[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2096-2105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-480]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement for the
Proposed Abengoa Biorefinery Project Near Hugoton, Stevens County, KS
(DOE/EIS-0407)
AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) prepared
an environmental impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0407) to assess the
potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action of
providing Federal financial assistance to Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of
Kansas, LLC (Abengoa Bioenergy) to support the design, construction,
and startup of a commercial-scale integrated biorefinery to be located
near the city of Hugoton in Stevens County, southwestern Kansas (the
Project). The integrated biorefinery would use a combination of biomass
feedstocks, such as corn stover and wheat straw, to produce ethanol and
to generate sufficient electricity to power the facility and supply
excess electricity to the regional power grid. The Project site
comprises approximately 810 acres of row-cropped agricultural land. The
biorefinery facilities would be developed on 385 acres of the Project
site, and the remaining 425 acres would remain agricultural and act as
a buffer between the biorefinery and the city of Hugoton.
After careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts
and other factors such as program goals and objectives, DOE has decided
that it will provide Federal funding under Section 932 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) of up to $71 million (2009 dollars),
subject to annual appropriations, to Abengoa Bioenergy for the Project.
A separate decision will be made regarding a potential loan guarantee;
and if DOE decides to proceed to consider the loan guarantee, DOE would
consider using the Final Abengoa Biorefinery EIS to comply with NEPA
review requirements for the loan guarantee. If DOE determines that the
Final Biorefinery EIS sufficiently addresses all activities covered by
the loan guarantee, DOE could either issue a Record of Decision (ROD)
deciding to issue a loan guarantee, or amend this ROD.
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available on the DOE National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at: http://nepa.energy.gov/ and on the
Abengoa Biorefinery Project Web site at: http://www.biorefineryprojecteis-abengoa.com. This ROD also is available on
these Web sites. Copies of the Final EIS and this ROD may be obtained
from Ms. Kristin Kerwin, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, 1617 Cole
Blvd., Golden, CO 80401; telephone: 720-356-1564; or fax: 720-356-1650.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about
this Project, the EIS or the ROD, contact Ms. Kristin Kerwin 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
Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the
procedural provisions of NEPA [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Parts 1500-1508] and the DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). This
ROD is based in part on DOE's Final EIS for the Proposed Abengoa
Biorefinery Project (DOE/EIS-0407, August 2010).
Background
Under EPAct 2005, Congress directed DOE to carry out a program to
demonstrate the commercial application of integrated biorefineries for
the production of biofuels, in particular ethanol, from lignocellulosic
feedstocks. Federal funding for cellulosic ethanol production
facilities is intended to further the government's goal of rendering
ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012, and along with
increased automobile fuel efficiency, reducing gasoline consumption in
the United States by 20 percent within 10 years.
To implement its responsibilities under EPAct 2005, DOE issued a
funding opportunity announcement in February 2006 for the design,
construction, and startup of commercial-scale integrated biorefineries.
In February 2007, the Department selected Abengoa Bioenergy and five
other applicants for negotiation of award. Abengoa Bioenergy proposed
an innovative approach to biorefinery operations that would involve
production of biofuel and energy in the form of steam that could be
used to meet energy needs and displace fossil fuels, such as coal and
natural gas. The
[[Page 2097]]
proposal also included an integrated grain-to-ethanol facility.
In January 2009, Abengoa Bioenergy modified its proposal by
omitting the integrated grain-to-ethanol facility and including a
steam-driven turbine that would generate sufficient electricity to
power the production facility and supply excess electricity to the
regional power grid. In addition, Abengoa applied for a loan guarantee
from the Department's Loan Guarantee Program pursuant to Title XVII of
EPAct 2005, and from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural
Development Biorefinery Assistance Program pursuant to Section 9003 of
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The Department of
Agriculture Rural Development was a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EIS.
DOE considered Abengoa Bioenergy's proposed project changes and
concluded that the Project remained eligible for Federal funding under
Section 932 of EPAct 2005. On August 28, 2009, the Department
determined, however, that it would not proceed with Abengoa's request
for a DOE loan guarantee.
On December 22, 2009, after publication of the Draft Abengoa
Biorefinery Project EIS on September 23, 2009, Abengoa Bioenergy filed
a revised loan guarantee application, and in March 2010, the Department
determined that the proposed biorefinery was eligible for consideration
under Title XVII, Section 1703 of EPAct 2005, and requested that
Abengoa submit the Part II portion of its loan guarantee application.
Abengoa submitted the Part II application on May 14, 2010.
At this time, DOE is not proposing to issue a loan guarantee for
the construction and startup of the biorefinery. DOE is reviewing the
Part II submission and, pending the results of the Part II review, will
decide whether to initiate the due diligence, underwriting, and
negotiation phase of the loan guarantee process. If DOE initiates that
process with Abengoa, DOE's proposed action (that is, to issue a loan
guarantee) would be subject to NEPA review. If DOE decides to proceed
to consider the loan guarantee, DOE would consider using the Final
Biorefinery EIS to comply with NEPA review requirements for the loan
guarantee. If DOE determines that the Final Biorefinery EIS
sufficiently addresses all activities covered by the loan guarantee,
DOE could either issue a Record of Decision deciding to issue a loan
guarantee, or amend this Record of Decision.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development also
considered Abengoa's application for a loan guarantee and did not
approve it for funding in Fiscal Year 2009. Should Abengoa submit an
application for a loan guarantee in the future, Rural Development will
use DOE's Final Biorefinery EIS as part of its evaluation of project
eligibility and sufficiency.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
EPAct 2005, Section 932, directs the Secretary of Energy to conduct
a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application for bioenergy, including integrated biorefineries that can
produce biopower, biofuels, and bioproducts. In carrying out a program
to demonstrate the commercial application of integrated biorefineries,
EPAct 2005 authorizes the Secretary to provide funds to biorefinery
demonstration projects to encourage (1) the demonstration of a wide
variety of lignocellulosic feedstocks; (2) the commercial application
of biomass technologies for a variety of uses, including liquid
transportation fuels, high-value bio-based chemicals, substitutes for
petroleum-based feedstocks and products, and energy in the form of
electricity or useful heat; and (3) the demonstration of the collection
and treatment of a variety of biomass feedstocks. Accordingly, DOE
needs to implement Section 932 of EPAct 2005 and support advanced
biofuel production pursuant to the Renewable Fuel Standard established
by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). EISA
2007's Renewable Fuel Standard requires the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that transportation fuel sold or
introduced in the United States contain at least 36 billion gallons per
year of biofuels by 2022, and includes specific provisions for advanced
biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol and biomass-based diesel fuels.
