[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17397-17401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7723]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Hydrogen Energy California's Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle Project, Kern County, CA--Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of Potential Floodplain and
Wetlands Involvement
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of intent and notice of potential floodplain and
wetlands involvement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department)
announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA
regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE's NEPA regulations (10
CFR part 1021) to assess the potential environmental impacts of
providing financial assistance for the construction and operation of a
project proposed by Hydrogen Energy California LLC (HECA). DOE selected
this project for an award of financial assistance through a competitive
process under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) program.
The project proposed by HECA would demonstrate Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology with carbon capture in a
new baseload electric generating plant in Kern County, California. The
plant would use blends of coal and petroleum coke (petcoke) or petcoke
alone as its feedstock, and would demonstrate carbon capture and
sequestration on a commercial scale.
The HECA project would gasify the coal and petcoke to produce
synthesis gas (syngas), which would then be processed and purified to
produce a hydrogen-rich fuel. The hydrogen would be used to power a
combustion turbine, generating electricity while minimizing emissions
of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and particulates compared
to conventional coal-fired power plants. In addition, the project would
achieve a carbon dioxide (CO2) capture efficiency of
approximately 90 percent at steady-state operation. The captured
CO2 would be compressed and transported via pipeline to the
adjacent Elk Hills Field (owned and operated by Occidental of Elk
Hills, Inc.) for injection into deep underground oil and gas reservoirs
for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and geologic sequestration.
The EIS will inform DOE's decision on whether to provide financial
assistance under its CCPI Program to the project proposed by HECA,
which has an estimated capital cost of $2.3 billion. DOE's financial
assistance (or ``cost share'') would be limited to $308 million, about
11 percent of the project's total cost. DOE's financial assistance is
also limited to certain aspects of the power plant, carbon capture, and
sequestration. The EIS will evaluate the potential impacts of DOE's
proposed action (provision of financial assistance), the project
proposed by HECA and any connected actions, and reasonable alternatives
to DOE's proposed action. The purposes of this Notice of Intent are to:
(1) Inform the public about DOE's proposed action and HECA's proposed
project; (2) announce the public scoping meeting; (3) solicit comments
for DOE's consideration regarding the scope and content of the EIS; (4)
invite those agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise to
be cooperating agencies in preparation of the EIS; and (5) provide
notice that the proposed project may involve potential impacts to
floodplains and wetlands.
DOE does not have regulatory jurisdiction over the HECA project.
Its decisions are limited to whether and under what circumstances it
would provide financial assistance to the project. There are a number
of state and federal agencies that do have regulatory authority over
the project; one of them is the California Energy Commission (CEC),
which is responsible for power plant licensing under the Warren-Alquist
Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code section 25500 et seq.). This licensing
process, which will consider all relevant environmental aspects of
HECA's proposed project and related facilities, is defined by
California law, and under state law is certified as fulfilling the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Cal.
Pub. Res. Code section 21000 et seq.). Under this certified process,
CEC holds public hearings, makes a final staff assessment, conducts
evidentiary hearings, and issues a decision based on the hearing
record, which includes the staff's and other parties' assessments.
Through this process, the CEC staff will conduct an independent
analysis of the proposed project and prepare an independent assessment
of its potential environmental impacts, conditions of certification
(e.g. mitigation measures), and alternatives. The staff will consult
with interested Native American tribes and local, regional, state, and
federal agencies, and CEC will coordinate its environmental review with
other agencies, including the California Department of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). DOE understands that, pursuant to
California law and a grant of primacy from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency regarding Class II wells under section
1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, DOGGR has responsibility for
permitting EOR injection and extraction wells, and is likely to have
the regulatory lead for the CO2 sequestration aspects of the
proposed project, and would impose permit conditions on these aspects
of the project that are needed to ensure the HECA project's compliance
with California's requirements regarding CO2 emissions from
power plants.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOE anticipates that, pursuant to Cal. Pub. Res. Code
section 21000 et seq., California agencies will impose mitigation
measures to address potential impacts and project design elements to
verify the sequestration of CO2 injected for EOR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE intends to coordinate its NEPA review of the HECA project with
the environmental review conducted by CEC as lead agency under CEQA. It
will work closely with CEC throughout its regulatory processes in order
to integrate the NEPA and CEQA processes in an efficient and
expeditious manner. In particular, DOE will work with CEC
[[Page 17398]]
on making the environmental analyses conducted for CEC's regulatory
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
processes as useful as possible in DOE's NEPA process.
