DOCSLIB.ORG

Futuregen Compiled Responsiveness Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Futuregen Compiled Responsiveness Summary Response to Comments on Draft Class VI Permits Issued to the FutureGen Industrial Alliance United States Environmental Protection Agency Region V 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. i SECTION 1. GENERAL AND OUT OF SCOPE COMMENTS............................................................................... 1 SECTION 2. GENERAL COMMENTS .............................................................................................................. 22 SECTION 3. AREA OF REVIEW (AOR) AND CORRECTIVE ACTION COMMENTS............................................ 52 SECTION 4. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMENTS ............................................................................... 105 SECTION 5. CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-INJECTION TESTING COMMENTS ................................................ 136 SECTION 6. OPERATIONS COMMENTS ...................................................................................................... 148 SECTION 7. TESTING AND MONITORING COMMENTS ............................................................................. 160 SECTION 8. PLUGGING AND POST-INJECTION SITE CARE COMMENTS .................................................... 197 SECTION 9. EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE COMMENTS .......................................................... 213 INTRODUCTION On March 31, 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued draft Class VI permits to inject carbon dioxide for the purpose of geologic sequestration (permit numbers IL-137-6A- 0001, IL-137-6A-0002, IL-137-6A-0003, and IL-137-6A-0004) to the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc. (FutureGen), and invited public comment. Twenty-nine (29) parties submitted comments to EPA, either in writing or during a public hearing held on May 7, 2014 (or both). These commenters are presented in Table 1. This document categorizes the public comments submitted on the draft Class VI permits and includes EPA’s responses to those comments, although there is some overlap between the categories and the responses. This document is organized as follows. Section 1: General and Out of Scope Comments: comments including general introductory statements and comments that are “out of scope” for these permitting actions. Section 2: General Comments: comments generally supporting or opposing the draft permit actions or about the permitting process; geologic sequestration; the geology of the FutureGen site; and general permit conditions. Section 3: Area of Review (AoR) and Corrective Action Comments: comments on the size of the AoR and the modeling approach used to delineate the AoR; AoR reevaluations; wells in the AoR; Part G of the draft permit; and Attachment B. Section 4: Financial Responsibility Comments: comments on cost estimates for the covered activities; the financial instruments used; Part H of the draft permit; and Attachment H. Section 5: Construction and Pre-Injection Testing Comments: comments on the injection well components (e.g., casing/cement and tubing/packer); pre-injection logs and tests to be performed; Parts I and J of the draft permit; and Attachment G. Section 6: Operations Comments: comments on Part K of the draft permit (e.g., injection pressure limitations); and Attachment A. Section 7: Testing and Monitoring Comments: comments on the testing and monitoring activities (e.g., mechanical integrity testing, ground water monitoring, and plume and pressure front tracking) in Part M of the draft permit; Attachment C; and the quality assurance and surveillance plan for testing and monitoring activities. Section 8: Plugging and Post-Injection Site Care Comments: comments on post-injection monitoring; the post-injection site care timeframe; the non-endangerment demonstration; site closure activities; Part O of the draft permit; and Attachments D and E. Section 9: Emergency and Remedial Response Comments: comments on Part P of the draft permit; Attachment F; and induced seismicity. i Table 1: Commenters on the FutureGen draft Class VI permits American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Coal Utilization Research Council, Edison Electric Institute, Illinois Coal Association, National Mining Association (NMA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Betty Niemann Bradley Zeller Carl Hankel Central Iowa Building & Construction Trades Council (CIBCTC) ClearStack Combustion Corporation Danny Little Ed Shaw Elizabeth Rigor FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc. (FutureGen) Global Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Institute ILL Coal Association Illinois Chamber of Commerce Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 363 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 193 Jacksonville Regional Economic Development Corporation (EDC) Karen Shaw Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) Leinberger & Critchelow families Lillian Korous Marc Landers Mick