Thus, DOE's purpose is to demonstrate that commercial-scale integrated
biorefineries that use a wide variety of lignocellulosic (second-
generation) feedstocks to produce biofuels, bio-based chemicals, and
biopower can operate without direct Federal subsidy after construction
costs are paid, and that these biorefineries can be easily replicated.
EIS Process
In August 2008, DOE published in the Federal Register its ``Notice
of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of
Wetlands Involvement for the Abengoa Biorefinery Project near Hugoton,
KS'' (73 FR 50001), starting a 45-day public scoping period during
which DOE held a public scoping meeting in Hugoton, Kansas. In April
2009, DOE re-opened public scoping and published in the Federal
Register its ``Amended Notice of Intent to Modify the Scope of the
Environmental Impact Statement for the Abengoa Biorefinery Project near
Hugoton, KS'' (74 FR 19543). The amended notice informed the public
about changes in the Project relevant to the scope of the ongoing EIS.
The Department conducted a 30-day public scoping period and held a
second public scoping meeting in Hugoton, Kansas. During these scoping
periods, the Department received oral and written comments of the
following three types: Expressions of support for the Project,
statements of no negative environmental impacts, and requests for
additional information from Federal and state agencies and members of
the public.
On September 23, 2009, DOE published in the Federal Register its
Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Abengoa Biorefinery Project Near Hugoton, Stevens County, KS (DOE/
EIS-0407D) (74 FR 48525). DOE's Notice of Availability invited the
public to comment on the Draft EIS during a 45-day public comment
period, and described how the public could submit oral and written
comments on the Draft EIS. DOE's Notice also announced a public
hearing, which DOE conducted in Hugoton, Kansas on October 21, 2009. On
September 25, 2009, EPA listed the Draft Abengoa Biorefinery Project
EIS in its weekly notice of availability (74 FR 48951).
The Department received approximately 40 comments from six
commenters during the public comment period. DOE prepared a comment-
response chapter for the Final Biorefinery EIS (Chapter 10), which
provides each comment and DOE's response. One commenter reiterated
comments submitted during public scoping, and another commenter
submitted suggestions regarding region-specific studies for corn stover
removal and runoff index scores for agricultural lands. One commenter
recommended that the proposed transmission line be designed to protect
migratory birds and raptors. A few commenters expressed concern about
landfill management of refinery waste. A couple of commenters expressed
support for the Project. One commenter submitted a number of comments
regarding the impacts of biomass harvest on soil sustainability,
potential impacts to groundwater, the timeframe for construction of the
grain-to-ethanol facility, the use of the latest
[[Page 2098]]
biorefinery design for the air quality analysis, the site selection
process, and the reliance on irrigated corn crops.
DOE issued the Final EIS and on August 20, 2010, EPA listed the
Final Abengoa Biorefinery Project EIS in its weekly notice of
availability (75 FR 51458). The Final EIS reflects changes resulting
from public comments, and, accordingly, the responses in the comment-
response chapter identify sections of the Final EIS to which changes
have been made. The Final EIS also reflects changes based on new and
updated information. Substantive changes in the Final EIS are indicated
by vertical change bars shown in the margins. DOE received one comment
on the Final EIS from EPA, Region VII. EPA stated that DOE had
adequately addressed the concerns expressed in EPA's comments on the
Draft EIS.
Proposed Action and Project Description
DOE's Proposed Action is to provide Federal funding of up to $71
million (2009 dollars), subject to annual appropriations, to Abengoa
Bioenergy to support the design, construction, and startup of the
biorefinery, whose total anticipated cost is approximately $685 million
(2009 dollars).
The biorefinery would be constructed on a 385-acre parcel near
Hugoton, Kansas. Abengoa Bioenergy has optioned an additional 425 acres
immediately east of the biorefinery parcel, between the biorefinery and
the Hugoton city limits, as a buffer area. The optioned parcel would
continue to be used as agricultural land, and might be used to test
production of biomass feedstocks.
The biomass-to-ethanol and -energy facility proposed by Abengoa
Bioenergy would use lignocellulosic biomass (biomass) as feedstock to
produce biofuels. Biomass, including corn stover, wheat straw, milo
stubble, mixed warm season grasses (such as switchgrass), and other
available materials, would be harvested as feedstock and fermented to
produce ethanol.
The biorefinery would also produce biopower, or bioenergy, in the
form of electricity. The bioenergy generation facilities co-located at
the site would use direct-firing (that is, using the biomass as a solid
fuel in a boiler) to produce steam. Steam produced in the biomass
boilers would be used for facility processes and to produce
electricity.
Under the Proposed Action, the biorefinery would process
approximately 2,500 dry short tons per day of feedstock, which would be
obtained from producers within 50 miles of the Biorefinery Project
site. The biorefinery would produce up to 19 million gallons of
denatured ethanol per year and 125 megawatts of electricity. Seventy-
five megawatts of electricity would be sold commercially.
Construction of the biorefinery would take approximately 18 months
and would require infrastructure improvements, such as construction of
site roads that would tie to Rural Road P, a 1.5-mile-long electrical
transmission line, and an approximately 0.5-mile railroad spur on the
Biorefinery Project site that would tie into the Cimarron Valley
Railroad. Temporary connections to utilities would include electricity,
cable, telephone, and a nonpotable water line. Temporary potable water
and sanitary facilities would be provided onsite until construction of
permanent, onsite facilities.
Harvested bales of biomass would be transported to a 10-acre onsite
storage yard or to one of seven offsite storage sites to be located
within 30 miles of the Biorefinery Project site. Each offsite storage
location would be about 160 acres and would have no permanent
structures. Combined, these sites would store enough biomass to support
biorefinery operations for up to 1 year. Bales of corn stover and other
biomass ready to be processed at the biorefinery would be transported
to a bale barn and sent by conveyor for grinding and cleaning. The
ground feedstock would then enter the production process or be stored
temporarily in silos onsite. In addition, wood waste would be used as
boiler fuel to generate electricity. Up to 1,000 tons per day would be
brought from various sources by rail and truck to the biorefinery.
The ethanol production process would involve the following steps:
(1) Enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation, (2) distillation and
dehydration, and (3) ethanol denaturization and storage. During
hydrolysis and fermentation, the feedstock would be treated with
enzymes and genetically modified organisms (enzymatic hydrolysis) to
simultaneously break down the cellulose and ferment the recovered
sugars. The resulting ``beer,'' which would be 4 to 5 percent ethanol
at that point, would then be distilled and dehydrated to remove water
and residual solids. Distillation would also destroy genetically
modified and other organisms.