DATES: DOE invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the
EIS from all interested parties. Comments must be received by May 24,
2010, to ensure consideration. DOE will consider scoping comments
submitted after this date to the extent practicable. In addition to
receiving comments in writing and by telephone, DOE will conduct a
public scoping meeting in which agencies, organizations, and
individuals are invited to present oral and written comments and
suggestions with regard to DOE's proposed action, alternatives, and
potential impacts of HECA's project that DOE will consider in the EIS.
The scoping meeting will be held in Salon A of the Bakersfield Marriott
at the Convention Center, 801 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California,
at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, April 14, 2010. The public is also invited to
learn more about the proposed project at an informal session at this
location beginning at 5 p.m. Displays and other information about DOE's
proposed action and the HECA project will be available, and
representatives from DOE and HECA will be present at the informal
session to discuss the proposed project, DOE's CCPI program, and the
EIS process.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS and requests to
participate in the public scoping meeting should be addressed to: Dr.
R. Paul Detwiler, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA
15236-0940. Individuals who would like to provide oral or electronic
comments should contact Dr. Detwiler directly by telephone: 412-386-
7349; toll-free number: 1-866-269-6493; fax: 412-386-6127; or
electronic mail: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this project or
to receive a copy of the draft EIS when it is issued, contact Dr.
Detwiler as described above. For general information on the DOE NEPA
process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103; telephone: 202-
586-4600; fax: 202-586-7031; or leave a toll-free message at 1-800-472-
2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the early 1970s, DOE and its predecessor agencies have
pursued research and development programs that include large,
technically complex projects in pursuit of innovation in a wide variety
of coal technologies through the proof-of-concept stage. However,
helping a technology reach the proof-of-concept stage does not ensure
its continued development or commercialization. Before a technology can
be considered seriously for commercialization, it must be demonstrated
at a sufficient scale to prove its reliability and economically
competitive performance. The financial risk associated with such large-
scale demonstration projects is often too high for the private sector
to assume in the absence of strong incentives.
The CCPI program was established in 2002 as a government and
private sector partnership to implement the recommendation in President
Bush's National Energy Policy to increase investment in clean coal
technology. Through cooperative agreements with its private sector
partners, the program advances clean coal technologies to
commercialization; these technologies often involve combustion
improvements, control systems advances, gasifier design, pollution
reduction (including greenhouse gas reduction), efficiency increases,
fuel processing, and others.
The Congress established criteria for projects receiving financial
assistance under this program in Title IV of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) (EPACT 2005). Under this statute, CCPI projects
must ``advance efficiency, environmental performance, and cost
competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that are in
commercial service'' (Pub. L. 109-58, section 402(a)). In February
2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-
5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009)) (ARRA) appropriated $3.4 billion to
DOE for ``Fossil Energy Research and Development;'' the Department
intends to use a significant portion of these funds to provide
financial assistance to CCPI projects.
The CCPI program selects projects for its government-private sector
partnerships through an open and competitive process. Potential private
sector partners may include developers of technologies, utilities and
other energy producers, service corporations, research and development
firms, software developers, academia and others. DOE issues funding
opportunity announcements that specify the types of projects it is
seeking, and invites submission of applications. Applications are
reviewed according to the criteria specified in the funding opportunity
announcement; these criteria include technical, financial,
environmental, and other considerations. DOE selects the projects that
demonstrate the most promise when evaluated against these criteria, and
enters into a cooperative agreement with the applicant. These
agreements set out the project's objectives, the obligations of the
parties, and other features of the partnership. Applicants must agree
to provide at least 50 percent of their project's cost; for most CCPI
projects, the applicant's cost share is much greater.
To date the CCPI program has conducted three rounds of
solicitations and project selections. The first round sought projects
that would demonstrate advanced technologies for power generation and
improvements in plant efficiency, economics, and environmental
performance. Round 2 requested applications for projects that would
demonstrate improved mercury controls and gasification technology.
Round 3, which DOE conducted in two phases, sought projects that would
demonstrate advanced coal-based electricity generating technologies
which capture and sequester (or put to beneficial use) carbon dioxide
emissions. DOE's overarching goal for Round 3 projects was to
demonstrate technologies at commercial scale in a commercial setting
that would: (1) Operate at 90 percent capture efficiency for
CO2; (2) make progress towards capture and sequestration at
less than a 10 percent increase in the cost of electricity for
gasification systems and a less than 35 percent increase for combustion
and oxycombustion systems; and (3) make progress toward capture and
sequestration of 50 percent of the facility's CO2 output at
a scale sufficient to evaluate the full impacts of carbon capture
technology on a generating plant's operations, economics and
performance. The HECA project was one of two selected in the first
phase of Round 3. DOE entered into a cooperative agreement with HECA on
September 30, 2009.