Mcintyre Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Clean Air Task Force, and Sierra Club Pipefitters Local 137 Robert J. Finley U.S. Carbon Sequestration Council (CSC) US Fish and Wildlife Service Wilmot McCutchen ii SECTION 1. GENERAL AND OUT OF SCOPE COMMENTS EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts 144 and 146 state the requirements and standards that a permit applicant must meet to have an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit application approved. Those regulations define the general scope of EPA’s authority and review process. Federal regulations require EPA to briefly describe and respond to significant comments received on UIC permits. EPA received numerous general comments and comments directed at matters outside the scope of the UIC Program’s purview. EPA acknowledges the submittal of these comments and clarifies that because they raise matters that are not addressed by the UIC regulations and are outside the scope of the UIC permit process, EPA does not respond to them specifically in this document. The comments falling into the “out of scope” category focus on topics including: job creation and economic benefits of the project; cost of the project; general support for or non-specific opposition to the project; the Department of Energy’s process, decisions and Environmental Impact Assessment; approvals and processes of other regulatory programs; climate change; the power plant; the pipeline; other Carbon Capture and Storage projects; other Geologic Sequestration projects (e.g., the Archer Daniels Midland project); neutral statements of fact; background information on the commenters or the project; pore space ownership; mineral rights; eminent domain; takings; land owner compensation; natural gas storage operations; and general introductory statements to specific concerns. These general comments are listed below without response. Specific comments that address topics that are relevant to this permitting decision, with responses, follow in subsequent sections. Although EPA is not responding to general statements of support and opposition to the permit individually, it did consider them in making the decision to issue final permits. 1 # Commenter Comment Text 1 Boilermakers I'm here to speak in favor of the permits on behalf of myself and our members. Local 363 Our primary work is in power plants and power generation facilities and we believe not only the jobs that will be created during construction and the direct and indirect jobs that will be created will be more permanent jobs after construction are important, but also the ramifications of this power plant and the carbon capture technology that could spread to other plants and keep our industry viable for many years. And I think it should also be noted when talking about the jobs that a lot of our living is made during, what we refer to as the outage season. When we do periodic maintenance on these power plants. And so there will be -- I think the job numbers are low because we will be back to service the facility on a fairly regular basis. And those are jobs that haven't been talked about today, but they're very important to myself and our members because that's how we make our living. We, you know, we aren't scientists. We have read, we're well-read on the carbon capture and we do believe that the Environmental Protection Agency and FutureGen Alliance has our -- has protected us and looked out for our best interest. So, again, we're in favor of moving this forward. 2 Bradley I'm here to briefly discuss the economic and environmental impact of the FutureGen 2.0 project. Specifically, the Zeller sequestration site and it's what we're here for today and the ground water. But economically the project itself is a 1.6 billion dollar impact for our economy. That's the actual construction cost. To put that in layman's terms, we are a board of review for the county. I'm looking back. I should be -- but anyway, to put this in perspective the County of Morgan has a 500-million dollar EAV. That's our total tax base that we base all of our taxes. For our school district, the county, all the taxing body which is equivalent to a 1.5-billion dollar value. 500 million is one-third of our fair market value. Now, there's roads and hospitals and things out of that EAV, but that's 1.5 billion total value of Morgan County. This is bringing in 1.6 billion dollars to the county, which is more than the county is worth in total. An independent study by the University
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of the Industrial Alliance in the USA
