and operate the TCEP if it could obtain sufficient
private financing. However, DOE believes this option is unlikely,
because of the financial risks and costs of deploying a new power
plant, especially one with IGCC technology integrated with
CO2 capture and sequestration. Without DOE participation, it
is likely that the proposed project would not be built, environmental
resources would remain in their current condition, and none of the
impacts associated with the project would occur, whether adverse or
beneficial (i.e., no new construction, jobs, marketable products,
resource use, land-use alterations, emissions, discharges, or wastes).
If the project were canceled, the proposed technologies of the TCEP
(e.g., commercial-scale IGCC integrated with CO2 capture and
geologic storage of CO2 using EOR; the manufacture of urea
from gasified coal) may not be implemented in the near term.
Consequently, commercialization of these technologies may be delayed or
may not occur because utilities and industries tend to use known and
demonstrated technologies rather than new technologies. The no action
alternative would not contribute to CCPI's goals of accelerating the
commercial readiness of advanced multi-pollutant emissions control;
improving combustion, gasification, and efficiency technologies; and
demonstrating advanced coal-based technologies that capture and
sequester CO2 emissions.
Potential Environmental Impacts
In making its decision to provide continued financial assistance to
the TCEP, DOE considered the environmental impacts of the proposed
project and no-action alternative on affected resources. These include
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; climate; soils, geology, and
mineral resources; ground water; surface water, floodplains and
wetlands; biological resources; aesthetics; cultural resources; land
use; socioeconomics and
[[Page 60483]]
community services; environmental justice; utility services;
transportation; materials and waste management; human health, safety,
and accidents; and noise and vibration. The EIS also examined potential
incremental impacts of the TCEP in combination with other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (i.e., cumulative impacts).
The following sections summarize the environmental impacts and
mitigation measures described and analyzed in the Final EIS.
Air Quality
The TCEP will be categorized as a major source of air pollutants
under Clean Air Act regulations because emissions of some criteria
pollutants (NO2, SO2, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5) will exceed 100 tons per year. Construction-related
and operational emissions would not cause air quality to exceed either
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments or the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However, ambient air
concentrations of criteria pollutants could increase between 9 percent
and 200 percent at the point of maximum ground level impact under
certain weather conditions during plant operations. While the TCEP will
capture for beneficial use at least 90 percent of the carbon as
CO2 in its fuels, annual emissions of CO2 from
the TCEP will reach 300,000 tons per year, and these emissions will
contribute to global atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
Plant-wide emissions of hazardous air pollutants will not exceed
either the individual pollutant threshold (10 tons per year) or the
combined pollutant threshold (25 tons per year). Maximum predicted
concentrations for all identified compounds that could have a negative
impact to human health were found to be below their respective effects
screening limits for general public exposure, except for short-term
exposures to coal dust on the plant site (which will not exceed
industrial exposure criteria).
Although air quality impacts will be small, the TCEP will reduce
emissions and impacts to the fullest extent practicable. As a condition
of its decision, DOE requires reports on air emissions from the TCEP
(see Mitigation).
Climate
Construction and operation of the TCEP will not cause measurable
impacts on local, regional or global climate and meteorology. However,
operations of the TCEP will contribute greenhouse gas emissions to the
atmosphere. Annual emissions of CO2 from the TCEP operations
will range up to 300,000 tons per year, and these emissions will
contribute to global atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
Small amounts of methane and other organic compounds (the TCEQ-issued
air emissions permit limit equals 39.6 tons per year) will be emitted
and will contribute to greenhouse gas effects.
The TCEP is designed to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases
(and precursors) to levels that are much lower than conventional power
plants of equivalent gross generating capacity and lower than other
advanced clean coal power plants that have been constructed and
operated. DOE requires as a condition of its decisions that the TCEP be
designed and constructed to capture at least 90 percent of the carbon
in its fossil fuels (see Mitigation).
Soils, Geology and Mineral Resources
Soils will be disturbed as areas are prepared for construction.
Disturbed soils will be protected from erosion and will be re-planted
where practicable. Disturbance at the plant site will result in
permanent removal or displacement of soils on up to 600 acres. Soil
disturbance in utility corridors is expected to be temporary and will
vary greatly depending on the options and routes selected, ranging from
132 to 1,032 acres (53.4 and 417.7 hectares) (assuming that the
permanent rights-of-ways but not the temporary rights-of-ways will be
fully disturbed). New transportation corridors connecting to the power
plant site could require between 25.3 and 39.0 acres (10.2 and 15.8
hectares) of soil disturbance.