Purpose and Need for DOE Action
The purpose and need for DOE action--providing limited financial
assistance to HECA's project--are to advance the CCPI program by
funding projects that have the best chance of achieving the program's
objective as established by the Congress: The commercialization of
clean coal technologies that advance efficiency, environmental
performance, and cost
[[Page 17399]]
competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that are
currently in commercial service.
Site of the Project Proposed by HECA
HECA proposes to construct its IGCC baseload electric generating
facility on a site currently used for agriculture in Kern County,
California. The 1,101 acre site (473 acres of which would be used for
the project and 628 acres for a controlled buffer area) is located in
south-central California near the unincorporated community of Tupman,
approximately 7 miles west of the city of Bakersfield. The site's
topography is characterized by relatively flat, low-lying terrain that
slopes very gently from southeast to northwest.
The IGCC facilities would occupy approximately 250 acres (or less
than 25 percent) of the site. Most of the remainder of the site would
continue to be used for agriculture; some areas would be occupied by
new process and potable water pipelines, a transmission line, a natural
gas supply pipeline, a CO2 pipeline, access roads and fuel-
handling facilities.
Proposed Generating Plant
The HECA project would demonstrate IGCC and carbon capture
technology on a commercial scale in a new power plant consisting of
three gasifiers with gas cleanup systems, a gas combustion turbine, a
heat recovery steam generator, a steam turbine, and associated
facilities.
The plant proposed by HECA would gasify petcoke and coal to produce
syngas, which would then be processed and purified to produce a
hydrogen-rich fuel. The hydrogen would be used to drive the gas
combustion turbine. Hot exhaust gas from the gas combustion turbine
would generate steam from water in the heat recovery steam generator to
drive the steam turbine; both turbines would generate baseload
electricity. At full capacity, the plant would be expected to use about
3,200 tons of feedstock per day (about 1.2 million tons per year). HECA
would transport petcoke to the site by truck. Coal would be brought to
a nearby railhead and transferred to trucks for delivery to the site.
Combined, the gas combustion and steam turbines would generate
approximately 390 MW gross capacity (250 MW net) of low-carbon baseload
electricity. This combined-cycle approach of using gas and steam
turbines in tandem increases the amount of electricity that can be
generated from the feedstock.
The plant would include a system capable of capturing about 90
percent of CO2 generated during steady-state operation. The
CO2 would be piped offsite for EOR and geologic
sequestration in the Elk Hills Field, located approximately 4 miles
southwest of the project's location.
The proposed plant would minimize sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
mercury, and particulate emissions as compared to conventional coal-
fired power plants. It is expected to remove in excess of 99 percent of
the sulfur dioxide produced by the plant and would also control
emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic
compounds. In addition, over 99 percent of the mercury in the feedstock
would be removed and over 99 percent of the particulates in the syngas
would be removed using liquid scrubbing.
Solids generated by the gasifiers would be accumulated onsite and
made available for appropriate recycling or beneficial use, and if
these options are not available, disposed of in accordance with
applicable laws. It is anticipated that a significant fraction of the
gasification solids with fuel value can be segregated and returned to
the gasification process; the solids without fuel value would be
beneficially used or properly disposed of. This return of solids with
fuel value to the gasification process limits the amount of solids that
must be disposed of as waste or beneficially used for another purpose.
In addition to the gasifiers and turbines, the plant's equipment
would include stacks, mechanical-draft cooling towers, syngas cleanup
facilities, and particulate filtration systems. The height of the
tallest proposed stack would be approximately 260 feet above ground.
The plant would also require systems for feedstock handling and
storage, as well as on-site roads, administration buildings, water and
wastewater treatment systems, and management facilities for handling
gasification solids.