    The Role of the Industrial Alliance in the USA Joint Workshop on Industrial Alliances for IGCC & Co- Production and CO2 Capture & Storage Beijing, China May 23-24, 2007 Thomas A. Sarkus, FutureGen Project Director National Energy Technology Laboratory National Energy Technology Laboratory • Only DOE national lab dedicated to fossil energy − Fossil fuels provide 85% of U.S. energy supply • One lab, five locations, one management structure • 1,100 Federal and support-contractor employees • Research spans fundamental science to technology demonstrations Pennsylvania Oregon West Virginia Alaska Oklahoma TAS 5/23/07 Presentation Outline • Part I: Clean Coal Demonstration Programs − a) Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program − b) Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII) − c) Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) • Part II: FutureGen • Part III: Observations & Discussion TAS 5/23/07 Part I: Clean Coal Demonstration Programs a) Clean Coal Technology (CCT) b) Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII) c) Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) TAS 5/23/07 DOE’s Coal Demonstration Programs Implemented Through Competition Fleet of Tomorrow Industry / Government CCPI Partnership Clean Coal Power Initiative - 2002-2012 PPII Min 50% Power Plant Improvement Non Fed’l Initiative - 2001 Cost Share CCT Clean Coal Technology Program - 1985-1993 Repayment Existing Fleet TAS 5/23/07 CCT Program Success Stories FGD Scrubbers Advanced Pollution Controls • Installed on 75% of U.S. coal plants • 1/2 to 1/10 cost of older systems • Billions saved in compliance costs Low-NOx Burners HAPS & Hg Data Advanced Coal Power Systems • 2 IGCC pioneers + 1 large-scale CFB • Quantified HAPS Levels • Basis for Hg R&D, regs, Tampa IGCC etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Futuregen to Be Shut Down After Feds Withdraw $1B in Funding 4 February 2015, Bydavid Mercer
    FutureGen to be shut down after feds withdraw $1B in funding 4 February 2015, byDavid Mercer Coal companies working with the government on Department's decision was a disappointment for the long-planned $1.65 billion FutureGen clean- both central Illinois and supporters of clean-coal coal project said Tuesday they have no choice but technology. to shut it down after the Department of Energy suspended the majority of its funding. "A decade-long bipartisan effort made certain that federal funding was available for the FutureGen The department confirmed that it will not provide Alliance to engage in a large-scale carbon-capture the $1 billion in stimulus funding it had committed demonstration project," Durbin said. "But the to the project, which aimed to refit a coal-fired project has always depended on a private power plant near Meredosia in western Illinois and commitment and can't go forward without it." store carbon dioxide from the coal underground. As recently as last September, the project reached The FutureGen Alliance, the companies working what the FutureGen Alliance called a major on the project in western Illinois, said they were milestone when the U.S. Environmental Protection disappointed by the news but had no way to make Agency issued permits for FutureGen to start up the money. storing carbon underground. "The federal funding was the key component," According to the Department of Energy, it has FutureGen Alliance spokesman Lawrence spent $116.5 million on the power plant and $86 Pacheco said, adding that the Department of million on the underground storage site.
    [Show full text]
  • Futuregen Case Study by Gretchen Hund1 and Sallie Greenberg2
    FutureGen Case Study By Gretchen Hund1 and Sallie Greenberg2 1Pacifi c Northwest National Laboratory 2Illinois State Geological Survey – Advanced Energy Technology Initiative In fulfi llment of Task 1 for CSIRO on behalf of the Global CCS Institute: International Comparison of Public Outreach Practices Associated with Large Scale CCS Projects FutureGen Case Study Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) through the Commonwealth Scientifi c and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Neither the Battelle Memorial Institute, nor the Illinois State Geological Survey – University of Illinois, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specifi c commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favouring by the institutions mentioned herein or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or refl ect those of GCCSI, CSIRO, the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNIVERSITY
    [Show full text]
  • Futuregen Alliance
    FutureGen Alliance February 8, 2006 For Immediate Release FutureGen Industrial Alliance Announces Site Selection Process for World’s First “Zero-Emissions” Coal Plant and Launches Website WASHINGTON, DC, Feb. 8 – The FutureGen Industrial Alliance today announced a site selection process to determine the host site for the world's first coal- fueled "zero emissions" power plant. A draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for public review will be issued in the latter part of February 2006, with a final RFP targeted for release in March 2006. Proposals for the host site will be due by May 2006. Based on an evaluation of the proposals received, the Alliance will develop a list of candidate sites by summer of 2006. Information about the process is provided on the FutureGen Alliance website at www.FutureGenAlliance.org, which was launched this week. The host site will be selected through an open, competitive process. Candidate sites will be identified by applying a set of technical, environmental, regulatory and financial criteria developed by the Alliance, with input from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), independent technical experts and stakeholders. The criteria will include those typically considered when siting power plants, such as access to water, fuel delivery systems, and transmission lines, as well as requirements that are unique to the FutureGen project, such as the suitability of the site geology for permanent carbon dioxide storage. These criteria will be explained in detail in the RFP. Following the FutureGen Alliance’s identification of a list of candidate sites, DOE will use the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process to determine which sites are acceptable from an environmental impact perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuel W. Bodman Nomination Hearing
