[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35174-35185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17156]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision, FutureGen Project

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0394) to assess the potential

[[Page 35175]]

environmental impacts associated with the proposed action of providing 
Federal financial assistance to the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc. 
(Alliance) for the FutureGen Project. The Alliance, which is a non-
profit industrial consortium led by the coal-fueled electric power 
industry and the coal production industry, intends to plan, design, 
construct and operate a coal-fueled electric power plant that will be 
integrated with capture and geologic sequestration of the by-product 
carbon dioxide (CO2). Based on DOE's review and 
consideration of relevant factors, including potential environmental 
consequences associated with the proposed Project at four alternative 
sites, and subject to future technical, cost, business and 
environmental decision points, DOE has decided to proceed with 
financial assistance for the FutureGen Project. All practicable means 
to avoid or minimize environmental harms have been adopted.
    During June 2008, DOE discontinued support for the Project allowing 
its cooperative agreement with the Alliance to expire without 
continuation or renewal. More recently, DOE reassessed that decision 
and reached an agreement with the Alliance to complete a preliminary 
design, a revised cost estimate and a funding plan pursuant to a new 
eight- to ten-month limited-scope cooperative agreement valued at 
approximately $17.5 million. Prior to the expiration of this 
cooperative agreement, DOE and the Alliance will make a mutual decision 
on whether to move forward into the subsequent phases.
    Federal financial assistance for the subsequent phases (i.e., 
detailed design, construction and operations) would occur under the 
terms of a new full-scope cooperative agreement to be negotiated 
between DOE and the Alliance sometime during early 2010. As of early 
2007, the project cost estimate was approximately $1.7 billion (in as 
spent dollars), based on a conceptual design and generic cost data. DOE 
and the Alliance recognize that the costs may be as much as $700 
million higher and will use the new limited-scope cooperative agreement 
to explore cost reduction options and refine the estimate. If the 
Project continues, DOE anticipates committing $1 billion in funds under 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5) plus 
remaining funds from prior year annual appropriations. The balance of 
project funding is expected to come from (1) the Alliance ($400 to 600 
million), (2) revenues from sales of electricity, and (3) other funding 
sources to be identified in the project funding plan.
    The FutureGen Project includes the planning, design, construction 
and operation by the Alliance of a coal-fueled electric power plant 
that features sub-systems for capture and geologic sequestration of the 
by-product carbon dioxide (CO2) fully integrated into the 
power generation system. Electricity will be generated using an 
integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) system sized for a 
nominal 275-megawatt (MW) output. The plant will be designed for at 
least 90 percent CO2 capture but may be operated in the 
early years at 60 percent capture to validate plant integration and 
sequestration capability before increasing the capture rate to 90 
percent by the third year of operation. The plant will compress the 
captured CO2 and pipe the captured CO2 to one or 
more injection wells, where the CO2 will be injected into 
saline reservoirs located thousands of feet beneath the land surface. 
The plant will also be designed to reduce air emissions of nitrogen 
oxides, sulfur oxides, mercury, and particulates to very low levels. 
The Project will include an option for a research platform to support 
development of technologies for future power plants that capture and 
sequester CO2.
    DOE considered four sites as reasonable alternatives: (1) Mattoon, 
Illinois; (2) Tuscola, Illinois; (3) Jewett, Texas; and (4) Odessa, 
Texas. After careful consideration of the potential environmental 
impacts of the proposed project at each of the four alternative sites, 
along with consideration of program goals and objectives in accordance 
with its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), DOE has decided to provide financial assistance to the Alliance 
to implement the FutureGen Project at any one of the four alternative 
sites. In addition, DOE considered potential mitigation opportunities 
in the EIS, and several mitigation requirements are specified in this 
Record of Decision (ROD). Floodplain and wetland environmental review 
requirements (10 CFR Part 1022) were incorporated into the EIS and NEPA 
process. This ROD briefly describes mitigation steps to be taken.
    DOE issued the Final EIS on November 9, 2007, and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Notice of Availability of the 
EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 
64619 (2007)). The cooperative agreement in effect at that time gave 
the Alliance the right to select the site after DOE issued a ROD. The 
Alliance announced their preference for the Mattoon site in December 
2007. Therefore, DOE acknowledges that the Alliance intends to formally 
select Mattoon after issuance of this ROD. Since December 2007, the 
Alliance has acquired property at the Mattoon site (without using 
Federal funds) and has continued to conduct preliminary design work.

ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at: 
http://www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/final-EIS-0394.htm and on the DOE 
National Energy Technology Laboratory Web site at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/futuregen/EIS. This ROD also is 
available on the same Web sites. Copies of the Final EIS and this ROD 
may be obtained from Mr. Mark L. McKoy, Environmental Manager, U.S. 
Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 
880, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880, ATTN: FutureGen Project EIS; telephone: 
304-285-4426; toll-free number: 1-800-432-8330 (ext 4426); fax: 304-
285-4403; or e-mail: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about 
this project, the EIS or the ROD, contact Mr. Mark. L. McKoy by the 
means specified above under ADDRESSES. For general information on the 
DOE NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of 
NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone: 202-586-
4600; fax: 202-586-7031; or leave a toll-free message at: 1-800-472-
2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared this ROD pursuant to Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of NEPA [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500--
1508] and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). This ROD is based in 
part on DOE's Final EIS for the FutureGen Project (DOE/EIS-0394, 
November 2007).

Background

    On February 27, 2003, then President Bush announced that the United 
States would undertake a large-scale research project to build the 
world's first coal-fueled power plant to produce electricity and 
hydrogen gas (H2) with near-zero emissions, including 
CO2. In response to this announcement, DOE developed plans 
for the FutureGen Project, which was intended to establish the 
technical and economic feasibility of producing electricity and 
H2 from coal--a low-cost and abundant energy

[[Page 35176]]

resource--while capturing and geologically storing the CO2 
generated in the process.
    On April 21, 2003, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Request 
for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register seeking public comment in 
the form of expressions of interest from prospective consortia. 
FutureGen is anticipated to be a complex undertaking; therefore, DOE 
believes project success is best achieved through a collaboration of 
the industries most heavily impacted by potential future limitations on 
carbon emissions. Thus, DOE outlined a plan to enter into a 
noncompetitive cooperative agreement with a consortium led by the coal-
fueled electric power industry and the coal production industry. In 
response to the RFI, the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc. was 
proposed to represent the industry collaboration, and on July 27, 2005, 
the Alliance was incorporated. A limited-scope cooperative agreement 
was signed by DOE and the Alliance on December 2, 2005 to initiate the 
Project with a project definition phase that yielded a conceptual 
design report and project plans. This phase also led to the signing of 
a full-scope cooperative agreement on March 23, 2007 that was intended 
to establish the remainder of the Project.
    On June 15, 2008, in response to DOE's concerns about escalating 
costs, DOE allowed the cooperative agreement to expire without 
continuation or renewal. During February 2009, the General Accounting 
Office issued a report (GAO-09-248), which concluded that DOE's 
decision to restructure the FutureGen Project should be based on a 
comprehensive analysis of costs, benefits and risks. Subsequently, the 
Department reassessed the Project and determined that additional 
information is required for DOE and the Alliance to make an informed 
decision on whether to continue the Project to completion. In a June 
12, 2009 press release, Secretary Chu announced an agreement for the 
Alliance to begin performance of the following activities:
     Rapid restart of preliminary design activities.
     Completion of a site-specific preliminary design and up-
dated cost estimate.
     Expansion of the Alliance sponsorship group.
     Development of a complete funding plan.
     Potential additional subsurface characterization.
    These activities would occur pursuant to a new eight- to ten-month 
limited-scope cooperative agreement valued at approximately $17.5 
million. Prior to the expiration of this cooperative agreement and 
based on the new information (preliminary design, revised cost 
estimate, and funding plan, anticipated early in 2010), DOE and the 
Alliance will make a mutual decision on whether to move forward. The 
preferred outcome is a mutual decision to move forward and to establish 
a full-scope cooperative agreement for the detailed design, 
construction and operation of the Project, subject to additional NEPA 
review as appropriate.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    The purpose of the agency action is to implement the FutureGen 
Initiative, and support the Nation's climate change mitigation strategy 
through the application of technologies currently feasible for carbon 
capture and storage (CCS) and large-scale production of H2. 
The Federal action is to fund the construction and operation of the 
cleanest coal-fueled power plant system in the world for producing 
electricity from H2. As the Nation's most abundant fossil 
fuel, coal is expected to have an important role in the Nation's energy 
future. However, fossil fuel combustion has been identified as a major 
source of CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere. 
Electric power generation contributes 40 percent of all CO2 
emissions in the U.S. In 2006, 82 percent of all electricity 
production-related CO2 emissions resulted from the burning 
of coal.