Proposed Linear Facilities
Linear facilities are the pipelines and electrical lines that
transport materials and power to and from the plant. The source of
process water for the plant would be brackish groundwater supplied by
the Buena Vista Water Storage District; approximately 5 million gallons
per day would be required for cooling water makeup, steam cycle makeup,
and other processes. The process water pipeline would be approximately
15 miles in length. Potable water for drinking and sanitary use would
be supplied by the West Kern Water District, located to the southeast
of the site. The potable water line would be approximately 7 miles in
length. The project would recycle water and would incorporate zero
liquid discharge (ZLD) technology for process and other wastewater from
plant operations. Therefore, there would be no industrial wastewater
discharge. Sanitary wastewater would be disposed of in an onsite leach
field (e.g., a septic system) in accordance with applicable law.
The site of the proposed project is about 8 miles southeast of
Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Midway Substation. A 345-kilovolt (kV)
transmission line would be constructed to interconnect the project to
the grid at this existing substation, and to provide firm transmission
service for the plant's output. This transmission line would follow a
relatively direct route between the plant and the substation, and
therefore would be about 8 miles long. Rights-of-way (ROW) up to 175
feet in width would be required for this new line.
HECA would also construct an approximately 8-mile natural gas
supply pipeline extending southeast from the site, and an approximately
4-mile CO2 pipeline extending from the site to a custody
transfer point where Occidental would take possession of the
CO2 and continue its transportation via pipeline to the Elk
Hills Field for EOR use and geologic sequestration. The ROW for these
underground pipelines would be approximately 50 feet wide.
Proposed Use of CO2 for EOR and Sequestration
According to HECA's proposal, the project would result in the
sequestration of about two million tons of CO2 per year
during the demonstration phase funded in part by DOE; HECA anticipates
this rate would continue for the operational life of the power plant.
The captured CO2 would be compressed and transported via
pipeline to the Elk Hills Oil Field approximately 4 miles from the
power plant. The CO2 would enable additional domestic oil
production, contributing to the nation's energy security.
The EOR process involves the injection and reinjection of
CO2 to reduce the viscosity and enhance other properties of
the trapped oil that facilitate its flow through the reservoir,
improving extraction. During EOR operations, the pore space left by the
extracted oil is occupied by the injected CO2, sequestering
it in the geologic formation. EOR operations would be monitored to
ensure the injected CO2 remains in the formation.
[[Page 17400]]
Proposed Project Schedule
The project proposed by HECA includes engineering and design of the
generating plant, permitting of the plant and associated facilities,
equipment procurement, construction, startup, operations, and
demonstration of using the CO2 for EOR followed by verified
sequestration. HECA anticipates that it would take about four years to
construct, commission and commence operation of the plant. It plans to
start construction by 2012, and commercial operation by 2016. This
schedule is contingent upon HECA receiving the necessary regulatory
authorizations (which would be preceded by the hearings and others
events mandated by the regulatory agencies' procedures) and upon DOE
deciding to provide limited financial assistance for the construction
and demonstration phases of the project (a decision that would occur
after completion of the EIS).
Connected and Cumulative Actions
Under the cooperative agreement between DOE and HECA, DOE would
share the costs of the gasifiers, syngas cleanup systems, a combustion
turbine, a heat recovery steam generator, a steam turbine, supporting
facilities and infrastructure, and a demonstration phase in which the
project would use at least 75 percent coal (calculated on a fuel input
basis) to generate low-carbon electricity and capture CO2
for EOR and sequestration.\2\ Under this agreement, DOE would not share
in the cost of the air separation unit, CO2 EOR and
sequestration facilities, or certain other facilities. Accordingly, the
EIS will evaluate the potential impacts of these aspects of HECA's
project as connected actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Because of the requirements of California law, DOE believes
that the HECA project would need to continue sequestering
CO2 throughout the operational life of the plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE will also analyze the cumulative impacts of both the proposed
project and any connected actions. The cumulative impacts analysis will
include analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, other
air emissions, and other incremental impacts that, when added to past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable impacts, may have significant
effects on the human environment.
Alternatives
NEPA requires that an EIS evaluate the range of reasonable
alternatives to an agency's proposed action. The range of reasonable
alternatives encompasses those alternatives that would satisfy the
underlying purpose and need for agency action. The purpose and need for
DOE action--providing limited financial assistance to the HECA IGCC
project--are to advance the CCPI program by selecting projects that
have the best chance of achieving the program's objective as
established by the Congress: the commercialization of clean coal
technologies that advance efficiency, environmental performance, and
cost competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that are
currently in service.