The facility design incorporates two 45,200-gallon-capacity shift
tanks to hold the anhydrous ethanol produced during each 8-hour shift.
The storage tanks would be enclosed in a bermed area to contain spills.
Gasoline would be added to denature the ethanol and make it unfit for
human consumption prior to temporary storage and loading of the product
into tanker railcars for shipment.
Solids would be recovered from the distillation process.
Approximately 120,000 dry short tons of solids, referred to as lignin-
rich stillage cake, would be produced per year. The stillage cake would
be transferred by conveyor to an onsite third-party lignin producer.
After extracting the lignin, the lignin producer would return the
lignin-poor stillage cake to the biorefinery and Abengoa Bioenergy
would use it as fuel for the solid biomass boilers. Until a lignin
extraction facility is built, Abengoa would burn the lignin-rich
stillage cake as solid fuel in the biomass boilers. As an option,
Abengoa could use lignin-rich stillage cake as fuel for the solid
biomass boiler during the life of the biorefinery.
The biomass receiving, grinding, and storage operations would be an
enclosed system with a high-velocity, positive pressure collection
system to transfer airborne particles to a dirt loadout tank. The
loadout tank, grinding activities, and associated transfer points would
have fabric filter dust collectors (baghouses). Volatile organic matter
released during processing would be captured in a vent scrubber.
Approximately 1,900 dry short tons per day of biomass feedstock
would be supplied to the boilers. The biomass boilers would also burn
much of the waste resulting from ethanol production, including fines
collected during milling, stillage cake, and syrup from the
distillation process. These processes would produce approximately
127,000 tons of ash annually. This ash would contain potassium and
phosphorus and would be marketed to the contracted feedstock producers
as a soil amendment. If there is no market for the ash, it would be
sent to landfills.
Alternatives
In addition to the Proposed Action, the EIS analyzes an Action
Alternative and the No Action Alternative.
Action Alternative
Under the Action Alternative, DOE would provide Federal funding to
support the design, construction and startup of a biorefinery that
would use a two-stage process to produce fermentable sugars for
bioethanol production and that would produce syngas using a
gasification system. A syngas boiler as well as the biomass boilers
would produce steam. Steam would be used for ethanol production
[[Page 2099]]
processes and electricity production. Under the Action Alternative, the
biomass boilers and the turbines would be used to generate electricity
solely to operate the plant and would be smaller than those for the
Proposed Action.
The biorefinery would produce approximately 12 million gallons per
year of denatured ethanol, 19,000 short tons per year of lignin-rich
stillage cake, and 20 megawatts of electricity for use at the facility.
The milling process for the Proposed Action and Action Alternative
is the same. Once milled, the feedstock would be pretreated with dilute
acid to remove hemicellulose and pectin (the Proposed Action is a one
stage process and does not include two pretreatment stages as does the
Action Alternative). It is this pretreatment step and the subsequent
processing of the fractionated biomass where the two-stage process
differs from the one-stage process described in the Proposed Action.
After this pretreatment, two types of hydrolysate or pretreated biomass
would be processed in two separate steps. One type contains a
hydrolysate primarily consisting of hemicellulose and pectin, which
would be further saccharified to fermentable sugars; these simple
sugars would then be fermented to ethanol. The second type includes the
cellulose-rich, lignin-rich fiber hydrolysate, which would be further
processed with enzymes to produce simple sugars that would be
simultaneously fermented to ethanol. Each separate step produces beers
containing between 4 and 5 percent ethanol and both beers would be
conveyed to distillation operations for purification. Volatile organic
matter released during both of these processes would be captured in a
vent scrubber.
Approximately 71,000 dry short tons per year of soluble and
insoluble solids would be recovered from the bottom of the distillation
column. The soluble solids would be concentrated to a thin stillage
syrup in an evaporator and would be combusted in the biomass boilers.
About 130 dry short tons per day of insoluble, lignin-rich stillage
cake would be transferred to an onsite processing facility for
extraction of lignin. After the lignin was extracted, the lignin
producer would return the lignin-poor stillage cake to the biorefinery,
and Abengoa Bioenergy would use it as fuel for the solid biomass
boiler. Until a lignin extraction facility is built, Abengoa would burn
the lignin-rich stillage cake as solid fuel in the biomass boiler. If
recovery of lignin is not economically feasible, the lignin-rich
stillage cake would be used as fuel in the biomass boiler.Denaturing
the produced ethanol and loadout for the Proposed Action and Action
Alternative would be the same.
Syngas produced in the gasification plant under the Action
Alternative would be used to operate a fire-tube boiler to produce
steam. A small biomass solids boiler would also produce steam to power
the biorefinery process operations only. Steam would be used to operate
a small turbine that would produce 20 megawatts of power.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, DOE would not provide Federal
funding to Abengoa Bioenergy to support the design, construction, and
startup of a biorefinery. Abengoa would not build a biorefinery and the
biorefinery parcel would remain agricultural land. The Department
recognizes, however, that Abengoa could pursue alternative sources of
capital for development of the biorefinery.
Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts of
the Proposed Action, Action Alternative, and the No-Action Alternative
on potentially affected resource areas. These include: land use; air
quality; hydrology; biological resources; utilities, energy, and
materials; wastes, byproducts, and hazardous materials; transportation;
aesthetics; socioeconomics; cultural resources; health and safety; and
environmental justice. DOE also considered potential impacts on these
resources from accidents and acts of sabotage. No wetlands would be
filled and no floodplains would be affected. The EIS also considered
cumulative impacts, that is, impacts from the Project combined with
those from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions. The following sections discuss the potential impacts.
Land Use
Operation of the biorefinery would require approximately 880,000
dry short tons of lignocellulosic feedstock per year. Abengoa Bioenergy
anticipates that, at the start of operations, the primary feedstock
would be corn stover, with secondary feedstocks consisting of grain
sorghum stover, wheat straw, and mixed warm season grasses.
Approximately 20 percent of the total feedstock demand would consist of
corn stover for cellulosic ethanol production, with the remaining 80
percent consisting of any combination of feedstocks for bioenergy
production.