EIS Process

    On February 26, 2006, DOE published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
8283) an Advance Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. Subsequently, on 
July 28, 2006, DOE published a Notice of Intent to prepare the 
FutureGen EIS and to hold public scoping meetings (71 FR 42840). DOE 
held a public scoping meeting near each of the four alternative sites 
during the public scoping period, which ended September 13, 2006. DOE 
addressed scoping comments in the Draft EIS.
    On June 1, 2007, DOE published in the Federal Register (72 FR 
30572) a Notice of Availability and an announcement of public hearings 
for the Draft EIS. The four public hearings also were announced in 
local newspapers. One public hearing was held near each of the four 
alternative sites. Comments were solicited at the public hearings and 
throughout the public comment period, which ended July 16, 2007. 
Comments on the Draft EIS included statements of support as well as 
concerns about public health and safety, aesthetics, noise, air 
emissions and air quality, water consumption and protection (surface 
water and groundwater), monitoring methods and permanence of geologic 
storage, co-sequestration of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), 
employment, impacts on farming, disposal of wastes, public outreach, 
technology development, and promotion of alternate sources of energy. 
In the Final EIS, DOE considered and, as appropriate, responded to 
public comments on the Draft EIS. DOE issued the Final EIS during 
November 2007, and the Environmental Protection Agency published a 
Notice of Availability for the Final EIS in the Federal Register on 
November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64619). On December 18, 2007, the Alliance 
announced its intention to select the Mattoon site, pending the 
issuance of DOE's Record of Decision. Under the terms of the 
cooperative agreement in effect at that time, the Alliance would select 
the FutureGen site from among the sites found to be acceptable by DOE, 
as published in the ROD. Since December 2007, the Alliance has acquired 
property at the Mattoon site (without using Federal funds) and has 
continued to conduct preliminary design work.

Proposed Action and Project Description

    The Proposed Action is for DOE to provide financial assistance to 
the Alliance for the FutureGen Project. Under the terms of a new $17.5 
million limited-scope cooperative agreement, DOE and the Alliance will 
complete a preliminary design, a revised cost estimate and a funding 
plan for the FutureGen Project. Based on these work products, DOE and 
the Alliance will mutually decide prior to the expiration of this 
agreement whether to move forward into subsequent phases.
    In an effort to reduce costs, improve plant reliability, and 
generate revenue from sales of electricity, DOE and the Alliance will 
consider several design and operational features not presented in the 
Final EIS, including the following specific features:
     Design the facility for at least 90 percent CO2 
capture but operate in the early years at 60 percent capture to 
validate plant integration and sequestration capability before 
increasing the capture rate to 90 percent by the third year of 
operation.
     Design the combined-cycle power generation portion of the 
facility so that it may be operated on natural gas during the period 
when the gasification plant is under construction, and thereafter if 
syngas is not available.
     Design the facility so that it is optimized for a single 
coal type, which may decrease capital costs of the facility.

[[Page 35177]]

    As explained herein (see sections on ``Air Quality'' and ``Climate 
and Meteorology''), DOE believes incorporation of these features into 
the Project does not significantly change the environmental impacts of 
the project as presented in the Final EIS.
    If DOE and the Alliance mutually decide in early 2010 to move 
forward with the remainder of the Project, DOE would share costs in the 
planning, design, construction, and operation of the Project, as 
specified in a follow-on full-scope cooperative agreement. The Alliance 
is a non-profit corporation that represents a global coalition of coal 
and energy companies that would share in the Project costs.
    As of early 2007, the Project cost estimate was approximately $1.7 
billion (in as spent dollars), based on a conceptual design and generic 
cost data. DOE and the Alliance recognize that the costs may be as much 
as $700 million higher and will use the new limited-scope cooperative 
agreement to explore cost reduction options and refine the estimate. If 
the Project continues, DOE anticipates committing $1 billion in funds 
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-
5) plus remaining funds from prior year annual appropriations. The 
remainder of project funding is expected to come from (1) the Alliance 
($400 to 600 million), (2) revenues from sales of electricity, and (3) 
other funding sources to be identified in the project funding plan.
    The FutureGen Project will be a low-emissions coal-fueled power 
plant supporting cutting-edge research to develop promising new energy-
related technologies on a commercial scale. Low carbon emissions will 
be achieved by integrating CO2 capture and sequestration 
operations with the power generation system. Performance and economic 
test results from the FutureGen Project will be shared among the 
participants, the industry, the environmental community, and the 
public.
    The power plant will be a nominal 275-megawatt (MW) output IGCC 
system. Geologic storage of CO2 is planned to occur at an 
operational rate of at least 1.1 million tons [1 million metric tons 
(MMT)] of CO2 per year. The following are major components 
of the FutureGen Project: A power plant and plant infrastructure; a 
sequestration site for one or more CO2 injection wells and 
related infrastructure; a deep saline reservoir (an underground 
geologic formation whose pore space contains salt water); utility 
connections and corridors (water supply pipeline, sanitary wastewater 
pipeline, electricity transmission line, natural gas pipeline, and 
CO2 pipeline); and rail and truck transportation of coal and 
other materials consumed or generated by the power plant.
    Construction is anticipated to begin in 2011, with initial startup 
of the facility in 2014. DOE-sponsored activities will include design, 
construction and four years of plant operation, testing, and research, 
followed by two years of additional geologic monitoring of the 
sequestered CO2. After DOE-sponsored activities conclude, 
the Alliance or its successor will manage and operate the plant, likely 
as a commercial venture. DOE expects the plant will operate for at 
least 20 to 30 years, and potentially up to 50 years.
    As preliminary design for the FutureGen Project continues and more 
information regarding the site and costs becomes available, it may 
become necessary to modify the design and/or goals of the Project. 
Changes made to the Project and additional information about the 
selected site will be examined in a Supplement Analysis, which DOE will 
use to determine if a Supplemental EIS is warranted.