DOE's NEPA regulations include a process for identifying and
analyzing reasonable alternatives in the context of providing financial
assistance through a competitive selection of projects proposed by
entities outside the federal government. The range of reasonable
alternatives in competitions for grants, loans and other financial
support is defined in large part by the range of responsive proposals
DOE receives. Unlike projects undertaken by DOE itself, the Department
cannot mandate what outside entities propose, where they propose to do
it, or how they propose to do it beyond establishing requirements in
the funding opportunity announcement that further the program's
objectives. DOE's decision is limited to selecting among the
applications submitted by project sponsors that meet CCPI's goals.
Recognizing that the range of reasonable alternatives in the
context of financial assistance and contracting is in large part
determined by the number and nature of the proposals submitted, section
216 of DOE's NEPA regulations requires the Department to prepare an
``environmental critique'' that assesses the environmental impacts and
issues relating to each of the proposals that the DOE selecting
official considers for an award. See 10 CFR 1021.216. This official
considers these impacts and issues, along with other aspects of the
proposals (such as technical merit and financial ability) and the
program's objectives, in making awards. DOE prepared a critique of the
proposals that were deemed suitable for selection in this round of
awards for the CCPI program.
Once DOE selects a project for an award, the range of reasonable
alternatives becomes the project as proposed by the applicant, any
alternatives still under consideration by the applicant or that are
reasonable within the confines of the project as proposed (e.g., the
particular location of the generating plant on the 1,101-acre site or
the ROWs for linear facilities), and a no action alternative. Regarding
the no action alternative, DOE assumes for purposes of the EIS that, if
it were to decide to withhold financial assistance from the project,
the project would not proceed. DOE currently plans to analyze the
project as proposed by HECA (with and without any mitigating conditions
that DOE may identify as reasonable and appropriate); alternatives to
HECA's proposal that it is still considering (e.g., the ROWs for linear
facilities); and the no action alternative.
As noted above, DOE will analyze any ``project-specific''
alternatives that HECA is still considering such as the location of the
facility within the site boundaries, alternative routes for the process
water supply pipeline, CO2 pipeline and transmission line,
and other reasonable alternatives that may be suggested during the
scoping period.
Under the no action alternative, DOE would not provide funding to
HECA. In the absence of financial assistance from DOE, HECA could
reasonably pursue two options. It could build the project without DOE
funding; the impacts of this option would be essentially the same as
those of DOE's proposed action. Or, HECA could choose not to pursue its
project, and there would be no impacts from the project. This option
would not contribute to the goal of the CCPI program, which is to
accelerate commercial deployment of advanced coal technologies that
provide the United States with clean, reliable, and affordable energy.
However, as required by NEPA, DOE analyzes this option as the no action
alternative in order to have a meaningful comparison between the
impacts of DOE providing financial assistance and withholding that
assistance.
Alternatives considered by HECA in developing its proposed project
will be discussed in the EIS. HECA analyzed several alternative sites
and determined that the only reasonable site alternative was its
proposed site based on, among other things, the presence or absence of
sensitive resources; the availability of land; and the site's proximity
to the brackish groundwater supply, to electric transmission and
natural gas facilities, and to a CO2 storage reservoir.\3\
The EIS will describe HECA's site selection process. However, DOE does
not plan to analyze in detail the alternatives sites considered by HECA
because HECA is no longer considering these alternatives, they were not
part of HECA's proposal, and therefore they are no longer reasonable
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ HECA initially selected another site; it subsequently
decided to move the project when it discovered the existence of
sensitive biological resources at the initial site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17401]]
Floodplains and Wetlands
The footprint of the proposed electric generating and carbon
capture facility would not affect any wetlands or floodplains. Wetland
and floodplain impacts, if any, from the construction of pipelines and
transmission lines would be avoided by the use of horizontal direction
drilling. In the event that the EIS identifies that wetlands or
floodplains would be affected by the project (including its linear
facilities) or connected actions, DOE will prepare a floodplain and
wetland assessment in accordance with its regulations at 10 CFR part
1022 and include the assessment in the EIS.
Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
The following environmental issues have been tentatively identified
for analysis in the EIS. This list (which was developed from the
environmental critique of the proposed project, permit applications
that HECA has filed, comments by regulatory agencies on those
applications, and information from similar projects) is neither an
inclusive nor a predetermined set of potential impacts. This
preliminary list is presented to facilitate public comment on the
planned scope of the EIS. Additions to or deletions from the list may
occur as a result of this scoping process. The preliminary list of
potential environmental issues includes:
(1) Atmospheric Resources: Potential air quality impacts resulting
from emissions during construction and operation of the proposed HECA
project and connected actions (e.g., effects of ground-level
concentrations of criteria pollutants and trace metals--including
mercury--on surrounding areas, including those of special concern such
as Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I areas). Potential
cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
(2) Water Resources: Potential effects of groundwater withdrawals
and water use by the project, including potential impacts resulting
from construction and operation of the project, including linear
facilities and any connected actions.