    S. HRG. 109–1 SAMUEL W. BODMAN NOMINATION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF SAMUEL W. BODMAN TO BE SECRETARY OF ENERGY JANUARY 19, 2005 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 99–513 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:39 Mar 04, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\DOCS\99513.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JIM BUNNING, Kentucky ALEX FLINT, Staff Director JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel BOB SIMON, Democratic Staff Director SAM FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:39 Mar 04, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 P:\DOCS\99513.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS Page Akaka, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Futuregen the Energy Plant of the Future
    FutureGen The Energy Plant of the Future CSLF – Barriers to CCS Deployment Workshop FutureGen Overview March 2007 Victor Der Director, Office of Clean Energy Systems Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 1 Tomorrow’s Energy Plant Through a government-industry partnership, the FutureGen research project has as its goal the establishment of the technical feasibility, economic viability and broad acceptance of co- producing electricity and hydrogen from coal with essentially zero emissions, including carbon (sequestration). Industry will lead since it will ultimately deploy the technology in the energy market. U.S. Department of Energy 2 FutureGen Goals Design, construct and operate a 275 MW prototype gasification plant that produces electricity and hydrogen fuel, while sequestering CO 2 at an annual rate of 1-2 million metric tons to adequately stress the geologic formation with CO2 injection. Sequester 90 percent of CO2 initially and up to near 100 percent sequestered eventually Prove the effectiveness, safety, and permanence of CO 2 sequestration through validating the technology at large scale under real world conditions . Establish technology standards and protocols for CO2 measuring, monitoring, and verification Validate engineering, economic, and environmental viability of advanced coal-based, zero emission technologies for commercial readiness in the 2020 timeframe U.S. Department of Energy 3 FutureGen: the Focus of the R&D Program Fuel Cells Carbon Sequestration FutureGen Gasification with Cleanup Separation System Optimized Integration H -Turbines H2 Production 2 U.S. Department of Energy 4 FutureGen Systems Oxygen Gasification Gas Cleaning Water/Gas Shift Oxygen Membrane Power Gasifier High Efficiency Turbine H2/CO 2 Separation Fuel Cell Coal Process Heat/Steam Electricity H2 Fuel Products/ Byproducts CO Liquids 2 Conversion Utilization Fuels/Chemicals Fuels and CO 2 Chemicals Figure 2 Sequestration Coal Seams Saline Reservoir Enhanced Oil Recovery U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 145/Friday, July 28
    42840 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Notices U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Council on Environmental Quality communities, the environmental Street, NE., Union Center Plaza, room (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts community, international stakeholders, #41B4, Washington, DC 20202–5320. 1500–1508), and the DOE NEPA and research organizations to participate Telephone: 202–377–3212; and as a implementing procedures (10 CFR part in the FutureGen Project through the secondary contact, Shirley Wheeler, 1021), to assess the potential NEPA process. Director, Collections Management, environmental impacts for the proposed Potential environmental impacts of Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of action of providing Federal funding (up each of the four alternatives will be Education, 830 First Street, NE., Union to $700 million) for the FutureGen analyzed in detail in the EIS. Center Plaza, room #41F1, Washington, Project. The FutureGen Project would Reasonable power plant technologies DC 20202–5320. Telephone: (202) 377– comprise the planning, design, and component configurations proposed 3294. If you use a telecommunications construction and operation by a private- by the Alliance will be used in the device for the deaf (TTD), you may call sector organization of a coal-fueled evaluation. In addition, DOE will the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1– electric power and hydrogen gas (H2) consider potential mitigation 800–877–8339. production plant integrated with carbon opportunities in the EIS. Individuals with disabilities may dioxide (CO2) capture and geologic DATES: To ensure that all of the issues obtain this document in an alternative sequestration of the captured gas. related to this proposal are addressed, format (e.g., Braille, large print, Following an evaluation of 12 site DOE invites comments on the proposed audiotape, or computer diskette) on proposals from seven states, DOE scope and content of the EIS from all request to either contact person listed in identified four sites as reasonable interested parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Futuregen Zero Emission Coal Power Plant