Site Alternatives

    DOE analyzed four reasonable alternative sites for the FutureGen 
Project. These sites were identified by the Alliance through a rigorous 
competitive solicitation and screening process. DOE reviewed the 
Alliance's process and findings to ensure that all reasonable 
alternatives were considered for analysis in the EIS.
    As noted above, the Alliance has stated its intention to formally 
select the Mattoon site, pending the issuance of DOE's Record of 
Decision. The following paragraphs briefly describe each alternative 
site, as conditions existed at the time the EIS was prepared.
    Mattoon, Illinois. The Mattoon Site consists of approximately 444 
acres of flat-lying farmland about 1 mile northwest of the City of 
Mattoon, Coles County, Illinois. The power plant and sequestration site 
would be located in the same area. Currently, the site is 93 percent 
farmland and 3 percent public rights-of-way (ROW), with the remainder 
being rural residential development and woodlands.
    Tuscola, Illinois. The Tuscola Site consists of approximately 345 
acres of flat-lying farmland about 1.5 miles west of the City of 
Tuscola, Douglas County, Illinois. The site is currently farmland and 
is located adjacent to facilities of the Cabot Corporation and 
Lyondell-Equistar Chemical Company. The sequestration site is a 10-acre 
parcel located 11 miles south of the power plant site in Douglas 
County. The sequestration site currently consists of agricultural land 
located south of the City of Arcola.
    Jewett, Texas. The Jewett Site is located in east-central Texas on 
approximately 400 acres of formerly mined land about 7 miles northwest 
of the City of Jewett. The site is located at the intersection of Leon, 
Limestone, and Freestone counties. The area is characterized by very 
gently rolling grassed areas (reclaimed mine lands) and post oak forest 
adjacent to an operating lignite mine and the NRG Limestone Generating 
Station. The sequestration wells would be located on private ranchland 
and/or state-owned land approximately 33 miles northeast of the plant 
site in Anderson and Freestone counties. Land at the sequestration 
sites is used for ranching and agriculture and includes part of the 
property of a state prison farm.
    Odessa, Texas. The Odessa Site is located on approximately 600 
level acres about 15 miles southwest of the City of Odessa, Ector 
County, Texas. The site is north of the town of Penwell on land 
historically used for ranching plus oil and gas activities. The 
sequestration site is located 58 miles south of the plant site in Pecos 
County. This sparsely populated area is on semi-arid land adjacent to 
Interstate Highway I-10, about 13 miles east of Fort Stockton. The 
sequestration site property is owned by the University of Texas.

No-Action Alternative

    Under the No-Action Alternative, DOE would not share in the cost 
for constructing and operating the FutureGen Project. Without DOE 
funding, the Alliance would not likely undertake the commercial-scale 
integration of CO2 capture and geologic sequestration with a 
coal-fueled power plant. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative is 
considered a ``No-Build'' Alternative.

Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

    In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts of 
the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative on potentially affected 
environmental resource areas. These include air quality, climate and 
meteorology, geology, physiography and soils, groundwater, surface 
water, wetlands and floodplains, biological resources, cultural 
resources, land use, aesthetics, traffic and transportation, noise and 
vibration, human health and safety (including accidents and sabotage

[[Page 35178]]

scenarios), socioeconomics, and environmental justice. The EIS 
evaluates the impacts of the FutureGen Project on these environmental 
resource areas at each of the four candidate sites. It also examines 
potential incremental impacts of the Project in combination with other 
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (i.e., 
cumulative impacts). The following sections provide key findings 
related to potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

Air Quality

    The FutureGen Project will be categorized as a major source of air 
pollutants under Clean Air Act regulations because emissions of some 
criteria pollutants will exceed 100 tons per year. However, compared to 
conventional coal-fueled power plants of the same size, the Project 
will emit very low levels of criteria and hazardous air pollutants, 
including those from initial startup, restarts and flaring events. 
During these periods, emissions will increase temporarily while process 
gases are flared for a short period of time. There is less than a two 
percent chance that critical weather conditions would coincide with a 
plant upset or restart to cause a local, short-duration exceedance of 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards at any of the four sites (chance 
of exceedance of the 3-hour sulfur dioxide [SO2] criterion 
is: Mattoon, 0.23 percent; Tuscola, 0.22 percent; Jewett, 1.66 percent; 
Odessa, 0.09 percent).
    Although air quality impacts will be small at any of the sites, the 
FutureGen Project will reduce emissions and impacts to the fullest 
extent practicable. Specifically, the Project will employ advanced 
particulate control devices such that the concentration of particulates 
in the syngas will be less than 0.005 lb/MM Btu (pounds per million 
metric British thermal units) of coal gasified, which is far lower than 
current environmental standards for coal plants. For controlling 
emissions of nitrogen oxides, the Project will use state-of-the-art 
combustion-control technologies (e.g., using nitrogen gas and/or steam 
as a diluent in the combustion gas turbine to adjust the firing 
temperature and thereby reduce the thermal formation of nitrogen 
oxides). Downstream from the gasifier, a water-gas-shift reactor will 
convert carbon monoxide (CO) and water into CO2 and 
H2. Further downstream, an acid gas removal system will 
capture CO2 and sulfur compounds, thus minimizing emissions.
    During the up-coming continuation of the preliminary design phase, 
DOE and the Alliance will consider several design and operational 
features not presented in the Final EIS: A temporary (two to three year 
period) reduction in CO2 capture rate from 90 percent to 60 
percent, short-term periods of firing the combustion turbine on natural 
gas (including a potential one-year startup period), and the 
optimization of the power plant for gasifying a single coal type (see 
the above section on ``Proposed Action and Project Description''). Air 
emissions of criteria and hazardous pollutants associated with these 
potential changes in the scope of the project are estimated to result 
in no change in the findings of the EIS.
    For example, during periods that the facility operates on coal at 
60 percent CO2 capture, emissions of SO2, 
particulates and mercury would be unchanged because the syngas and flue 
gas clean-up systems would operate the same as they would when the 
facility operates at 90 percent CO2 capture. Additionally, 
when capturing 60 percent of the CO2, emissions of 
NOx and CO are expected to be unchanged. Therefore, the 
estimated emission rates of these criteria pollutants at 60 percent 
CO2 capture would be equal to those used for air quality 
modeling in the EIS. Estimated emissions of CO2 are 
described in the next section, ``Climate and Meteorology''.
    During short-term periods of operation on natural gas, emissions of 
SO2, particulates and mercury would be negligible. Emissions 
of CO are estimated to be below the emission rate of CO during 
operation on coal and therefore below the emission rates used for air 
quality modeling in the EIS. Emissions of NOx when firing 
natural gas are expected to require control using selective catalytic 
reduction and, therefore, would be typical of emission levels for 
state-of-the-art natural gas combined-cycle power plants. These 
emission rates would be well below the emission rates used for air 
quality modeling in the EIS.
    To validate the Project's accomplishments, the Alliance shall 
prepare (at a minimum) annual reports during the term of the 
cooperative agreement that document engineering and research activities 
demonstrating technical and economic progress toward developing the 
design and operational basis for future near-zero emissions coal-fueled 
power plants. Annual reports shall include summary information on the 
emissions of criteria pollutants and CO2 from the Project. 
These reports shall indicate the performance and emissions of the 
Project during normal operations. If air emissions data are collected 
during periods of operation outside normal, steady-state conditions, 
this information also shall be summarized in the report.

Climate and Meteorology

    Construction and operation of the FutureGen Project will not cause 
measurable impacts on local, regional or global climate and 
meteorology. The Project's primary objective is to test and help 
develop coal-fueled power plants that greatly reduce emissions of 
greenhouse gases. If the Project's technologies are widely deployed in 
fossil-fueled power plants built in the future, these plants 
collectively could reduce national and world-wide greenhouse gas 
emissions (compared to a scenario of not using carbon capture and 
sequestration on new coal-fueled power plants), thereby lessening the 
potential for global climate change.
    If the Project adopts potential changes in the CO2 
capture rate, fuel source and plant operations, as discussed in the 
section on ``Proposed Action and Project Description'', the amount of 
CO2 emitted to the atmosphere would increase during the 
first two or three years of project operations. At 60 percent 
CO2 capture levels, facility operations on coal are 
estimated to add additional emissions of 485,000 to 685,000 metric tons 
of CO2 per year of operation. One year of facility 
operations on natural gas is estimated to add additional emissions of 
750,000 metric tons of CO2. Facility operations on natural 
gas if syngas is not available are only expected to result in 
additional emissions during the period when the facility is usually 
operated at 90 percent CO2 capture levels. These additional 
emissions are estimated to be between 110,000 to 215,000 metric tons 
per year of operation. Over the potential 5 year project operations 
period (four years of coal-fueled operations plus one year of natural-
gas-fueled operations prior to completion of plant construction), an 
estimated additional 2,200,000 to 2,400,000 metric tons of 
CO2 may be emitted to the global atmosphere. The additional 
estimated average annual CO2 emissions (430,000 to 470,000 
metric tons per year) represent nearly double the emissions of 
CO2 compared to the maximum predicted emissions when the 
normally operating plant (fueled with coal) captures 90 percent of the 
CO2 (250,000 metric tons per year).
    A principal goal of FutureGen testing is to gather operational and 
cost data on a coal-fueled power plant that is integrated with 
CO2 capture and geologic sequestration. The FutureGen 
facility will be designed for 90 percent CO2 capture. 
However, since this is a