(3) Infrastructure and Land Use: Potential effects on existing
infrastructure and land uses resulting from the construction and
operation of the proposed project and connected actions. For example,
potential traffic effects resulting from the proposed project and
potential land use impacts of committing farm land to a power plant.
(4) Solid Waste: Pollution prevention and waste management issues,
including potential impacts from the generation, treatment, transport,
storage, and management of wastes.
(5) Visual: Potential aesthetic impacts of new stacks, mechanical-
draft cooling tower, flares, and other structures of the proposed
plant, of the linear facilities, and of connected actions.
(6) Floodplain: Potential impacts (e.g., impeding floodwaters, re-
directing floodwaters, possible property damage) of siting structures
on a floodplain.
(7) Wetlands: Potential effects to wetlands due to construction and
operation of the power plant, linear facilities, and connected actions.
(8) Ecological: Potential onsite and offsite impacts to vegetation,
terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, threatened and endangered species,\4\
and ecologically sensitive habitats due to the construction and
operation of the power plant, linear facilities, and connected actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ No threatened or endangered species have been identified at
the proposed plant site; three listed plant species and eight listed
wildlife species may occur in the ROWs of the linear facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) Safety and Health: Construction- and operation-related safety,
process safety, and management of process chemicals and materials.
(10) Construction: Potential impacts associated with noise, traffic
patterns, and construction-related emissions.
(11) Community Impacts: Potential congestion and other impacts to
local traffic patterns; socioeconomic impacts on public services and
infrastructure (e.g., police protection, schools, and utilities); noise
associated with project operation; and environmental justice issues
with respect to nearby communities.
(12) Cultural and Archaeological Resources: Potential impacts to
such resources from construction of the project and connected actions.
(13) Cumulative Effects: Incremental impacts of the proposed
project (e.g., incremental air emissions affecting ambient air quality)
that, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions, including connected actions, may have potentially
significant impacts on the environment. This analysis will include
potential impacts on climate.
The level of analysis of issues in the EIS will be in accordance
with their level of importance. The most detailed analyses are likely
to focus on potential impacts to air, water, and ecological resources.
Public Scoping Process
To ensure that all issues related to DOE's Proposed Action and
HECA's proposed project are properly evaluated, DOE will conduct an
open process to define the scope of the EIS. The public scoping period
will end on May 24, 2010. Interested agencies, organizations, and
individuals are encouraged to submit comments or suggestions concerning
the content of the EIS, issues and impacts that should be addressed,
and alternatives that should be considered. Scoping comments should
clearly describe specific issues or topics that the EIS should address
in order to assist DOE in defining the EIS's scope. Written, e-mailed,
faxed, or telephoned comments should be submitted by May 24, 2010 (see
ADDRESSES).
In addition, DOE will conduct a public scoping meeting in Salon A
of the Bakersfield Marriott at the Convention Center, 801 Truxtun
Avenue, Bakersfield, California, at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, April 14,
2010. The public is also invited to learn more about the proposed
project at an informal session at this location beginning at 5 p.m. DOE
requests that anyone who wishes to speak at this public scoping meeting
contact Dr. R. Paul Detwiler, by phone, fax, e-mail, or letter (see
ADDRESSES).
Individuals who do not make advance arrangements to speak may
register at the meeting and will be given the opportunity to speak
following scheduled speakers. Speakers who need more than five minutes
should indicate the length of time desired in their request. Depending
on the number of speakers, DOE may need to limit speakers to five-
minute presentations initially, but will provide additional
opportunities as time permits. Speakers can also provide written
material to supplement their presentations. Oral and written comments
will be given equal weight.
DOE will begin the formal meeting with an overview of the proposed
HECA project. DOE will designate a presiding officer to chair the
meeting. The meeting will not be conducted as an evidentiary hearing,
and speakers will not be cross-examined. However, speakers may be asked
questions to ensure that DOE fully understands their comments or
suggestions. The presiding officer will establish the order of speakers
and any additional procedures necessary to conduct the meeting.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 30th day of March 2010.
James J. Markowsky,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-7723 Filed 4-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P