DOE conservatively estimates that the total annual demand for crop
residue by the biorefinery would equal about 60 percent of the targeted
crop residues that could be sustainably removed from the 50-mile region
surrounding the Biorefinery Project site. The demand for corn residue
for ethanol production would be about 20 percent of the amount that
could be sustainably removed from irrigated corn acreage. Thus,
production of targeted crop residues exceeds biorefinery demand and
Abengoa would have flexibility in feedstock procurement. DOE
anticipates the demand for crop residue by the biorefinery would have a
negligible impact on changes in land use type, including use of lands
in the Conservation Reserve Program, because there would be no
incentive to alter land use type for the purpose of meeting demand.
Over time, it is anticipated that mixed warm season grasses (such
as switchgrass) would replace corn residue as the primary feedstock for
producing ethanol resulting in (1) beneficial environmental impacts
where marginal cropland was converted, and (2) minimal environmental
changes where land use types such as nonharvested cropland, former
Conservation Reserve Program acreage, and pasture were converted. The
beneficial environmental impacts of converting marginal cropland to
mixed warm season grasses are related to establishment of a crop that
is resistant to many pests and plant diseases; uses relatively less
water, fertilizer, and pesticides; and establishes deep roots that
store carbon in the soil. Increased mixed warm season grasses
production would not be expected to result in an adverse impact to land
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.
Contracts between Abengoa Bioenergy and producers of biomass would
include a requirement that crop residues would be harvested in
accordance with U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines for
minimizing wind erosion. DOE concludes that, on a regional basis,
removing crop residue following these guidelines would have a
negligible adverse impact on soil organic matter content. On a field-
by-field basis, crop residue removal would have a negligible to minor
adverse impact on soil organic matter content. Any adverse impact to
soil organic matter content would be limited to land for which the
producer was compensated for residue removal.
Development of the biorefinery would result in the irreversible
conversion of 385 acres from agricultural to industrial use. The
Proposed Action is consistent with existing land use and zoning at the
[[Page 2100]]
Project site. The reduction in irrigated farmland associated with the
water rights Abengoa Bioenergy would transfer to industrial use at the
biorefinery would be a negligible change in regional irrigated
cropland.
Air Quality
Construction of the biorefinery would cause emissions from various
activities including use of heavy diesel-operated equipment,
disturbance of the soil, grading activities, material transport, and
material handling. These activities would be short term or intermittent
in nature and would only occur during the 18-month construction phase.
Best management practices would be employed to minimize these
emissions.
Concentrations of criteria pollutants estimated to be released
during operation of the biorefinery would be well below the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. The estimated concentrations from the
biorefinery, combined with ambient background concentrations of
pollutants in the region, are about 67 percent of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for 24-hour PM10, 12 percent for
nitrogen dioxide, and less than 10 percent of the standard for other
pollutants. DOE concludes that air emissions would not harm human
health and the environment.
The biorefinery also would be a source of greenhouse gases, with
carbon dioxide the most abundant. The boilers would be the main source
of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Biomass fermentation and distillation processes also would emit carbon
dioxide. The total emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents (used to
represent the contribution of all gases) from operation would be 3.61
million tons per year. According to the DOE Energy Information
Administration, the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 was
7,775 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, with 6,409 million
tons of the total from energy-related carbon dioxide. The projected
greenhouse gas emissions from the biorefinery would be 0.046 percent of
the total U.S. carbon dioxide equivalent value.
Although the biorefinery would be a source of greenhouse gas
emissions, operation of the biorefinery would provide a net reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions when considering the emissions produced
during the lifecycle of ethanol production and use relative to the
lifecycle of gasoline production and use. To determine the level of
greenhouse gas reduction from the Proposed Action, DOE used the
Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation
(GREET) Model, developed by DOE's Argonne National Laboratory. The
GREET Model examines ``well-to-wheel'' fuel lifecycles by considering
factors such as producing raw materials for fuels, refining the raw
materials into fuels, and using the fuel in vehicles.
The Abengoa Biorefinery Project would reduce greenhouse gas
emissions not only by producing a fuel that displaces gasoline, but
also by producing power that displaces electricity from other
electricity generating sources. The GREET Model combines these
reductions and other factors into a single metric to express the net
effect on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to a baseline
scenario in which the biorefinery is not built. Because the majority of
the electricity the biorefinery would produce would be exported rather
than used for biorefinery operations, the greenhouse gases displaced by
the biorefinery would be larger than the greenhouse gases emitted by
biorefinery operations, thus causing a decrease in greenhouse gas
emissions that exceeds 100 percent. As a comparison, if only enough
electricity was produced to run the biorefinery (none would be sold to
the grid), the percent reduction under the Proposed Action would be 69
percent as compared with the baseline where the biorefinery is not
built and passenger vehicles use 100 percent conventional or
reformulated gasoline.
Hydrology
Wastewater, petroleum products, and hazardous chemicals would be
generated by the biorefinery. Planned releases of wastewater would be
limited to the non-contact wastewater that would be used for irrigation
of the buffer area. Petroleum products and hazardous chemicals used
during construction and operations would be managed within secondary
containment on the site, and there are no surface waters in the nearby
area that would be affected by accidental releases.
Disturbed and built-up land areas would result in increased runoff;
this runoff would be directed to natural low areas within the
biorefinery parcel. Changes in infiltration would be minor and likely
would be limited to small changes in the exact locations where
infiltration would occur. Alterations to surface water drainage would
be limited to minor changes within the 385-acre parcel and possibly
within the buffer area. Natural low areas where runoff accumulates
would not be altered. The Department concludes the potential for
adverse impacts to surface waters from the Proposed Action is
negligible.
Construction of the biorefinery would require approximately 220
acre-feet of water, and operations would require about 2,900 acre-feet
of water per year. DOE estimates that an additional 46 acre-feet of
groundwater would be withdrawn per year by the city of Hugoton to meet
the domestic needs of biorefinery workers, bringing the total annual
estimated demand to support the biorefinery to approximately 2,950
acre-feet per year.
Abengoa Bioenergy has optioned existing irrigation water rights
from eight wells to meet the water demand for construction and
operation of the biorefinery under the Proposed Action. The maximum
permitted withdrawal associated with those water rights is about 7,240
acre-feet per year, and the total volume discharged from those wells in
2008 was about 4,380 acre-feet. Thus, use of those water rights for
operation of the biorefinery would result in a reduction of more than
4,290 acre-feet compared with the permitted annual volume, and a
reduction of more than 1,430 acre-feet compared with withdrawals during
2008. DOE concludes that operation of the biorefinery would result in a
beneficial decrease in groundwater withdrawals from the High Plains
aquifer.