[[Page 35179]]

first-of-a-kind project in terms of technology integration for large-
scale electric power plant applications, testing may be performed 
initially at the 60 percent CO2 capture rate as a risk 
mitigation strategy, and increased later during operational testing. 
Additionally, the 60 percent CO2 capture rate will 
demonstrate operation of a coal-fueled power plant with a 
CO2 emission level that is comparable to a state-of-the-art 
natural gas combined-cycle power plant.

Geology

    Construction of the proposed power plant and related facilities 
would not significantly change geologic conditions at the proposed 
sites. However, since geological sequestration of CO2 is one 
of the Project's goals, the subsurface target reservoirs will be used 
to store CO2. Estimated radii of the plumes of injected 
CO2 would be of the same relative magnitude at all four 
sites (1.0 to 1.7 miles radius per well after injecting 1.1 million 
tons [1.0 MMT] per year for 50 years), although the number of injection 
wells (and associated plumes) would differ among the sites (probably 
one well at the Illinois sites; two to three wells at the Jewett site; 
and three to ten wells at the Odessa site). CO2 will be 
injected into an underlying saline reservoir at the selected 
sequestration site at a planned operational rate of between 1.1 and 2.8 
million tons (1.0 to 2.5 MMT) per year. Although reservoir space will 
be used to store the injected CO2, no adverse impacts are 
expected to occur to geological resources.
    DOE will require monitoring of the injected CO2 to 
assess its fate and to verify storage integrity. To fully support the 
monitoring and assessment activities, the Alliance shall install a 
sufficient number (at least two) of monitoring wells into the target 
reservoirs near a primary injection well to provide the data to 
validate the expected migration of CO2. One or more 
monitoring wells may serve as backup injection wells. After further 
site characterization studies at the selected site, and subject to land 
access and property rights, DOE and the Alliance will mutually agree on 
the placement of monitoring wells that penetrate the primary seal. From 
a research perspective, it would be advantageous to locate one 
monitoring well stratigraphically up-dip (or in the hydrodynamically 
favorable flow direction, if there is found to be another direction of 
potential flow of injected CO2). The other monitoring well 
should then be located in a stratigraphic strike direction (or 
direction perpendicular to the horizontal direction between the 
injection wells and the first monitoring well) for directional 
permeability tests and lateral monitoring. Ideally, these wells should 
be located near the predicted four-year plume front relative to the 
primary injection well. In addition to monitoring wells that penetrate 
and sample the target injection reservoir(s), shallower monitoring 
wells shall be installed and used to demonstrate compliance with the 
required Underground Injection Control permit and, as appropriate, to 
meet the research and development objectives of the Project. Annual 
reports shall include summary information on the sequestration 
activities, including monitoring results, the determined location and 
extent in the subsurface of the injected CO2, and quantity 
of excess CO2 sold or released.
    The Alliance shall prepare an Emergency Response Plan for use in 
the unlikely event of leaks of the injected CO2. The plan 
shall include generic responses to apparent slow leaks that could 
develop into more serious problems if no actions are taken. While it is 
perhaps not practical or necessary to prepare specific or detailed 
responses for all potential leakage modes, the plan shall delineate how 
to identify a leak that could present a hazard if unmitigated. 
Furthermore, the plan shall identify the responsible persons that would 
make decisions, develop specific response plans and take action. The 
plan should also identify resources and organizations that may help in 
making an appropriate response. The Emergency Response Plan shall 
address ruptures and large punctures of the CO2 pipeline and 
rapid releases of fluids (i.e., blowouts) through failed injection 
wells or other wells or through other routes from the target reservoir, 
as described below in the section on ``Human Health, Safety, and 
Accidents''.
    Although during each year of operations the goal is to inject a 
minimum of 1.1 million tons (1.0 MMT) of CO2 into deep 
saline reservoirs, excess captured CO2 could be sold for use 
by industry in enhanced oil recovery or other subsurface operations. 
Successful technology transfer to future power plant projects could 
result in increased oil and natural gas production.
    A very low potential exists for adverse effects to the facilities 
from geologic hazards. Earthquakes of medium intensity are possible but 
not common at these sites. The Alliance shall monitor the sequestration 
site to detect and help operators prevent induced rock fracturing or 
reservoir leakage caused by over-pressurization of the formation.
    The Alliance and DOE will develop a mutually acceptable plan for 
continued monitoring of the sequestered CO2 after project 
completion by a responsible party for a period of time deemed 
sufficient to verify the sequestration's permanence.

Physiography and Soils

    Soil disturbance at the power plant site will result in permanent 
removal or displacement of soils on up to 200 acres. At Mattoon or 
Tuscola, this would include prime farmland soils. At Tuscola, an 
additional 10 acres of soil disturbance may occur at the sequestration 
site. Soil disturbance in utility corridors is expected to be temporary 
and will vary greatly depending on the site selected, ranging from 26 
to 744 acres with the higher end of the range associated with the Texas 
sites. Transportation corridors at the power plant site could require 
up to 15.9 acres of soil disturbance and is generally greater for the 
Illinois sites. To mitigate these impacts, the Project will employ best 
management practices, such as those commonly used for erosion control 
as well as spill prevention and response measures.

Groundwater

    Some groundwater use could occur at Tuscola and Odessa, but the 
Jewett site's process water supply would rely exclusively on 
groundwater. Groundwater supplies appear more than adequate at each 
site to meet power plant consumption rates. Although no adverse impacts 
are expected to occur, impacts of water use are likely to be more 
significant for the Odessa site. Best management practices, such as 
water conservation (e.g., a zero liquid discharge system to recycle 
wastewater and cooling tower blowdown for use in the cooling tower, 
thereby reducing cooling tower makeup water requirements), spill 
prevention measures and a spill response plan, will be implemented to 
minimize the potential for environmental impacts to the fullest extent 
practicable.
    The proposed CO2 injection reservoirs are one mile deep 
or greater at each sequestration site, except for the Odessa site, 
where the injection zone is only 0.5 mile deep. Shale layers (and 
anhydrite layers at the Odessa site) appear sufficient to provide 
secure seals for the injected CO2. Compared to the Illinois 
sites, the Texas sites have a greater number of existing wells that 
penetrate the seals, and therefore, these two sites may have a greater 
risk of CO2 leakage along existing wells. Target formations 
are not underground sources of drinking water, and there are no sole-
source

[[Page 35180]]

aquifers above them. The Alliance shall monitor the sequestration site 
and ensure that underground sources of drinking water above the target 
formation are not impacted by the injected CO2, as expected 
to be required by the Underground Injection Control permit. Annual 
reports shall include summary information on the groundwater monitoring 
activities and results, along with summary information on other 
monitoring activities addressed by the sequestration program.
    The Alliance shall use reasonable efforts to locate and verify the 
integrity of abandoned wells penetrating the primary seal over the 
CO2 plume footprint and properly seal any wells that were 
not adequately abandoned. This mitigation effort shall occur prior to 
the start of injection operations for at least the Area of Review 
defined in the Underground Injection Control Permit. During injection 
operations, the Alliance must make reasonable efforts to track the 
CO2 plume front and to verify and plug, as appropriate, 
abandoned wells that present a risk of becoming a leakage path (i.e., 
if monitoring results obtained throughout the injection phase suggest 
that the actual area of plume spread would exceed the predicted plume 
footprint). This mitigation requirement shall be made a term and 
condition for future owners upon sale or donation of the injection 
facilities at the end of the Alliance's injection activities.