    TheThe statusstatus ofof thethe FutureGenFutureGen zerozero emissionemission coalcoal powerpower plantplant BriefingBriefing toto representativesrepresentatives ofof thethe CSLFCSLF TechnicalTechnical GroupGroup AprilApril 3,3, 20062006 JosephJoseph GioveGiove IIIIII ProgramProgram ManagerManager OfficeOffice ofof CleanClean CoalCoal U.S.U.S. DepartmentDepartment ofof EnergyEnergy 1 U.S. Department of Energy 2 Tomorrow’sTomorrow’s EnergyEnergy PlantPlant TheThe goalgoal ofof thethe FutureGenFutureGen researchresearch projectproject isis toto establishestablish thethe technicaltechnical feasibility,feasibility, economiceconomic viabilityviability andand broadbroad acceptanceacceptance ofof co-producingco-producing electricityelectricity andand hydrogenhydrogen fromfrom coalcoal withwith essentiallyessentially zerozero emissions,emissions, includingincluding carboncarbon (sequestration).(sequestration). U.S. Department of Energy 3 RD&DRD&D toto MeetMeet TechnologyTechnology ChallengeChallenge TraditionalTraditional AdvancedAdvanced TechnologyTechnology ResearchResearch InventionsInventions CryogenicCryogenic SeparationSeparation OO22 MembranesMembranes AmineAmine ScrubbersScrubbers HH22 Membranes,Membranes, “Clathrate”“Clathrate” CO CO22 SeparationSeparation oror AdvancedAdvanced SolexolSolexol GasGas StreamStream Clean-UpClean-Up “Dirty”“Dirty” Shift Shift ReactorReactor SyngasSyngas TurbineTurbine HydrogenHydrogen TurbineTurbine FuelFuel CellCell ($4,000/kW)($4,000/kW) SECASECA FuelFuel CellCell ($400/kW($400/kW design)design) EOREOR
    [Show full text]
  • Futuregen: the World's Most Advanced, Emissions-Free Power Plant
    FutureGen: The world’s most advanced, emissions-free power plant What is FutureGen? FutureGen is the first of its kind coal-fueled power plant that The Department of Energy announced plans to will link state-of-the-art technologies to produce electricity build FutureGen in 2003. By May 2006, 12 sites in seven and hydrogen with near-zero emissions. The project will take states had applied to host the plant. In July 2006, the a significant step in strengthening the United States’ ability FutureGen Alliance announced the four finalists for the to produce reliable energy, improve the environment and facility: Mattoon and Tuscola in Illinois; and Jewett and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This effort will serve Odessa in Texas. as a prototype for the next generation of power plants throughout the country and the world. The $1.4 billion project is a government-industry partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) FutureGen will also serve as a research laboratory for and the FutureGen Alliance, a consortium of the world’s discovering and refining clean coal technology, hydrogen largest coal and energy producers. production and carbon sequestration. As new technology is discovered and evolves, it will be incorporated into the design The final decision on where FutureGen will be located will and operation of the plant. FutureGen will foster innovations be announced by the U.S. DOE and the FutureGen Allliance that will affect the energy industry for years to come. in late 2007. An Integration of Cutting-Edge Technology How does FutureGen work? Carbon Sequestration Over the years, major technological advances have been made Currently, about one third of the carbon dioxide in coal gasification, electricity generation, emissions control, emissions released into the atmosphere comes from carbon dioxide capture and storage, and hydrogen produc- power plants and other large-point sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Applauds the Selection of Mattoon, Illinois for the Futuregen Site