The CO2 from the TCEP will be sold to ongoing EOR
operations in the Permian Basin. This use of CO2 in the
basin is a well-established process that will serve as final
sequestration for the CO2 captured at the TCEP. Capture and
sale of CO2 from the polygen plant will promote the recovery
of oil and gas in the Permian Basin, where average additional oil
production is approximately 1.86 barrels of oil per ton of
CO2 injected. As a tertiary method of EOR, CO2
floods help oil field operators recover another 8 to 16 percent of the
original quantity of oil in the reservoir.
Because oil and gas are withdrawn from oil reservoirs as
CO2 is injected, fluid pressures within the reservoir would
not be expected to build up to levels that would represent a
substantial risk of seismic activity, displacement of native fluids
into overlying strata, or migration of injected CO2 into
other strata. Abandoned oil wells typically present the most likely
leakage routes in old oil fields, and these leaks can usually be
identified and plugged. Over the long term, injected CO2
would be trapped in the reservoirs that had previously trapped oil and
natural gas through many millions of years. DOE requires as a condition
of its decision that Summit monitor and verify the sequestration of
TCEP's injected CO2 (see Mitigation).
Ground Water
Supplies of non-potable (brackish or saline) ground water appear
more than adequate in the region to meet TCEP's consumption rates for
process (industrial) water. Although no adverse impacts are expected to
occur if non-potable ground water is used, water conservation and use
of a dry cooling system have been included as an integral part of the
plant to minimize the potential for water supply impacts to the fullest
extent practicable.
Aside from meeting the TCEP's needs for process water, Summit is
considering installation of an on-site well into the Dockum Aquifer to
serve the plant's potable water needs. Operational demand will be
approximately 4,500 gal (17,034 L) per day based on approximately 150
workers on-site. In Ector County, the quality of the Dockum Aquifer
ranges from fresh to brackish. Although irrigation and public supply
use is limited in Ector County, at least one resident in the adjacent
community of Penwell currently relies on water from the same aquifer
for residential and small-scale commercial use. Potential water quality
effects on this adjacent well user will be estimated through testing of
a newly drilled well on-site, if this option is further investigated
for its potential to supply potable water to the TCEP.
The TCEP could affect ground water in several ways: (1) Project
consumption from underground sources of drinking water, (2)
displacement of fluids into underground sources of drinking water, (3)
contamination due to spills, leaks, releases or leaching during
construction and operations, and (4) diminished recharge due to
alterations of the ground surface.
The consumption of potable water from ground water aquifers would
constitute a significant impact if the TCEP were to use such sources
for primary supply of process water. From the beginning, project
planners were aware of the potential harms in using potable water for
the plant's process water needs, so this type of water supply was
disfavored.
The Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer was considered as one of the
options for water supply, using an existing well field located near the
town
[[Page 60484]]
of Fort Stockton, Texas. This well field yields water of marginal
quality for human consumption and the water would benefit from
desalination to improve its acceptance for drinking water. Currently
water from this field is being used for agricultural irrigation. The
proposed Fort Stockton Holdings waterline would divert water currently
used for irrigation to the cities of Midland and Odessa where it could
be used for potable water supply.
If the Fort Stockton Holdings waterline were built, the TCEP could
use approximately 10 percent of its capacity. Because no additional
ground water would be withdrawn from the aquifer (beyond the current
rate of pumping for agricultural irrigation) and because very little of
the water currently used for irrigation recharges the Edwards-Trinity
Aquifer, Fort Stockton Holdings' proposed waterline project, and TCEP's
use of 10 percent of the waterline's capacity, would have no additional
impact on the aquifer. The proposed Fort Stockton Holdings waterline is
highly controversial and has been unable to obtain needed permits and
approvals. Therefore, it is unlikely that this waterline would be built
in time for the TCEP to use it as a primary water supply. DOE requires
as a condition of its decision that the Fort Stockton Holdings water
line not be used as a primary source of water (see Mitigation).
The Capitan Reef Complex Aquifer is a minor aquifer in West Texas
that is approximately 25 miles to the west of the plant site. Summit
proposed this aquifer as an option for the process water source. The
aquifer generally contains poor quality water. Most of the ground water
pumped from this aquifer in Texas is used for secondary oil recovery. A
small amount is used for irrigation of salt-tolerant crops. Over the
last 70 years, water levels in the aquifer have declined in some areas.