Surface Water

    Surface water would be used directly for the Tuscola and Odessa 
sites, and these surface water resources can accommodate the demand. 
Mattoon proposes to use municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent, 
which otherwise would flow into two very small streams (Kickapoo and 
Cassell creeks) that drain away from Mattoon and Charleston. For both 
of these streams, the diversion of wastewater may result in more 
natural flow rates in the streams that now receive the wastewater, but 
downstream users would suffer a significant reduction in flow rates 
compared to current rates. Best management practices, such as water 
conservation (e.g., a zero liquid discharge system to recycle 
wastewater and cooling tower blowdown for reuse in the cooling tower, 
thereby reducing cooling tower makeup water requirements), spill 
prevention measures and a spill response plan, will be implemented to 
minimize the potential for impacts. Annual reports shall include 
summary information on the releases of industrial wastewater from the 
Project and the effectiveness of the Project's water conservation 
program.

Wetlands and Floodplains

    Power plant construction and operations will not affect floodplains 
since none of the proposed power plant sites include areas mapped as 
100-yr floodplains. However, construction and operation of the power 
plant may impact small, low to moderate quality wetlands at two of the 
proposed sites, Mattoon and Jewett. The Project's layout will avoid 
wetlands located on the plant site to the maximum extent practicable.
    While the region above the proposed sequestration reservoirs 
includes floodplains at some sites, tentatively selected well locations 
are not within 100-year floodplains. Above the proposed sequestration 
reservoirs at Jewett and Tuscola, there are both wetlands and 
floodplains. Within the region of influence above Tuscola's target 
reservoir, wetland areas may occupy up to five acres. Jewett's 
sequestration areas lay on both sides of the Trinity River, which has 
numerous wetlands (43 forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands) 
nearby and along its floodplains. About 25 percent of the region of 
influence above the Jewett target reservoirs is within a 100-year 
floodplain. Site characterization activities (e.g., geophysical 
surveys) and monitoring programs that might impact wetlands could 
require avoidance or mitigation measures. Unavoidable impacts to 
wetlands would require mitigation in accordance with regulatory 
requirements. It is not anticipated that floodplains will be adversely 
affected.
    Utility and transportation corridors include wetland areas at all 
four sites. While wetlands can be avoided to a great degree by locating 
structures outside of or routing around wetlands that are within the 
corridors, some wetland impacts may be unavoidable. Unavoidable impacts 
to wetlands would require mitigation in accordance with regulatory 
requirements. Wetland areas have been identified within utility and 
transportation corridors in the following amounts: Mattoon, up to 29.2 
acres; Tuscola, up to 4.2 acres; Jewett, over 90 acres; and Odessa, up 
to 23.9 acres. These numbers include wetlands from multiple corridor 
options, whereby some corridor options may have no wetlands. Some of 
the corridors cross areas within the 100-year floodplain, but potential 
impacts are not considered to be significant, especially in light of 
mitigation measures that will be required for anticipated wetland 
impacts.
    Impacts to wetland resources shall be avoided to the fullest extent 
practicable. Clean Water Act section 404 permits will be obtained for 
jurisdictional water bodies and wetland alterations. As a permit 
condition, mitigation of wetland impacts could be in the form of direct 
replacement or other approved Federal or state mitigation requirements.
    In compliance with floodplain and wetland environmental review 
requirements (10 CFR Part 1022, Executive Order 11988, and Executive 
Order 11990), the EIS contains the floodplain and wetland assessments 
along with the floodplain statement of findings, as allowed under 10 
CFR Part 1022.14(c). DOE assessed the potential impacts to wetland and 
floodplain resources based on field verification (wetland delineations) 
and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping. The Mattoon and Tuscola 
sites included field verification for the power plant sites and other 
project components (e.g., utility corridors), allowing for a 
quantitative analysis using potential acreage (hectares) of impacts. 
The Jewett and Odessa sites included field verification for only the 
power plant sites and relied on NWI mapping for all other project 
components, allowing for a qualitative assessment limited to the 
identification of wetland types within the project component areas.

Biological Resources

    Land disturbance at the power plant and injection sites will result 
in up to 210 acres of permanent habitat loss. At the Illinois sites, 
there would be a loss of row crops (generally corn or soybean) on prime 
farmland. At the Jewett site, this would be primarily a loss of a 
mixture of grasslands and post oak forests. At Odessa, it would be a 
loss of arid habitat dominated by mesquite-lotebush brush and mesquite-
juniper brush.
    Additionally, temporary disturbances to terrestrial and aquatic 
organisms will occur along utility corridors. These disturbances and 
resulting habitat impacts are expected to displace or at least 
temporarily disturb wildlife and other biological resources. 
Potentially affected utility corridor lengths at each site are: 
Mattoon, up to 35.3 miles, with 18.8 miles of new ROW occupied 
primarily by row crops; Tuscola, up to 31.9 miles, with 16.9 miles of 
new ROW occupied primarily by row crops; Jewett, up to 63 miles, with 
13 miles of new ROW occupied primarily by post oak forest and 
grasslands; Odessa, up to 128.5 miles with 68.7 miles of new ROW 
occupied primarily by non-arable brush lands. Best management practices

[[Page 35181]]

will be employed to reduce adverse impacts.
    The potential for impacts on threatened and endangered species has 
been reviewed in the EIS, and there are no known occurrences of 
threatened and endangered species at the proposed sites. A biological 
survey of the selected FutureGen site will be conducted as required 
before construction begins to verify that no threatened or endangered 
species are present in the areas (including utility corridors) that 
will be disturbed.

Cultural Resources

    Construction and operation of the FutureGen Project are not 
anticipated to impact cultural resources at any of the proposed power 
plant sites; however, utility corridors have not been thoroughly 
investigated and could have construction-related impacts. Phase I 
surveys may be needed for certain corridor segments associated with the 
Mattoon and Tuscola sites. Jewett has 35 known cultural resource sites 
along its proposed CO2 corridors and 33 recorded sites 
within the region of influence of the sequestration site. Phase I 
surveys and consultation with the Texas State Historic Preservation 
Officer would be required for the CO2 pipeline corridors and 
sequestration site. Odessa would require Phase I surveys and 
consultation for all new CO2 pipeline, water supply 
pipeline, and electricity transmission line corridors. Furthermore, the 
Odessa site could have invertebrate and vertebrate fossil resources in 
the path of the corridors. No impacts to unique or irreplaceable 
invertebrate fossils would be expected. Vertebrate fossils, in 
comparison, are much less likely to be encountered. For the selected 
site, archaeological and paleontological surveys will be conducted, as 
required, to determine the location of cultural resources and the 
possible extent of impacts along utility corridor alignments after 
those alignments are identified.
    Further consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 
for any unforeseen areas of construction or ground disturbance not 
included within the EIS will be completed before construction to 
determine the need for further cultural resource investigations and any 
appropriate mitigation measures.