Changes in cropping practices as a result of the Proposed Action
are not expected to occur. Further, increases in water withdrawals for
agricultural purposes in Kansas are limited by State water
appropriation regulations, although increases in Oklahoma and Colorado
may be allowed. Thus, DOE concludes that changes in water use in the
region resulting from changes in land use to meet the demand of the
biorefinery for biomass are not expected to occur.
Any spills of hazardous materials would be handled in accordance
with a spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan, which would
minimize or eliminate potential impacts to the groundwater quality from
construction and operation of the biorefinery.
Biological Resources
There are no Federal- or state-endangered and/or threatened
species, candidate species, or state species in need of conservation
present or within 1 mile of the Biorefinery Project site. DOE concludes
that construction and operation of the biorefinery would have no
impacts on threatened or endangered species or their designated
critical habitat.
[[Page 2101]]
To construct the biorefinery, the biorefinery parcel, which is
currently used for dry-land farming, would be converted to industrial
use. There would be some minor, short-term adverse impacts to
biological resources from the construction and some minor, long-term
adverse impacts from the operation of the biorefinery, but these
impacts would affect only common species on or within 1 mile of the
Biorefinery Project site. The analysis of potential changes in land use
resulting from the Proposed Action indicated that conversion of
Conservation Reserve Program lands to tilled cropland from the Proposed
Action is not expected, and other changes in land use would be minimal.
Thus, DOE does not expect the Proposed Action to impact biological
resources within the region surrounding the Project site.
Utilities, Energy, and Materials
Biorefinery workers and their families would rely on the city of
Hugoton water system, the city of Hugoton sewage system, and the
Stevens County landfill. The Hugoton water system also would supply
potable water for the biorefinery facilities. Anticipated demands are
well below the excess capacity of the City water system. The sewage
collection system in Hugoton has sufficient capacity to accommodate use
of the system by construction and operations workers and their
families. In addition, the Stevens County landfill has enough capacity
to handle the increase in solid waste during construction and
operations due to the influx of workers and their families living in
Hugoton.
The biorefinery would require no electric power from the regional
grid during operations. Rather, the biorefinery would supply 75
megawatts of electricity to the grid during normal operations, which
equals 5.8 percent of the production capacity in the western-central
region of Kansas, but only about 0.2 percent of current summer demand
in the Southwest Power Pool. The amount of natural gas and diesel fuel
required for normal operation of the biorefinery is approximately 0.1
and 0.05 percent, respectively, of the amounts of these fuels used in
Kansas and would not adversely impact their supply and distribution in
the region.
The Proposed Action would involve a commitment of building
materials. With the possible exception of stainless steel, these
materials would be available and their procurement would not decrease
availability to other users in regional markets. Components used in
stainless steel production (such as chromium and nickel) are in high
demand and, at times, affect availability of stainless steel. However,
the amount of stainless steel required for construction of the
biorefinery is a very small portion of the amount that moves through
the U.S. market annually.
Wastes, Byproducts, and Hazardous Materials
The wastes and byproducts the biorefinery would produce include
construction wastes, wastewater, solid biomass boiler ash, distiller's
residual biomass solids (stillage cake), stillage syrup, wastewater
treatment facility sludge, lignin, genetically modified organisms, dirt
and fines resulting from biomass processing, municipal solid waste, and
hazardous waste.
Solid biomass boiler ash and lignin are byproducts that could be
sold to consumers within the 50-mile region of influence. Abengoa
Bioenergy would burn stillage cake, dirt and fines from biomass
processing, and genetically modified organisms in the solid biomass
boilers as part of the Proposed Action. Domestic and process wastewater
would be treated in the onsite wastewater treatment facilities, and
treated process wastewater would be recycled in the ethanol production
process. Wastewater treatment facility sludge would be used in the
boiler fly ash pelletization process or burned in the solid biomass
boilers. Abengoa would use non-contact wastewater for crop irrigation
on the buffer area, and would treat, recycle, and/or dispose of boiler
bottom ash, municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, and construction
debris at permitted facilities within the region of influence.
The Stevens County landfill would not have adequate capacity to
receive the construction wastes generated and maintain its small arid
landfill exempt permit status (limited to 20 tons per day); revising
that permit would be expensive. The non-recycled construction waste
streams would be split among other permitted landfills and transfer
stations within 35 miles of the biorefinery without significantly
affecting their capacity. Less than 1 ton per day of municipal solid
waste would be generated during the expected 30-year operating life of
the biorefinery and would be sent to the Stevens County landfill. This
waste stream would be about a 3 percent increase to the landfill's
current waste stream and would reduce the life of the landfill by less
than 1 year.
The onsite wastewater treatment facility would treat all process
wastewater generated at the Biorefinery Project site and would not
discharge any to the Hugoton wastewater system. Wastewater treated
onsite would be reused in the ethanol production process. Wastewater
that would not be recycled and reused in the production process or
treated onsite (non-contact wastewater) would be produced at a rate of
370 gallons per minute and would be used to irrigate biomass crops on
the buffer area. This water would be conveyed to two 11.5-acre storage
ponds prior to application to the buffer area. Wastewater treatment
facility sludge would be used in the boiler fly ash pelletization
process or burned in the solid biomass boilers. Based on an agronomy
study, the chemical composition of the wastewater and the anticipated
stipulations of a required discharge permit, DOE does not anticipate
adverse impacts from the land application of wastewater, including odor
or aesthetic impacts. Abengoa Bioenergy would have to modify the
facility water balance and wastewater treatment facility design if
lignin was extracted from the stillage cake, thereby generating
additional wastewater.
Chemicals required for operation of the biorefinery would be
received by truck or rail and off-loaded and transferred by an enclosed
chemical delivery system to storage tanks, silos, or other chemical
storage facilities. Chemicals would have to be obtained from outside
the region. The demand for chemicals for the biorefinery would be an
insignificant percentage of the production in the United States.
The Project would generate 2,000 pounds per year of hazardous waste
(for example, spent solvents, waste ethanol, and caustics). Those
wastes would be collected and treated/disposed of by licensed hazardous
waste facilities. DOE does not anticipate adverse impacts from the
handling and disposal of hazardous wastes generated at the biorefinery
because Abengoa Bioenergy's proposed hazardous waste management
practices will be implemented.
Genetically modified organisms used in the enzymatic hydrolysis
process would be killed by a heat sterilization process and would be
contained in the beer column bottoms. The bottoms stream would be
dewatered and the residual solids sent to the solid biomass boiler for
burning.