The Oxy Permian pipeline system distributes brackish ground water from
the Capitan Reef formation to water flood projects in the Permian
Basin. The closest source of Oxy Permian water to the polygen plant
site is a group of ground water wells near the town of Kermit, Texas.
The Oxy Permian system is not used at its full capacity, and demand
for water for use in secondary oil recovery has been slowly declining.
Because the amount of water pumped for the Oxy Permian pipeline has
steadily decreased, the impacts of additional pumping for use as TCEP
process water would be small. Usage of this water supply option would
require the installation and use of a substantial desalination system
at the TCEP plant site, with disposal of a substantial volume of
desalination reject water (brine).
Summit also considered the Pecos Alluvium Aquifer in response to a
suggestion submitted during the public comment period on the Draft EIS.
This aquifer is of major regional importance and has been widely used
for irrigation. In central Ward County, it is also used for municipal
and industrial purposes. Production rates greatly exceed recharge rates
and aquifer drawdown has approached 200 feet (61 meters) in some areas.
The aquifer is also highly variable in production quality and quantity.
If TCEP were to use this option, impacts to the aquifer's water quality
and quantity would likely be significant within the region of the
drawdown.
If deep injection wells are used for the disposal of waste water
(whether brine water or industrial waste water), its injection could
displace native fluids upward into underground sources of drinking
water. The area of risk would be around the injection wells where fluid
pressures could increase significantly in response to the injection.
The extent of this area would be estimated after a test well is drilled
by Summit to gather hydrologic information on each of the likely
injection targets. If Summit chooses this option, DOE requires
monitoring of changes in water quality in the deepest underground
source of drinking water above the injection site (see Mitigation).
If additional municipal waste water, after treatment, would be
disposed of into Monahans Draw as a result of the TCEP, there would be
only a small risk of increased contamination of ground water beneath
the draw. Permit limits on total dissolved solids (salinity) in water
discharged into the draw will not be increased, but the volume of waste
water discharged and salt loading could increase. DOE requires a limit
on TCEP-related waste water discharges and salt loading to Monahan's
Draw (see Mitigation).
Surface Water, Floodplains and Wetlands
At the TCEP site and along access roads, no surface water
resources, floodplains, or wetlands are present and, therefore, no
direct impacts to them are expected. Floodplains and wetland areas have
been identified within pipeline corridors, with the following amounts
of wetlands being subject to disturbance: WL1, up to 2.53 acres (1.0
hectares); WL3, up to 0.86 acres (0.35 hectares); and WL5, up to 1.29
acres (0.52 hectares). The options for installation of pipelines
beneath wetlands and water bodies are trenching and directional
drilling. The choice of installation technique would be made by Summit
on a case-by-case basis after more information is gathered at each
location. After construction is complete, pipelines will not further
impact floodplains. For transmission lines, structures could be sited
to avoid wetlands along these routes. Construction activities in
corridors that have water bodies (WL1, WL3 and WL5) are likely to
result in short-term, construction-related impacts such as increased
turbidity, sedimentation, streambed disturbance, and stream-bank
vegetation removal.
Under one option for primary supply of process water, municipal
waste water from Midland would be processed through primary and
secondary treatment by the Gulf Coast Authority's (GCA's) plant and
then processed through micro-filtration or ultra-filtration devices
before being piped to the TCEP for use. If this option is chosen by
Summit, there would be an increase in effluent discharge to Monahans
Draw from the GCA outfall as a result of accepting more waste water, on
most days, than is required for the TCEP and as a result of disposal of
the reject water. The draw would be dry most of the time if not for the
discharges of treated municipal and industrial waste water that
maintain ponds and wetlands on portions of the draw. The wetlands,
although small, are among the largest and best in the area and are used
by a variety of birds and other wildlife. The potential increase in
GCA's discharge to Monahans Draw (1) would not contribute significantly
to flooding events in downstream low-lying areas, (2) would make a
small contribution to the existing salt loading in the draw, and (3)
would further support and may slightly expand wetlands within the draw.
If Summit chooses the option to use Midland's municipal waste
water, the forecasted average increase of 0.75-million gallons per day
(2.8-million Liters/day) in GCA's discharge to Monahans Draw would
represent a 27 percent increase over the current average discharge from
the GCA outfall and may cause a small increase in the downstream extent
of stream flow along the draw during dry periods and in the downstream
extent of wetlands. Neither the average per day increase in GCA's
effluent discharge, nor the infrequent full release of waste water
received from Midland (6 million gallons per day) would represent a
significant impact to flood flow volume, flood elevations, or flooding
frequency in the downstream areas along Monahans Draw.