    December 18, 2007 For Immediate Release Contact: Lawrence Pacheco (202) 715-1555 FutureGen Alliance Selects Mattoon, Illinois as the Final Site for the First-of-a-kind, Near-Zero Emissions Coal-fueled Power Plant Washington, D.C. — The FutureGen Alliance today announced that Mattoon, Illinois has been chosen as the final site to host the FutureGen power plant. “The Alliance would like to congratulate Mattoon, Illinois for being chosen as the final site to host the FutureGen facility,” said Mike Mudd, Chief Executive Officer of the FutureGen Alliance. “Officials from Mattoon should be commended for their determination and dedication to the FutureGen program.” The site evaluation process has been rigorous, transparent, and held to the highest level of scrutiny. The U.S. DOE’s environmental review was thorough and resulted in finding all four candidate sites worthy of being selected. The selection of Mattoon, will be finalized upon the Department of Energy’s (DOE) issuance of the National Environmental Policy Act Record of Decision and other DOE contractual formalities. Completing this massive effort in such a short time is a testament to the teamwork by the DOE, its contractors, the states and the Alliance. The Alliance used over 120 different factors in the general areas of cost, risks to cost and schedule, and benefits in making the final selection. The Alliance and Illinois will now work together to move FutureGen forward at a continued fast pace to develop this much-needed, first-of-a-kind research and development program. With the issue of climate change at the top of Congress’ agenda and on the minds of many policy-makers around the globe, FutureGen and its continued progress toward advancing new technologies such as carbon capture and storage is more important than ever.
    [Show full text]
  • "Futuregen 2.0 Project Draft Environmental
    COVER SHEET Responsible Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Cooperating Agencies: None Title: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the FutureGen 2.0 Project (DOE/EIS-0460D) Location: Morgan County, Illinois Contact: For further information about this For general information on the DOE process for Environmental Impact Statement, implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, contact: contact: Cliff Whyte, NEPA Compliance Officer Carol Borgstrom, Director U.S. Department of Energy Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54) National Energy Technology Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy 3610 Collins Ferry Road 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Morgantown, WV 26507-0880 Washington, DC 20585-0103 (304) 285-2098 (202) 586-4600 or leave message Fax: (304) 285-4403 at (800) 472-2756 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Abstract: This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates the potential impacts associated with DOE’s proposed action to provide financial assistance to the FutureGen Alliance (the Alliance) for the FutureGen 2.0 Project, including the direct and indirect environmental impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project. DOE’s proposed action would provide approximately $1 billion of funding (primarily under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) to support construction and operation of the FutureGen 2.0 Project. The funding would be used for project design and development, procurement of capital equipment, construction, and to support a 56-month demonstration period for a coal-fueled electric generation plant integrated with carbon capture and storage. For the FutureGen 2.0 Project, the Alliance would construct and operate a 168-megawatt electrical (MWe) gross output coal-fueled electric generation plant using advanced oxy-combustion technology.
    [Show full text]
  • "Futuregen 2.0 Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary"
    COVER SHEET Responsible Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Cooperating Agencies: None Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the FutureGen 2.0 Project (DOE/EIS-0460) Location: Morgan County, Illinois Contact: For further information about this For general information on the DOE process for Environmental Impact Statement, implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, contact: contact: Cliff Whyte, NEPA Compliance Officer Carol Borgstrom, Director U.S. Department of Energy Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54) National Energy Technology Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy 3610 Collins Ferry Road 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Morgantown, WV 26507-0880 Washington, DC 20585-0103 (304) 285-2098 (202) 586-4600 or leave message Fax: (304) 285-4403 at (800) 472-2756 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Abstract: This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates the potential impacts associated with DOE’s proposed action to provide financial assistance to the FutureGen Industrial Alliance (the Alliance) for the FutureGen 2.0 Project, including the direct and indirect environmental impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project. DOE’s proposed action would provide approximately $1 billion of funding (primarily under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) to support construction and operation of the FutureGen 2.0 Project. The funding would be used for project design and development, procurement of capital equipment, construction, and to support 56-a month demonstration period for a coal-fueled electric generation plant integrated with carbon capture and storage. For the FutureGen 2.0 Project, the Alliance would construct and operate amegawatt 168- electrical (MWe) gross output coal-fueled electric generation plant using advanced oxy-combustion technology.
    [Show full text]