The solid biomass boilers would generate up to 16 tons of bottom
ash per day. The bottom ash would be sent to the Seward County
landfill. Disposal of the bottom ash at this landfill over the life of
the biorefinery would reduce the life of permitted landfill space by
about 2.2 years. In addition, the solid biomass boilers would generate
up to 350 tons of fly ash per day. Abengoa Bioenergy plans to sell the
fly ash as a nutrient
[[Page 2102]]
replacement co-product to biomass producers in the region. If the ash
could not be sold or otherwise used in a beneficial manner, it would
require disposal at permitted solid waste disposal facilities. The
Stevens County landfill does not have adequate capacity to receive this
amount of ash without a permit modification, so this waste stream would
be split among permitted landfills and transfer stations within 35
miles of the biorefinery. However, impacts on existing permitted solid
waste disposal facilities could be problematic if a significant
percentage of the boiler fly ash was not marketable as a soil amendment
byproduct. The loss of land used for landfill disposal of solid wastes
generated during construction and operation of the biorefinery would be
an irreversible and irretrievable loss of resources.
Transportation
There would be approximately 32,000 truck shipments of materials
during construction, and about 80,000 to 116,000 truck and 1,300 to
6,600 rail shipments per year during the 30-year operating period of
the biorefinery. DOE estimates there would be 35 to 41 traffic
fatalities during the 30-year operations period due to these shipments
and the commuting of workers, the majority (32 to 38) of which would be
due to shipments of biomass, chemicals, denatured ethanol product, and
waste. For perspective, over the 30-year operations period, there would
be an estimated 13,400 traffic fatalities in Kansas and 820 traffic
fatalities in the nine counties surrounding the Project site.
DOE estimates that 1,075 rail carloads of denatured ethanol and
waste and 211 to 5,554 rail carloads of biomass and chemicals would be
shipped to and from the biorefinery per year of operation, which is
equivalent to about 49 to 241 additional trains per year. This would
result in an increase in the approximately 600 trains per year that
travel on the Cimarron Valley Railroad, but is less than the capacity
of 40 to 60 trains per day on that line. Thus, the additional rail
traffic for the Proposed Action would not adversely affect the
operations of the Cimarron Valley Railroad.
Increased truck traffic would result in increased pavement
deterioration. For biomass, chemical, and waste shipments associated
with the Proposed Action, DOE estimated the annual cost of this
pavement damage to range from $580,000 to $840,000.
Aesthetics
DOE considered the potential impacts of the Abengoa Biorefinery
Project on views in the area surrounding the Biorefinery Project site
and evaluated how noise and odor from the biorefinery could affect
residents in the area.
Visual Resources--The tallest structure at the biorefinery
considered under the Proposed Action would be approximately 115 feet,
but many of the other structures would be 40 feet tall or less. The
biorefinery would be visually similar to the grain storage silos and
elevators, chemical tanks, and other structures located adjacent to the
Biorefinery Project site and would be visible from surrounding vantage
points, such as the city of Hugoton and the Forewinds Golf Course. The
Proposed Action would require a new 1.5-mile-long transmission line
that would be visible from Road P and Road 11 near the Biorefinery
Project site, but would result in minimal visual impacts to viewers
from a distance.
The biorefinery would operate 24 hours a day, 350 days a year, and
thus would be a source of night lighting.
Noise--Workers would be exposed to noise during construction from
construction equipment and trucks traveling to and from the biorefinery
construction site. Workers would also be exposed to noise from
equipment and biorefinery processes during operations. Best management
practices would be employed to limit noise, and a hearing conservation
program would be implemented; therefore, permissible noise exposure
levels are not expected to be exceeded.
The nearest residence to the Biorefinery Project site,
approximately 0.6 mile away, may experience some annoyance from
construction noise. The noise level at that distance would be
approximately 56 decibels which is approximately the same noise level
as a normal conversation.
In addition to being temporary, EPA states that this noise level
should not interfere with daily activities such as conversation,
working, or recreation. As such, the impact would be small. At 0.6
mile, noise from wood hog operations could be distinguishable from
other background sources of noise. Noise from biorefinery operations
would attenuate to below background levels beyond 0.6 mile. Therefore,
except for the residence at the northwest property boundary, DOE does
not anticipate impacts to members of the public from construction or
operation of the biorefinery due to noise.
During construction, there would be about 70 truck shipments to the
biorefinery site per day, or about one truck arriving every 12 minutes
(assuming all traffic occurs from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.). During operations,
202 trucks per day are expected (one truck every 4 minutes). The routes
taken by those trucks through and around Hugoton would vary, but it is
anticipated that at least 50 percent of the traffic (one truck every 8
minutes during operations) would use the truck bypass and affect two
residences along Road Q. Along a route that passes the Stevens County
Hospital, several schools, and places of worship, trucks are
anticipated to pass at a rate of one every 21 minutes during
operations. Noise from these passing trucks would frequently interfere
with outdoor conversations and cause annoyance indoors. Rail traffic
would increase by about 255 trains per year. Most of the rail shipments
would carry wood waste and are expected to occur on weekdays during
normal working daylight hours.
Odor--Odors may result from emissions of volatile organic
compounds, including ethanol, and hazardous air pollutants, and from
nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Engineered controls implemented to
minimize these emissions would reduce odors from the biorefinery. Air
dispersion modeling indicates that no odorous compounds would be
detected at the biorefinery parcel fence line or offsite locations
where the public would commonly be located. Therefore, DOE anticipates
no impacts to the public from the release of odorous compounds.
Socioeconomics
DOE evaluated the potential impacts of construction and operation
of the biorefinery on socioeconomic variables, including population and
housing, employment and income, taxes, and public services, in Stevens
County and the three surrounding counties; that is, Morton and Seward
counties in Kansas and Texas County in Oklahoma.
The Proposed Action would require 256 workers at the peak of
construction. About 190 of those positions likely would be filled by
people who would migrate into the four-county region, which would
result in a temporary increase in the population in the region of less
than 1 percent and would have little impact on the availability or cost
of housing or on public services. In addition to the jobs directly
associated with the construction of the biorefinery, 88 indirect jobs
are expected to be created during the peak period of construction. DOE
estimates that during construction, there would be about 110 additional
students enrolled in local school districts. This represents a 1.0
[[Page 2103]]
percent increase in enrollment in the region. During the 12-month
period of the most-intense construction activity, the region could
experience an approximately $17-million infusion of earnings, which
equals about 1 percent of the 2006 per capita income in the region.