[[Page 60485]]
The increase in concentration of total dissolved solids in GCA's
discharges would be negligible (dissolved salts would pass through the
micro filtration or ultra filtration devices). However, if Summit
chooses to use Midland's municipal waste water, there would be a small
contribution to the existing salt loading in the draw because of the
increase in the quantity of effluent.
Biological Resources
Land disturbance and usage at the TCEP site will result in the
permanent loss of up to 600 acres (243 hectares) of the mesquite shrub
and grassland vegetation community and associated habitat functions.
Construction activities could result in the death of slow-moving
terrestrial species not able to escape the path of construction
equipment. Noise associated with construction could result in wildlife
displacement and behavioral changes that could have minimal impacts on
reproductive success. Noise associated with plant operations will have
negligible long-term effects on wildlife, because the wildlife will
become accustomed to it. Land at the plant site is suitable for the
Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) (state listed, threatened) as
well as 11 other state-listed rare species. DOE requires, as a
condition of its decision, measures to protect listed species (see
Mitigation).
Construction of the linear facilities will result in the permanent
removal of 132 to 1,032 acres (53 to 418 hectares) of mesquite shrub
and grassland community and associated habitat functions, based on the
smallest and largest combinations of the linear facility options. An
additional 246 to 949 acres (100 to 384 hectares) of habitat could be
temporarily removed or disturbed during construction. Impacts to
terrestrial species will be similar to those described above. DOE
requires, as a condition of its decision, measures to protect listed
species (see Mitigation).
At the polygen plant site up to 600 acres (243 hectares) of
suitable habitat for scrubland-nesting migratory birds and their nests
will be permanently removed. Introduced species (European starlings and
house sparrows) commonly associated with development activities (e.g.,
maintained landscaping, open trash receptacles) could encroach on the
plant site and displace or out-compete native songbird species.
Migratory birds could experience noise-related impacts. Additional
habitat loss for migratory birds will occur from the construction and
operation of the linear facilities. Furthermore, disturbance from
access road construction and use could displace migratory birds from
areas adjacent to these. Bird and bat mortalities due to collisions
with transmission lines will also occur. DOE requires, as a condition
of its decision, minimization of impacts to migratory birds (see
Mitigation).
If Summit chooses to use solar evaporation ponds for the disposal
of waste water, the ponds could attract waterfowl to them thereby
exposing the birds to concentrated brine water, which could cause salt
toxicosis and salt encrustation of feathers leading to bird deaths.
Covering ponds with netting would be one option for deterring birds
from contacting the brines. Others options exist for deterring birds,
and these would be considered when Summit prepares a bird deterrence
plan (see Mitigation).
Aesthetics
Visual impacts caused by the polygen plant were evaluated from a
number of key observation points in the area. The plant, as viewed from
most locations (including the Monahans Sandhills State Park) will have
only minor impacts on the view shed. The view of the plant will be more
dramatic from the crest of the escarpment to the east, especially as
seen by motorists traveling west from Odessa on I-20.
During operations, the height and size of the plant structures and
coal storage pile will create moderate, adverse, direct impacts as
viewed from the crest of the escarpment to the east because of the
strong form, color, and line contrasts with the surrounding landscape.
Water vapor emitted from the cooling tower will increase the extent of
visual intrusion.
Adverse impacts to night sky conditions could occur during both
construction and operations due to the installation of high-intensity
lighting within and around the site. Light reflected upward will create
regionally visible light pollution and sky glow. Strobe lighting (if
required by the Federal Aviation Administration) on the top of the
taller plant structures will adversely affect night sky conditions by
imposing high-intensity flashing lights that will be regionally
visible.
Transmission line structures will adversely impact the view-shed
because of their height and intrusive vertical form contrasts with the
landscape and because they will be visible from major travel routes.
Because of existing power lines, however, they will not become a focus
of viewer attention.
Minor adverse impacts will occur during construction of pipelines
because equipment and trenches will be visible and because vegetation
will be cleared along rights-of-ways. Although pipelines will be
buried, long-term impacts to aesthetics will occur because rights-of-
ways will be maintained clear of larger vegetation.