Land Use

    Depending on the site selected, the proposed power plant and 
related facilities will be located on 345 to 600 acres of land that 
will be acquired by the Alliance for the Project. (Note: the Alliance 
has purchased 420.5 acres at the Mattoon site.) Construction and 
operation activities are estimated to impact up to 200 acres of that 
land. Land at the selected power plant site will be converted from its 
current agricultural, ranch, industrial storage, or oil and gas 
production uses. At the Mattoon and Tuscola power plant sites, it is 
estimated that up to 200 acres of prime farmland would be converted to 
industrial uses. About 10 acres would be converted at the Tuscola 
sequestration site. At the Jewett power plant site, which is mostly 
reclaimed mine land, there may be a few acres of prime farmland 
converted. The Jewett power plant site is currently used for pasture 
and industrial storage. The Odessa power plant site is currently used 
for ranching and for oil and gas production.
    There would be a direct impact to residential properties located 
adjacent to the proposed power plant sites: two residences adjacent to 
the Mattoon site, and three directly adjacent to the Tuscola site. 
Within one mile of the proposed power plant sites, there are: Mattoon, 
20 residences; Tuscola, several dozen residences; Jewett, zero 
residences; and Odessa, three residences. The Odessa site is at the 
northern edge of Penwell, a mostly abandoned small oil town.
    The Mattoon site has been established as an enterprise (business) 
zone. Tuscola's site is zoned for industrial uses and has two chemical 
plants immediately to the west. Jewett's site is unzoned and is 
partially located on reclaimed mine land with nearby active mine 
facilities and an existing large power plant adjacent to the proposed 
power plant site. Odessa's site is unzoned, with arid ranch land 
located to the north and east, a scrap yard and the abandoned town of 
Penwell to the south, and an oil and gas field to the west.
    Except at Mattoon, where the injection well will be on the power 
plant site, construction and operations at the sequestration site are 
expected to impact up to an additional 10 acres of land, with current 
land uses being agricultural at the Tuscola sequestration site, 
ranching and state prison farmland at the Jewett sequestration site, 
and grazing land with scattered oil and gas activities on the Odessa 
sequestration site. Odessa's sequestration site is on land owned by the 
University of Texas and is ordinarily leased to others for oil and gas 
production and for ranching in an effort to generate income for the 
University.
    Option contracts existed for the mineral rights to 444 acres at the 
Mattoon site; the Alliance has since exercised those options. Options 
for mineral rights at Tuscola, Jewett, and Odessa have expired.
    For utility corridors, new ROWs would be needed in the following 
amounts: Mattoon, up to about 20 miles; Tuscola, up to about 17 miles; 
Jewett, between 10 and 13 miles; Odessa, approximately 71 miles. The 
exact amount of new ROW will be a function of the options selected at 
the site. Generally, current land uses will continue after installation 
of new utilities (e.g., CO2 pipeline, water supply pipeline, 
electricity transmission line).
    The Alliance could receive options to purchase some onsite and 
adjacent residential properties. The Alliance would consider exercising 
these options on a case-by-case basis to meet Project needs.

Aesthetics

    At Mattoon, Tuscola and Odessa, the proposed power plant may be 
perceived as a major visual intrusion within a 1-mile radius of the 
site. However, at Odessa, the visual intrusion would be moderated due 
to the presence of other industrial facilities that are visible in the 
general area of Penwell. The Jewett site would have the least visual 
intrusion for neighbors and motorists driving through the area. For all 
sites, the sequestration facilities will present minimal visual 
intrusion.
    Within the budgetary limits of the Project, it is highly desirable 
that the Project's facilities will be designed and constructed to be as 
aesthetically pleasing as practicable to the people in the surrounding 
communities and to the public in general. Therefore, the Alliance shall 
implement appropriate mitigations that may include: enclosing or 
shielding some of the more ``industrial'' components of the plant; 
designing and constructing buildings and other structures to have a 
pleasing and appropriate appearance for the general public; landscaping 
around the perimeter of the plant site to partially screen the plant 
from nearby residences and local motorists; selecting appropriate 
transmission towers to reduce their visual profile; and choosing an 
appropriate lighting design (e.g., luminaries with controlled candela 
distributions, well-shielded or hooded lighting, and directional 
lighting) to minimize light pollution.

Traffic and Transportation

    Construction of the Project will create temporary, localized 
adverse traffic impacts due to the presence of additional truck traffic 
and commuting workers. Truck traffic impacts may be

[[Page 35182]]

mitigated through the use of designated truck routes to the power plant 
site. Continued use of these routes during operations would reduce 
operational impacts. During plant operation, traffic near the power 
plant will be heavier, but traffic will not degrade to unstable 
conditions at any site. Installation of new traffic controls or changes 
in traffic signal timing may be needed at a few intersections.
    For rail traffic at each site, connection of new side tracks will 
have minimal and temporary impacts. At Odessa, temporary impacts would 
occur to rail operations during construction of a new underpass. During 
plant operation at any of the sites, rail traffic will increase by up 
to two trains per day along the rail line servicing the plant site. 
Each additional train trip across two at-grade crossings near the 
Mattoon site and across one at-grade crossing at the Tuscola site would 
delay traffic by an estimated 6 to 7 minutes, on average (for a 100-
unit train traveling 10 miles per hour). Actuated gates and warning 
lights would be required at one at-grade crossing at the Tuscola site.

Noise and Vibration

    The EIS estimates that during construction, noise would increase 
greatly at the nearest receptors: Mattoon, up to 41 decibels A-weighted 
(dBA) at the nearest two residences; Tuscola, up to 45.7 dBA at the 
nearest three residences; Jewett, less than 15 dBA at a nearby chapel; 
Odessa, less than 6 dBA at the nearest two residences in Penwell. An 
increase of 3 dBA or more (the criterion for a significant impact) 
above background levels could be experienced at greater distances and 
affect more people: Mattoon, one school and several dozen residences 
within 2.4 miles of the site boundary; Tuscola, numerous residences and 
much of downtown Tuscola within 1.5 miles; Jewett, no residences 
impacted; Odessa, as many as 12 churches, 5 schools and an undetermined 
number of residences affected by the pipeline construction noise but 
perhaps only 3 residences affected by construction at the power plant 
site. Additionally at all sites, noise increases would be experienced 
along the trucking routes and nearby roads leading construction traffic 
to the power plant site.
    During routine plant operation, noise would increase for the 
nearest receptors: Mattoon, 6 to 9 dBA at the nearest two residences; 
Tuscola, up to 12 dBA at the nearest three residences; Jewett, less 
than 6 dBA at a nearby chapel; Odessa, less than 3 dBA at the nearest 
two residences. At greater distances, an increase of 3 dBA or more 
above background levels could be experienced: Mattoon, 12 residences 
within 1.5 miles of the site boundary; Tuscola, seven residences within 
1 mile; Jewett, no residences impacted; Odessa, two residences near the 
power plant site. Plant startups will generate temporary noise that is 
greater at the nearest receptors: Mattoon, up to 21 dBA; Tuscola, up to 
25 dBA; Jewett, less than 17 dBA; and Odessa, less than 4.1 dBA. 
Additionally, operational noise increases will be experienced along the 
trucking routes and nearby roads leading to the power plant site. Train 
noises along the rail delivery routes will increase from the movement 
of up to two additional trains per day. A special concern is that train 
rail car shakers could generate noise that would affect neighbors 
similar to the construction activities (described above), if 
unmitigated.
    The Alliance will comply with all local noise ordinances and shall 
reduce operational noise impacts to nearby residences and sensitive 
receptors to the fullest extent practicable. The Alliance shall comply 
with applicable vibration standards to the extent practicable. To 
reduce noise impacts the Alliance may use some combination of sound 
enclosures, barrier walls, earthen berms, planted vegetation and 
landscaping, or dampening devices, with emphasis on facilities (e.g., 
rail-car unloading facilities) that would generate very high levels of 
noise disturbance at nearby residences. In addition, alternate site 
configurations shall be considered in an effort to position noise-
producing equipment away from or to shield residences and sensitive 
receptors. The design of coal-handling facilities shall be evaluated 
for opportunities to reduce noise impacts to adjacent residences and 
sensitive receptors.