The anticipated life of the biorefinery is 30 years, during which
it would employ 43 people. This would result in a regional increase in
the local population of less than 0.1 percent, and would have little or
no impact on housing, public services, or educational services. During
operations, the region would experience an annual $4.4 million infusion
in earnings. In addition, 23 indirect jobs are expected to be created
during the operations phase.
Cultural Resources
No properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places
are within or on properties adjoining the Biorefinery Project site.
Based on DOE review of published information, coordination with the
State Historic Preservation Officer, and the results of a Phase I/II
investigation of a 160-acre portion (areas investigated were
coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer) of the
Project site, construction and operation of the biorefinery would not
result in adverse impacts to State-preserved or National Historic
Register sites, sites of prehistoric or early historic occupation, or
historic resources of local significance. When selected, offsite
biomass storage locations will be evaluated for cultural resources in
coordination with the Kansas State Historical Preservation Office to
ensure no adverse impacts.
Health and Safety
DOE estimated health and safety impacts to workers from industrial
hazards using incidence rates for 2007 for both nonfatal occupational
injuries and occupational fatalities from the U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Members of the public would not be located
within the Biorefinery Project site and would not be affected by
industrial hazards at the biorefinery.
The potential for adverse impacts to health and safety from the
Proposed Action would be very minor. During construction, the
industrial health and safety impacts to workers are estimated to be 14
total recordable cases (that is, work-related deaths, illnesses, or
injuries that result in the loss of consciousness, days away from work
restricted work activity or job transfer, or required medical treatment
beyond first aid), 7 days away from work, and 0.026 fatality. During
operations, the total annual industrial health and safety impacts to
workers from all operations at the biorefinery (such as, ethanol
manufacturing, milling and grinding operations, and electric power
generation) are estimated to be 2.7 total recordable cases, 0.94 day
away from work, and 0.0014 fatality. Based on these results, DOE
concludes that a fatality would be unlikely. No adverse health impacts
to members of the public from air emissions under normal operations are
anticipated.
Facility Accidents and Sabotage
Based on the operational history of existing ethanol plants, DOE
concludes that the hazards of ethanol production to members of the
public are minor, and that accidents during biorefinery operations are
not likely to result in permanent health effects to offsite members of
the public. In some accident scenarios, such as the failure of an
ethanol or gasoline storage tank, workers could be injured or killed
depending on the location of the worker at the time of the event.
DOE considered the most hazardous intentional destructive act to be
the deliberate destruction of a toxic chemical storage tank. The
consequences of such an act would be similar to the accidental failure
of a toxic chemical tank and would be limited to injury and, in
unlikely circumstances, death to nearby workers.
Environmental Justice
No impacts to communities with high percentages of minority or low-
income populations were identified that would exceed those identified
for the general population. In addition, during the scoping process,
DOE identified no unique exposure pathways, sensitivities, or cultural
practices that would result in different impacts on minority or low-
income populations. Disproportionately high and adverse impacts would
be unlikely as a result of the Proposed Action.
Potential Impacts of the Action Alternative
Under the Action Alternative, the environmental impacts would be
similar to those of the Proposed Action. For most resource and subject
areas, there are no or minor differences between those alternatives.
Differences exist between the alternatives for the following resource
and subject areas.
Air Quality--The Proposed Action would result in a greater
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (340 percent) than the Action
Alternative (39 percent) by producing more fuel with biomass-derived
ethanol and producing more electricity from biomass.
Utilities--The Proposed Action would produce and sell electricity
in excess of that required to operate the biorefinery equal to about 5
percent of the production capacity in west-central Kansas. The Action
Alternative would produce less electricity and would require electrical
power from the regional grid to operate the biorefinery equal to about
1 percent of the combined production capacity of two suppliers in the
region.
Transportation--The Proposed Action would require substantially
more truck shipments than the Action Alternative during operations;
thus, the number of traffic accidents and amount of road damage would
be proportionally greater under the Proposed Action.
Noise--For operations, because there would be more truck shipments
for the Proposed Action, local residents would experience noise from
truck shipments more frequently under the Proposed Action than under
the Action Alternative.
Socioeconomics--Approximately 10 percent more workers would be
employed at the biorefinery under the Proposed Action, and more
earnings would be infused in the local economy.
Under the Action Alternative, the biorefinery would produce 33
percent less ethanol [12 million gallons (45 million liters)] and 80
percent less biopower (20 megawatts) than under the Proposed Action. In
addition, less salable byproducts, such as lignin and lignin-rich
stillage cake, would be produced under the Action Alternative.
Potential Impacts of the No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, none of the adverse impacts
identified above for the two action alternatives (for example,
emissions of air pollutants, use of land for disposal of solid wastes,
increase in truck traffic, and associated increase in accidents and
noise) or beneficial impacts (for example, increased employment,
decrease in groundwater use, and increase in the electrical production
capacity for the region) would occur. Further, the benefits that would
be gained from the development, demonstration, and commercial operation
of an integrated biorefinery that uses lignocellulosic feedstocks would
not be realized. In addition, no benefits would be realized from the
development of a renewable energy system that would reduce air
pollutants and sequester emissions of greenhouse gases. For example,
the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions estimated to occur if the
Proposed
[[Page 2104]]
Action were implemented would not be realized with the continued use of
gasoline instead of biofuel and no generation of biopower.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The Proposed Action and Action Alternative would result in both
beneficial and adverse potential environmental impacts (summarized
above and in Table 2-2 of the EIS). Potential beneficial impacts
include those associated with reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
and a decrease in water withdrawals; adverse impacts include those
associated with a substantial increase in transportation activity and
minor impacts from air emissions. On balance, DOE regards the No-Action
Alternative, which would result in no change in existing environmental
conditions, as the environmentally preferred alternative.
Decision
DOE has decided to implement the Proposed Action to provide Federal
funding of up to $71 million (2009 dollars), subject to annual
appropriations, to Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas, LLC (Abengoa
Bioenergy) to support the design, construction, and startup of the
Abengoa Biorefinery Project. DOE has also decided to adopt the
mitigation measures discussed in the Final Abengoa Biorefinery EIS and
summarized below under ``Mitigation''.
Basis of Decision
DOE's decision is based on the importance of achieving the
objectives of the EPAct 2005 and careful review of the potential
environmental impacts presented in the Final Biorefinery EIS. This
Project will support advanced biofuel production pursuant to the
Renewable Fuel Standard established by EISA 2007, which requires EPA to
ensure that transportation fuel sold or introduced into commerce in the
United States contain at least 36 billion gallons per year of biofuels
by 2022. It provides an opportunity to demonstrate that commercial-
scale integrated biorefineries that use a wide variety of
lignocellulosic (second-generation) feedstocks to produce biofuels and
biopower can operate without direct Federal subsidy after construction
costs are paid, and that these biorefineries can be easily replicated.