Cultural Resources
Construction and operation of the TCEP are not anticipated to
impact significant cultural resources; however, utility corridors have
not been thoroughly investigated and could have resources that deserve
protection. Near the plant site one historical complex or set of
buildings, the Rhodes Welding Complex, is considered eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Changes to the setting
will not affect its NRHP eligibility. DOE requires, as a condition of
its decision, cultural resource surveys to be completed for options and
linear facility routes tentatively chosen by Summit (see Mitigation).
Land Use
The plant site is currently used for ranching and oil and gas
production, and these will be displaced on the 600-acre plant site by
the TCEP. Existing subsurface rights will continue to be available for
exploration and production of oil and gas. Operation of the polygen
plant will not be incompatible with most of the surrounding land uses.
However, the project will directly affect at least one and perhaps
other nearby residential units in the mostly abandoned community of
Penwell.
For the linear facilities, existing land uses will be briefly and
temporarily affected by construction. During operations, impacts to
land use will be limited to the rights-of-way. The rights-of-way land
requirements vary by facility type, and the associated impacts will
last for at least the life of the utilities. The linear facilities will
be consistent with the intent of the zoning districts through which
they pass. Generally, existing land uses will be expected to continue
after the linear facilities are constructed.
Socioeconomics and Community Services
Impacts to local and regional population during construction will
be minor because most workers will commute from nearby communities.
Impacts to population during operations will be negligible because most
of the 150 permanent workers will come from the local population,
although some may come from outside the area. Existing housing and
hotel supply will be adequate to meet demands during operations and
most of the construction phase. Because TCEP workers will come
primarily from the existing nearby
[[Page 60486]]
populations, no changes are anticipated in the demand for law
enforcement, emergency response, health services, schools, and
recreational opportunities in the region.
During most of the construction, GDP in the region of influence
(Ector, Midland, Crane and Ward Counties) is estimated to increase by
more than 0.4 percent. During the final year of construction, it will
increase an estimated 0.67 percent. During operations, it will increase
by about 0.16 percent, representing a long-term and beneficial impact
for the region. Tax revenue from the TCEP will have a beneficial and
long-term impact to the region as revenue will be redistributed to
counties, which in turn will allocate and redistribute to local
communities.
Environmental Justice
Construction and operation of the proposed project are not
anticipated to have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on
minority or low-income populations in the area around the TCEP. Ector
County has a higher concentration of minority populations than the
state as a whole, and many areas of the county have higher
concentrations of low-income individuals and families. Minority and
low-income populations were not identified in the immediate vicinity of
the TCEP (e.g., region of influence for operational noise). Project
emissions are not expected to cause significant air quality impacts or
exceed regulatory thresholds. Impacts to surface and ground water
resources are not expected to be high. Construction-related traffic
congestion and traffic noise would temporarily increase significantly
in some road segments very near the plant site, but these impacts are
not expected to be disproportionate. Noise generated by operations and
construction of the project would be significant locally; however,
these impacts would not be disproportionate on environmental justice
populations.
In general, the project could disproportionally harm minority and
low-income communities in regard to housing availability (primarily
short-term housing, such as motels), utility rates, and safety issues
associated with increased traffic, but these impacts are not expected
to be high. Short-term beneficial impacts could include an increase in
employment opportunities and higher wages during construction.
Utility Service
To accommodate the electricity generated by the TCEP, there may be
a need for system upgrades associated with the electrical
interconnection to either the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
(ERCOT) grid or the Southwestern Power Pool (SPP) grid. The nature of
the upgrades will be further defined as interconnection studies are
completed. These upgrades could involve local installation of larger
conductors, new power transmission line segments, and upgrades of other
local system components.
Transportation
Several routes were considered as potential new access roads to the
polygen plant site. One route is directly from the community of
Penwell, linking FM 1601 to the plant site via an underpass beneath the
railroad at the southern border of the plant. The other routes are from
the east and northeast of the plant site, connecting either to FM 866
or an I-20 frontage road.
During the period of plant construction, local traffic will
increase as a function of the employment levels at the plant site.
Delays associated with merging traffic and increased percent of time
spent following slow vehicles will affect the level of service (LOS) of
each road to which a plant site access road may be connected.
Construction activities will result in temporary localized traffic
delays, and most impacts will occur during shift changes.