Human Health, Safety, and Accidents

    Adverse impacts to human health and safety, although unlikely, 
could result from various types of accidents or acts of sabotage and 
terrorism, ranging from small pipeline leaks to, in an extremely 
unlikely case, an explosion at the power plant. Two separate risk 
studies were completed to analyze these risks. The results of these 
assessments shall be used during the planning, design, construction, 
and operation of the FutureGen Project to help reduce risks.
    The greatest risks to human health and safety are associated with 
catastrophic accidents or acts of sabotage or terrorism. Primarily, the 
concerns will be with sudden, unconstrained releases of carbon 
monoxide, SO2 and H2S, with SO2 
presenting the greatest risk for harm to people offsite. Exposure 
modeling of unmitigated catastrophic failure using worst-case 
atmospheric conditions indicates the following quantitative estimates 
of potential irreversible damage (e.g., permanent neurological damage) 
resulting from SO2 exposure: Mattoon, estimated 143 people 
(based on release modeling of the FutureGen facility located in the 
center of the proposed site; the Riddle Elementary School was outside 
of the perimeter of irreversible adverse effects); Tuscola, estimated 
115 people; Jewett, estimated 92 people; and Odessa, estimated 12 
people. While much lower in terms of estimated number of individuals 
potentially exposed, if there is a catastrophic failure of certain 
components, risks of life threatening impacts from H2S 
exposure could be as high as 10 people (maximum number at Mattoon) 
offsite. These worst-case consequence analyses were made assuming no 
mitigations are used; therefore, these risks can be reduced with the 
appropriate measures, such as planning, design and engineering 
controls. While the probability of intentional acts like sabotage and 
terrorism cannot be easily predicted, the consequences could be similar 
to the accidents analyzed in the EIS.
    Transport and storage of aqueous ammonia presents a risk of harm 
over a very long distance downwind, so three accident scenarios were 
analyzed under worst-case conditions of spill, wind, and temperatures. 
For example, downwind distances for adverse effects could exceed 15,500 
ft for a tanker truck spill of large surface area during times of very 
hot weather with no wind turbulence.
    The assessment of the risks associated with CO2 
sequestration revealed the fact that the greatest risks are associated 
with pipeline ruptures, where the small amount of H2S 
present in the gas contributes the greatest health hazard. Primarily 
because of differences in the proximity of populations downwind of the 
pipeline corridors and differences in pipeline length, the risks of 
harm to people differ among the sites. The at-risk population would be 
essentially zero at Mattoon, which would not have an off-site 
CO2 pipeline, and perhaps zero at Odessa due to the very 
sparse population present along the pipeline route. For the pipeline 
rupture scenario, up to seven people could experience adverse impacts 
for the Tuscola site and up to 52 people for the Jewett site. The 
chance of a pipeline rupture is estimated as being less than one 
occurrence in 100 years (unlikely to extremely unlikely). Compared to 
pipeline ruptures, fewer people would

[[Page 35183]]

be put at risk by pipeline punctures, wellhead failures, slow upward 
leakage around injection wells and slow upward leakage through other 
existing wells. Slow leaks through the injection wells or through other 
wells are extremely unlikely.
    To reduce the potential for adverse impacts to the fullest extent 
practicable, the Project will be designed to provide safe egress from 
all confined areas, adequate ventilation, fire protection, pressure 
relief to safe locations, and real-time monitoring with an alarm system 
for hazardous chemicals. Safety training and evacuation policies for 
workers will be instituted to address accidents. The Alliance will 
abide by industry safety standards, best management practices, and 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, as 
part of their overarching ``zero accidents'' policy for the workplace.
    In addition, the Alliance shall consider alternate operating and 
storage strategies that will minimize the risks for accidental releases 
of aqueous ammonia. These strategies shall consider reduced ammonia 
delivery, reduced on-site storage, and conducting transfer from the 
tanker truck to the pipeline leading to the tank within a secondary 
containment system. At a minimum, frequent inspections of the tanker 
truck and connecting pipe valves shall be required.
    Due to the proximity of offsite people to the proposed power plant 
at all four sites, additional mitigation shall be considered to reduce 
risk associated with catastrophic accidents, sabotage, or terrorism at 
the power plant. At the chosen site, DOE will require that the power 
plant's higher-risk components, such as the Claus unit, be located at 
the maximum distance that is reasonable from the populated areas, 
particularly the most populated nearby area, given various risk factors 
and other environmental and cost considerations.
    DOE will require that additional risk studies concerning accident 
scenarios at the power plant be performed as the site-specific power 
plant design is prepared. To the extent practicable, the Alliance shall 
use facility placement and layout, design, and/or engineering controls 
to minimize or eliminate the risks of irreversible effects to onsite 
and offsite people from a release of toxic gases from the power plant 
in the event of an accident or act of sabotage or terrorism.
    At all four sites, the CO2 pipeline will be designed, 
constructed and operated in compliance with state and Federal 
regulations and guidance (e.g., Department of Transportation, Pipeline 
and Hazardous Material Safety Administration). DOE will require that 
additional studies concerning accident scenarios for the pipelines and 
wellheads be performed as the site-specific sequestration facility 
design is prepared. The CO2 pipeline shall be designed with 
automatic emergency shut-off valves spaced at intervals of no more than 
5-miles to reduce the quantity of gases that could be released in the 
event of a pipeline rupture. Automatic shut-off valves could be placed 
at closer intervals near populated areas to further reduce the quantity 
of gases that could be released in the unlikely event of a pipeline 
rupture or puncture. DOE will require application of an automated 
system (e.g., a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system) for 
monitoring wellhead and pipeline pressure, temperature, and flow rate. 
This system shall be capable of automatically alerting the operator of 
possible leaks, in accordance with Federal regulations.
    The Project's Emergency Response Plan shall include a section to 
address ruptures and large punctures of the CO2 pipeline and 
rapid releases of fluids (i.e., blowouts) through failed injection 
wells (or other wells) or through other routes from the target 
reservoir. The plan shall outline sequestration facility shutdown 
procedures, public notice and protection procedures, and responsible 
persons that would make decisions. It shall also identify teams that 
would respond to incidents, employee protection plans, contacts for 
governmental authorities (e.g., Local Emergency Planning Committee), 
coordination with local authorities (including Memoranda of 
Understanding), and reporting requirements.

Socioeconomics

    Construction of the FutureGen Project could decrease values of 
residential properties located within, and adjacent to, the proposed 
power plant site in Mattoon and Tuscola, Illinois. Furthermore, the 
facility would adversely impact residents living nearby in Mattoon and 
Tuscola through a potentially unobstructed view of the facility and 
increases in traffic, noise, and perhaps dust or vibrations.
    To the fullest extent practicable and within the budgetary limits 
of the Project, the Alliance shall reduce the potential impacts to 
adjacent residences with appropriate mitigations, such as enclosing or 
shielding some of the more ``industrial'' components of the plant, 
landscaping around the plant site's perimeter to partially screen it 
from nearby residences and from motorists on the adjacent roads, 
selecting appropriate transmission towers to reduce the visual profile 
of the transmission towers, and lighting design (e.g., luminaries with 
controlled candela distributions, shielded or hooded lighting, and 
directional lighting) to minimize light pollution.