The Project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only by
producing a fuel that displaces gasoline, but also by producing power
that displaces electricity from other electricity generating sources.
In addition, this Project would have economic benefits in the region.
The Project would require 256 workers at the peak of construction and
during the 12-month period of the most-intense construction activity,
the region could experience an approximately $17-million infusion of
earnings. Over the anticipated life of the biorefinery of 30 years, it
would employ 43 people and the region would experience an annual $4.4
million infusion in earnings.
To meet the mandates of the EPAct 2005 and other governing
policies, it is in the best interest of DOE to select and fund the most
technologically and economically viable alternative. Production of more
ethanol and production of biopower would make the Proposed Action a
more economically viable alternative than the Action Alternative. The
Proposed Action, therefore, better meets the direction of Section
932(d)(2) of EPAct 2005, which directs the Secretary of Energy to
select only proposals that ``demonstrate that the project will be able
to operate profitably without direct Federal subsidy after initial
construction costs are paid.'' In addition, the Proposed Action more
fully supports the intent of the Section 932(d)(1) of EPAct 2005 to
encourage the commercial application of biomass technologies for a
variety of uses, including high-value bio-based chemicals and energy in
the form of electricity and useful heat. For these reasons, DOE
determined the Proposed Action more fully meets its purpose and need,
and has decided to implement the Proposed Action.
This decision incorporates all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. DOE plans to review annual monitoring
reports to assess the environmental impacts predicted in the EIS and
the implementation of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.
Mitigation
DOE's decision incorporates best management practices and
additional measures to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts
during the design, construction, and operation of the Project. DOE will
require Abengoa Biorefinery to implement the best management practices
outlined in Chapter 6, Section 6.1, of the Final Biorefinery EIS, for
the following resource areas: land use; air quality; geology and soils;
surface water; groundwater; biological resources; utilities, energy,
and materials; wastes and hazardous materials; visual resources; noise;
odor; cultural resources; and health and safety.
DOE regards mitigation measures as activities or actions that would
be above and beyond (in addition to) best management practices. DOE
requires that the participants comply with all applicable Federal,
state, and local environmental laws, orders, and regulations.
Mitigation measures beyond those specified in permit conditions will be
addressed in a mitigation action plan (MAP) that DOE will prepare
pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.331. The MAP will explain how the mitigation
measures will be planned, implemented, and monitored and is an adaptive
management tool. Mitigation conditions in it will be removed if
equivalent conditions are otherwise established by permit, license, or
law, as compliance with permit, license or regulatory requirements are
not considered mitigation activities subject to DOE control and are
therefore not included in MAPs.
DOE will ensure that commitments in the ROD are incorporated into
DOE's Cooperative Agreement with Abengoa Bioenergy. The MAP and annual
monitoring reports will be available on the DOE NEPA Web site (http://www.nepa.energy.gov) and the DOE Golden Field Office Web site (http://www.eere.energy.gov/golden/Reading_Room.aspx). DOE will make copies of
the MAP available for inspection in appropriate locations (e.g., local
library or DOE reading rooms) for a reasonable time. The Department
also will provide copies of the MAP and annual reports upon request.
In the Final EIS, DOE stated that mitigation measures for the
following resource areas were being considered: air quality, biological
resources, visual resources, odor, socioeconomics, wastes and hazardous
materials, and transportation. Upon consideration of the findings
presented in the Final EIS, DOE has determined that no mitigation is
required for air quality, odor, or socioeconomic impacts. The required
implementation of air quality best management practices presented in
Section 6.1 will adequately minimize impacts and therefore no
additional mitigation is required. While the EIS concludes that odor
may result from emissions of volatile organic compounds, it also
concludes, based on air dispersion modeling, that there are no
anticipated impacts to the public from the release of odorous compounds
and therefore no mitigation is required. The EIS concludes that the
impacts to community services would be temporary and not likely to
place an undue demand on community services, and therefore no
mitigation is required.
Biological Resources Mitigation. While the EIS concludes that DOE
does not expect the Proposed Action to
[[Page 2105]]
impact biological resources (including threatened and endangered
species) within the region or the Project site, DOE acknowledges that
the new transmission line should be designed to minimize impacts to
raptors and migratory birds. At this time it is uncertain whether
Abengoa or Pioneer Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Pioneer Electric) will
be responsible for the design and construction of the new transmission
line, or if an existing transmission line will be upgraded by Pioneer
Electric to serve the biorefinery. If Abengoa is responsible for the
design and construction of the transmission line, DOE will require that
the line be designed and constructed to minimize the risk of
electrocution to raptors and migratory birds. If Pioneer Electric is
responsible for the design and construction of the new transmission
line or the upgrade of the existing line, DOE will have no authority to
impose mitigation measures. However, a transmission line constructed or
upgraded by Pioneer Electric would be subject to additional NEPA review
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (RUS).
Further, Pioneer Electric would follow RUS standards for design and
construction of transmission lines, which include consideration of
raptors and migratory birds.
Visual Resources Mitigation. The buffer area will only be used for
agricultural activities, thereby maintaining the current visual status
of this area. To minimize visual impacts from nighttime light, the
biorefinery will have the minimum amount of downward-facing or
directional lighting necessary for safe operation.
Wastes and Hazardous Materials Mitigation. Abengoa will develop and
implement a waste management plan for construction and operation of the
biorefinery. Abengoa will also develop and implement a contingency plan
for alternative beneficial uses of the solid biomass boiler fly ash in
the event that the waste management plan is not effective.
Transportation Mitigation. To the extent practicable, Abengoa will
stagger workforce schedules to minimize traffic delays and congestion.
Abengoa will develop safety-based criteria to be used, in part, to
select carriers, including elements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration regulations, as well as provisions for drivers to be
paid hourly and receive bonuses for accident-free driving, mandatory
safety training, and avoidance of teen-age drivers and drivers having
less than 5-years experience. Abengoa will require carriers and drivers
to meet the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations. In
addition, to the extent practicable, Abengoa will maximize the use of
rail shipments to and from the Project site and will ensure the onsite
rail system does not block railroad crossings near the site.
Issued in Washington, DC, on the 15th day of December 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department
of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011-480 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P