During TCEP operations, there will be an average of four additional
150-car unit-trains per week along the railroad (Union Pacific),
amounting to a 3 percent increase over the existing rail traffic on
this line. Under the peak urea production option, there would be an
average of approximately six additional 150-car unit-trains per week
along the railroad, amounting to a five percent increase in rail
traffic. Neither option represents an increase that would exceed system
capacity nor cause delay to existing railway operations. Because the
loading and unloading of TCEP-related materials will occur on the
railroad spur, no impacts to the railroad will occur.
Materials and Waste Management
No impacts will occur from the management of construction
materials. Furthermore, no impacts will occur to the supply of
construction materials as a result of the demand from the project.
Operations materials will include coal, natural gas, process water,
process chemicals, and commercially marketable products. No impacts
from the management of these materials are expected. Plans for
delivery, handling, and storage of operations materials will be in
place before operations begin.
Human Health, Safety, and Accidents
During construction, Summit will follow established procedures to
provide a safe and healthy environment for workers, contractors,
visitors, and the community. Based on industry workplace hazard
statistics, the TCEP construction workforce could experience 91.65
nonfatal, recordable incidents and 48.75 lost workdays. Statistics
suggest that fatalities are unlikely (0.19 fatality) during the three-
year construction period.
Design features and safety programs will be established by Summit
to minimize hazards during operations of the TCEP and linear
facilities. Based on industry workplace hazard statistics, over the
life of the project the TCEP operations workforce could experience 158
recordable incidents, 122 lost workdays, and less than one fatality.
Adverse impacts to human health and safety, although unlikely,
could result from various types of accidents or acts of sabotage and
terrorism, ranging from small pipeline leaks to, in an extremely
unlikely case, an explosion at the polygen plant. The greatest risks to
human health and safety are associated with sudden, unconstrained
releases of toxic gases, such as ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen
sulfide (H2S). Exposure modeling of unmitigated releases
using worst-case atmospheric conditions was used to evaluate the risks
of various levels of harm. These analyses were made assuming no
mitigations are used; therefore, these risks can be reduced with the
appropriate measures, such as planning, design and engineering
controls. While the probability of intentional acts like sabotage and
terrorism cannot be easily predicted, the consequences could be similar
to the accidents analyzed in the risk assessment.
During operations of the polygen plant, the risk of someone being
killed by exposure to a toxic gas in the event of a release would vary
depending on his location relative to the release. The risk per year
ranges from one in 1,000 to one in 100,000,000 of being killed in the
project area. Toxic substance hazards are dominated by the potential
releases of ammonia gas from the pipeline leading from the ammonia
synthesis unit to the urea synthesis plant, or through ammonia
production or storage processes. Risks are greatest to those workers
closest to the ammonia synthesis unit.
Noise and Vibration
During construction, equipment noise will be perceptible outdoors
at the Penwell receptor locations north of I-
[[Page 60487]]
20; however, people south of I-20 will likely not hear a substantial
increase in noise owing to existing noise from vehicles on I-20.
Intermittent increases in noise will result from steam venting prior to
and during plant startup and commissioning. Although this venting will
briefly exceed acceptable Federal Transit Administration (FTA) levels
for residential areas (there will be a series of short loud blasts over
a two-week period), the FTA's commercial-area construction threshold
levels will not be exceeded.
Construction of some linear facilities (WL3, TL5, TL6, NG1-NG3, and
AR1) will likely create temporary, adverse noise impacts to residents
where the proposed lines are located close to residential areas.
During polygen plant operations, several plant components (e.g.,
generators, pumps, fans, vents, relief valves, coal delivery/handling
system) will generate noise. This operational noise will exceed the
EPA's 55 dBA Ldn outdoor noise threshold at the two closest noise-
sensitive receptors in Penwell (exceeding the threshold by 6 and 4
dBA). Long-term indoor noise levels are expected to be in compliance
with EPA health and safety guidelines.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
From a local perspective, the no-action alternative is
environmentally preferable because it would result in no changes to the
existing environmental conditions. However, from a national
perspective, DOE's Proposed Action is the environmentally preferred
alternative because it could hasten the deployment of carbon capture
and sequestration practices at power plants and other industrial
facilities around the world in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions that otherwise will occur with the continued combustion of
fossil fuels, especially coal, in stationary facilities. In addition to
demonstrating carbon capture from a power plant and sequestration of
captured CO2 through EOR, the TCEP will encourage faster
deployment of several other technologies that, if widely deployed by
industry, could help reduce environmental impacts: (1) Integrated
gasification combined-cycle technology, which allows for the production
of more electricity from a given quantity of coal compared to
convention power plants; (2) polygeneration, which may allow for lower
cost and more efficient production of electricity and various other
products (including products made using captured CO2, such
as urea); (3) dry cooling, which greatly reduces water consumption or
usage by various industrial processes; (4) zero liquid discharge or
water reuse concepts, which help reduce water consumption and minimize
the quantity of waste water.