Environmental Justice

    Construction and operation of the proposed facility are not 
anticipated to have any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to 
minority or low-income populations in the areas around the four 
alternative power plant and sequestration sites.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    The Proposed Action is also the environmentally preferred 
alternative because it could encourage and hasten the deployment of 
carbon capture and sequestration practices at power plants across the 
U.S. and around the world in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions that otherwise will occur with the continued combustion of 
fossil fuels, especially coal, in power plants. As a research and 
development project, the FutureGen Project will provide an opportunity 
to foster new technologies that need to be tested at a commercial 
scale, or near commercial scale, if carbon capture and sequestration is 
to be successfully refined and rapidly deployed. As a test project, 
FutureGen will establish a cost and design basis, and support the 
development of a regulatory program, that will enable the planning, 
design and construction of other FutureGen-like power plants that will 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy produced.
    As described in the summary of impacts for each affected resource 
area, there are differences in potential environmental impact among 
sites. These differences do not provide a clear basis for 
discrimination among the sites in terms of overall environmental 
preferability. The potential impacts for some resource areas, such as 
noise and risks to public health and safety in the unlikely event of a 
release of toxic gases from the plant site, are sensitive to distance 
to members of the public. Such impacts would be greater at the Illinois 
sites. On the other hand, the Texas sequestration sites have a greater 
number of existing wells that pose a potential risk of CO2 
leakage. As described in this ROD, DOE will require mitigation for 
these and other potential impacts.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

    DOE received one comment from the general public on the Final EIS. 
This

[[Page 35184]]

comment stated that the EIS insufficiently responded to some previous 
comments, especially in regard to the environmental impacts caused by 
the mining and use of coal. The commenter urged DOE to select the No-
Action Alternative, at least until the EIS is revised to more 
adequately address coal mining and use. The commenter further expressed 
the opinion that taxpayer money should be directed to projects on 
sustainable energy technologies, such as wind and solar power.
    Environmental impacts associated with coal mining, coal use, and 
renewable sources of energy have not been analyzed in detail in the 
Final EIS. DOE acknowledges the potential environmental impacts 
associated with coal mining activities and coal use, as well as with 
renewable resources. However, DOE considers the environmental impacts 
associated with coal mining to be outside the scope of the FutureGen 
Project EIS, because the agency's decision-making does not extend to 
any identified coal mines or to the techniques for mining coal that 
will fuel the Project. The Presidential Initiatives that established 
the purpose and need for the FutureGen Project specifically require 
that this project address the issue of CO2 capture and 
sequestration at coal-fueled power plants that can produce electricity 
and hydrogen gas. DOE has no reasonable means in its decision-making 
role to impose mitigation requirements on the coal suppliers.
    As expressed in the ``Environmentally Preferred Alternative'' 
section of this ROD, DOE believes that balancing all environmental and 
societal benefits, as weighed against the Project's potential harms and 
cumulative adverse impacts, favors the selection of the Proposed 
Action. DOE does administer and fund other programs focused on energy 
efficiency and sustainable energy sources, such as wind and solar. 
Renewable energy alternatives are outside the scope of this EIS because 
the Presidential Initiatives expressly mandated the use of coal as the 
energy source for this project. When choosing programs and projects to 
fund within its discretion, DOE adheres to its belief that funding 
should be allocated to a variety of programs and projects that 
represent all promising energy sources (including renewable energy 
alternatives) and conservation measures that might best ensure future 
energy security for our society.
    The use of coal raises concerns, in particular, about increasing 
atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and the resulting global 
climate change. This topic was covered briefly in the Draft EIS; 
however, additional information was provided in the Final EIS to more 
fully address this topic. See the revised Section 3.3.1, Cumulative 
Impacts of FutureGen Technology, in the Final EIS regarding potential 
impacts of widespread deployment of carbon capture and geologic 
sequestration.
    The U.S. EPA was the only Federal government agency to comment on 
the Final EIS. Based on the results of additional site-characterization 
and site-specific design, EPA understands that DOE will re-examine the 
potential risks as more information becomes available. DOE has 
committed to preparing a Supplement Analysis to determine whether a 
Supplemental EIS would be required in accordance with 10 CFR 1021.314.
    Furthermore, EPA's comment recognized the early nature of the 
design work and site investigations. DOE believes that the existing 
conceptual design work and site investigations provide sufficient basis 
for site selection. EPA noted that DOE is funding research for 
mitigation techniques to address the displacement of native fluids by 
the injected carbon dioxide. The DOE Carbon Sequestration Program 
encompasses research on this topic. Based on its review of the Final 
EIS, EPA did not object to implementation of the Proposed Action.
    The Texas Historical Commission submitted a copy of DOE's 
distribution letter for the Final EIS with a stamp and signature of 
concurrence by the State Historic Preservation Officer.

Decision

    After careful consideration of the proposed project's potential 
environmental impacts at each of the four alternative sites, along with 
consideration of program goals and objectives in accordance with its 
obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act, and subject to 
future technical, cost, business and environmental decision points, DOE 
has decided to provide financial assistance to the FutureGen Industrial 
Alliance, Inc. to implement the FutureGen Project. DOE reached an 
agreement with the Alliance to complete a preliminary design, a revised 
cost estimate and a funding plan pursuant to a new eight to ten month 
limited-scope cooperative agreement. Prior to the expiration of this 
cooperative agreement, DOE and the Alliance will make a mutual decision 
on whether to move forward into the subsequent phases. If DOE and the 
Alliance mutually decide to go forward, Federal financial assistance 
for the subsequent phases (i.e., detailed design, construction and 
operations) would occur under the terms of a new full-scope cooperative 
agreement to be negotiated sometime during early 2010.
    Based on the information presented in the EIS, DOE finds all four 
alternative sites to be acceptable provided the Alliance implements the 
mitigation measures described in this ROD, best management practices 
common to the industry, and reasonable pollution prevention, recycling, 
and reuse measures. DOE has considered potential mitigation 
opportunities for each of the four sites in the EIS and during 
development of this ROD. The cooperative agreement in effect during 
2007 gave the Alliance the right to select the site after DOE issued a 
ROD. The Alliance announced their preference for the Mattoon site in 
December 2007. DOE acknowledges that the Alliance intends to formally 
select Mattoon after the issuance of this ROD. DOE will prepare a 
Mitigation Action Plan, as required by regulation 10 CFR Part 1021.331 
to address the mitigations specified in this ROD as applied to the 
selected site.
    In compliance with floodplain and wetland environmental review 
requirements (10 CFR Part 1022, Executive Order 11988, Executive Order 
11990), the FutureGen Project EIS contains the floodplain and wetland 
assessments along with the floodplain statement of findings. The NEPA 
process fulfilled the requirements for public notice and review 
opportunities. A brief statement of steps to be taken by the Alliance 
to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplains and wetlands 
has been included in this ROD.
    DOE's decision was made after careful review of the potential 
environmental impacts presented in the EIS and incorporates all 
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. Based on 
mutual agreement between DOE and the Alliance, the Alliance will 
conduct further characterization studies of the selected site (Mattoon) 
to confirm the acceptability of the site and to gather additional 
information that will support the site-specific design. Based on the 
results of this site characterization effort and site-specific 
preliminary design to be produced by the Alliance, DOE will complete a 
Supplement Analysis pursuant to DOE's NEPA regulations to determine 
whether a Supplemental EIS must be prepared (10 CFR Part 1021.314). If 
DOE subsequently prepares a Supplemental EIS, DOE may issue a ROD at 
the conclusion of that process. Both the Supplement Analysis 
determination and a Supplemental ROD may contain mitigation 
requirements that supplement or change the

[[Page 35185]]

requirements presented in this ROD and shall be binding on the 
Alliance, as if they were included in this ROD. Through this process of 
future site characterization and NEPA activities, DOE will reconsider 
the potential environmental impacts analyzed in this EIS and may 
require the Alliance to implement the avoidance and mitigation measures 
required by a Supplement Analysis determination or Supplemental ROD as 
a condition to continued financial assistance.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 14th day of July 2009.
Victor K. Der,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. E9-17156 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P