DRAFT EIS ANTICIPATES NO MAJOR ENVIRO. IMPACTS FROM FUTUREGEN

Tamar Hallerman
GHG Monitor
5/3/13

The FutureGen 2.0 carbon capture and storage project could have potential “minor adverse impacts” on nearby groundwater, geology and air quality, but would likely have a “beneficial impact” on the surrounding area’s climate and greenhouse gas emissions, the Department of Energy has concluded. In its draft environmental impact statement for the $1.65 billion flagship CCS project released late last week, DOE said the oxy-fuel combustion project would likely have no major environmental impact on the area surrounding its western Illinois location during construction and operations.

The nearly 600-page document is an early step for the project as it moves forward with the regulatory approval process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Taking into account the project’s potential direct and indirect environmental impacts, the Department must eventually decide whether to authorize spending the remaining $1 billion in stimulus funding allocated to FutureGen on final design and construction work, as well as plant commissioning and initial operations.

The FutureGen Alliance, the industry consortium managing the project, said this week that it was “pleased” with DOE’s release of the draft EIS report. “The EIS identifies no significant environmental impacts and describes how the mitigation measures proposed by the Alliance will avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources,” Alliance CEO Ken Humphreys said in a statement provided to GHG Monitor. “We look forward to DOE finalizing the EIS and issuing a Record of Decision, which will allow us to keep this near-zero emissions project on track.”

‘Minor Adverse Impacts’ Possible

The draft concludes that in terms of local air quality in Morgan County—the project’s proposed capture and storage site—the 168 MW retrofit project would likely lead to localized, short-term fugitive dust and increased tailpipe emissions during construction. However, the document clarifies that during operations, the plant’s flue gas scrubbing technology is expected clean up the vast majority of criteria and hazardous air pollutants like SO2 and NOx before they are emitted into the atmosphere, an improvement compared to most fossil fuel-fired electricity generation technologies currently being used.

The report found that similar “minor adverse impacts” could also occur for other environmental factors like geology, physiography and soil. The potential for generating seismic events like earthquakes or prompting sequestered CO2 to migrate outside of the injection zone are also “highly unlikely,” according to the report. The study said the project would have even less of an impact on groundwater during construction, issuing a “negligible impact” rating.

‘Beneficial Impact’ on GHG Emissions

The EIS does highlight the fact that FutureGen would have an overall “beneficial impact” on carbon emissions compared to conventional coal and natural gas plants if the project ultimately gets built. “The reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from the project would incrementally reduce the rate of GHG accumulation in the atmosphere and help to incrementally mitigate climate change related to atmospheric concentrations of GHGs,” the draft EIS states. It says that FutureGen would reduce GHG emissions by 90 percent and 70 percent compared to conventional coal- and natural gas-fired plants, respectively.

The document also notes that the project would have a social benefit as well, if ultimately built, in terms of gaining public acceptance of a newer technology like CCS. “On a broader scale, successful implementation of the project may lead to widespread acceptance and deployment of oxy-combustion technology with geologic storage of CO2, thus fostering a long-term reduction in the rate of CO2 emissions from power plants across the United States,” the report says. It also says that without a project like FutureGen being funded by the federal government, the industry would not move forward on its own. “Without DOE’s investment in a utility-scale facility, the development of oxy-combustion repowered plants integrated with CO2 capture and geologic storage would also occur more slowly or not at all,” according to the report.

DOE to Hold More Public Meetings

The draft report is just the latest step in what could stretch on to be a lengthy regulatory process for the project under NEPA. DOE said it will be collecting public comments on the draft EIS through mid-June. In the meantime, the Department said it would convene a public meeting in Jacksonville, Ill., on May 21 to help inform the final EIS as DOE pulls it together. That report is expected to be released later this year.

The draft EIS comes at a critical time for FutureGen. The Alliance and project partners Air Liquide and Babcock & Wilcox have begun moving forward on Phase II front-end engineering and design work after DOE greenlighted the 16-month phase back in February. Management, though, is also addressing a legal challenge from utilities and other industry groups opposed to its 20-year power purchase agreement approved by state regulators in December. The Alliance is also waiting on approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission for its proposed 30 mile-long pipeline route, and is soon expected to submit a Class VI Underground Injection Control permit application to the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional office for the CO2 sequestration aspect of the project.

All the while, the project developers must stick to their tight timeline moving forward since they are already months behind their initial schedule. A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service last month, though, expressed some doubts that the project would be able to stay on schedule and spend all of its $1 billion stimulus grant—while meeting all of its DOE benchmarks—by the federally-mandated Sept. 30, 2015 deadline.