Comments Received on the Final EIS
DOE received comments, both oral and written, from U.S. EPA's
Region 6 on the Final EIS concerning the lack of identification of
preferred alternatives and the need to further investigate potential
impacts to resources in association with some of the options.
EPA's Region 6 found that DOE's revisions to the Draft EIS were
generally improvements, but it remains concerned that a preferred
alternative for each of the linear facilities was not identified in the
Final EIS. Region 6 understood that Summit could not identify a
preferred alternative for each of the linear facilities until
additional investigations occur.
For the TCEP, DOE identified its preferred alternative in the Final
EIS, which is to fund the project. Subject to the mitigations required
by this ROD and given the information presented in the Final EIS, DOE
has no preference among the options not dismissed from further
consideration by this ROD. DOE finds all the remaining options to be
equally acceptable, provided that Summit undertakes the mitigations
required by this ROD.
EPA's Region 6 also requested that DOE make a commitment in the ROD
that, if field investigations reveal that an option chosen by Summit
has impacts greater than those identified in the EIS, DOE would prepare
a supplemental analysis. EPA further requested that the supplement
analysis be provided to all regulatory agencies, including the EPA, for
review. DOE will gather additional information and, if that information
reveals potential impacts that are not adequately addressed in the EIS,
it will prepare a Supplement Analysis to assist DOE in determining
whether a supplemental EIS is needed.
DOE also received comments in writing from the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD) on the Final EIS concerning protection of
wildlife and habitat.
TPWD recommended that DOE review TPWD's comments and
recommendations submitted during the public scoping and comment periods
as many of these remain applicable to the project described in the
Final EIS. As requested, DOE has again reviewed these two submittals
and has factored TPWD's previous comments and recommendations into this
ROD, particularly in the section on Mitigation.
TPWD notes that because few water sources exist on or near the
project site, resident and migratory birds may be attracted to the
proposed evaporation ponds spanning 160 acres in this arid area. TPWD
therefore recommends a bird deterrent system be developed for the
evaporation ponds. In anticipation of this request, this ROD includes a
requirement for a bird deterrent plan and the implementation of the
plan, if Summit chooses to use solar evaporation ponds (see
Mitigation). More specifically, this ROD requires that high salinity
ponds be designed and constructed to be ready for the installation of
netting. TPWD further asks that it be contacted to discuss specific
details of a bird deterrent system. DOE and Summit will consult with
TPWD during the development of the bird deterrent plan.
TPWD supports Summit's preferred option of using Midland's
municipal waste water as a supply for the polygen plant. However, TPWD
believes that waterline option WL1 appears to better minimize adverse
impacts to surface waters than WL5 because it has fewer crossings of
Monahans Draw. To minimize impacts to the draw, TPWD recommends that
the TCEP use directional drilling rather than trenching for pipeline
crossings regardless of the waterline route chosen. The EIS notes that
trenching, if this method of pipeline installation is chosen, would
include restoration procedures, such as stream bank stabilization and
revegetation. Further site investigations into the technical
feasibility, costs, and potential for adverse impacts would be
completed before determining the exact stream crossing locations,
method of pipeline installation at streambeds, and mitigation methods.
One individual submitted comments on the Final EIS. These comments
encourage the use of desalinated brackish or brine ground water
(particularly water co-produced with oil and gas) and provided an
Internet address for an article on emerging desalination technologies
that may cost less for waters produced from oil fields. The comments
also suggest that Summit should consider a larger desalination system
that could serve both the TCEP and some portion of the municipal water
supply needs of Odessa. In response, Summit indicates that it is
investigating various desalination systems and currently plans to size
its system to meet the TCEP's needs assuming that brackish water from
the Capitan Reef Complex Aquifer would be the source. Summit further
indicates that it has engaged in preliminary discussions with
representatives of the city of Odessa regarding the possibilities
[[Page 60488]]
for cooperation in the desalination of water.
Issued in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on this 22nd of September
2011.
Anthony V. Cugini,
Director, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2011-25070 Filed 9-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P