Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 13397 

DOE prepared this Draft EIS in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulations that implement the 

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

Parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s procedures 

implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021). 

Projects considered by DOE for possible 

CCPI funding originate as a private 

party’s (e.g., electric power industry) 

application submitted to DOE in 

response to requirements specified in 

CCPI funding opportunity 

announcements. DOE is limited to 

considering the application as proposed 

by the private party; however, DOE may 

require mitigation measures to reduce a 

project’s potential impacts. 

Consequently, DOE’s consideration of 

reasonable alternatives is limited to the 

technically acceptable applications and 

the No Action Alternative for each 

selected project. 

Under the No Action Alternative, 

DOE would not provide cost-shared 

funding for the project beyond that 

required to complete the NEPA process. 

Although AEP could still elect to 

construct and operate the proposed 

project, without DOE funding the 

project would likely be canceled. 

Therefore, for purposes of analysis in 

the Draft EIS, the No Action Alternative 

is assumed to be equivalent to a ‘‘no 

build’’ alternative, meaning that 

environmental conditions would remain 

as they are (no new construction, 

resource utilization, emissions, 

discharges, or wastes generated). The No 

Action Alternative would not contribute 

to the goal of the CCPI program, which 

is to accelerate commercial deployment 

of advanced technologies that provide 

the United States with clean, reliable, 

and affordable energy. 

The Draft EIS analyzes the 

environmental consequences that may 

result from the Proposed Action, 

including options for pipeline routes 

and injection well sites, and the No 

Action Alternative. Potential impacts 

identified during the scoping process 

and analyzed in the Draft EIS relate to 

the following: air quality and climate; 

greenhouse gases; geology; 

physiography and soils; groundwater; 

surface water; wetlands and floodplains; 

biological resources; cultural resources; 

land use and aesthetics; traffic and 

transportation; noise; materials and 

waste management; human health and 

safety; utilities; community services; 

socioeconomics; and environmental 

justice. 

Copies of the Draft EIS have been 

distributed to: Members of Congress; 

Native American Tribal governments; 

Federal, State, and local officials; and 

agencies, organizations and individuals 

who may be interested or affected. 

Copies of the Draft EIS are available for 

review at the New Haven Public Library, 

106 Main Street, New Haven, WV 

25265, and at the Meigs County Library 

District, 216 West Main Street, Pomeroy, 

OH 45769. The Draft EIS will also be 

available on the Internet at: http:// 

nepa.energy.gov/ 

DOE_NEPA_documents.htm; or http:// 

www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/ 

nepa/index.html. 

Issued in Washington, DC on March 8, 

2011. 

Mark J. Matarrese, 

Director, Office of Environment, Security, 

Safety & Health, Office of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5694 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DOE Response to Recommendation 

2010–2 of the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board, Pulse Jet 

Mixing at the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 

2010–2, concerning Pulse Jet Mixing at 

the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant was published in 

the Federal Register on December 27, 

2010 (72 FR 24279). In accordance with 

section 315(b) of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

2286d(b), the Secretary of Energy 

transmitted the following response to 

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board on February 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, data, 

views, or arguments concerning the 

Secretary’s response to: Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana 

Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, 

DC 20004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Steven Petras, Nuclear Engineer, 

Departmental Representative to the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 

Office of Health, Safety and Security, 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28, 

2011. 

Mari-Jo Campagnone, 

Departmental Representative to the Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Office of 

Health, Safety and Security. 

The Honorable Peter S. Winokur 

Chairman 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20004–2901 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This is in response to your December 17, 

2010 letter, which provided Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board (Board) 

Recommendation 2010–2, Pulse Jet Mixing at 

the Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant. Mr. Dale E. Knutson will be the 

responsible Manager for this 

Recommendation. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) agrees 

with the Board that more testing and analysis 

should be completed to provide additional 

confidence that pulse jet mixing (PJM) and 

transfer systems for the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant (WTP) will achieve 

their design and operating requirements. 

DOE has previously made commitments to 

address the concerns raised by the Board in 

its Recommendation 2010–2. These 

commitments were made by the Federal 

Project Director in August 2010 during an 

internal project management meeting; in the 

October 7–8, 2010 public hearing on WTP; 

and in our supplement to the public hearing 

record submitted to the Board in January 

2011. At each point, full disclosure of DOE 

plans, with identified timelines for further 

details and schedules for testing and 

analysis, was included. The implementation 

of these commitments is on-going as part of 

WTP project plans that supports scheduled 

testing to begin in 2012. 

The Board acknowledged in its letter that 

DOE has taken and continues to take steps to 

increase the confidence that the PJM mixed 

vessels will comply with their designed 

operating requirements. As outlined in your 

letter: 

• DOE contracted an independent 

technical review team, Consortium for Risk 

Evaluation and Stakeholder Participation 

(CRESP), that presented DOE with 13 

recommendations. DOE is continuing to take 

actions addressing the CRESP 

recommendations. 

• On October 7–8, 2010, DOE publicly 

committed to large-scale testing and to 

complete relevant portions of the testing 

before installing remaining process vessels in 

the WTP Pretreatment Facility. As part of 

that commitment, the testing objectives and 

summary schedule for the large-scale testing 

was included in the WTP Project’s January 

2011 update to the public record. 

We believe the Board’s concerns regarding 

PJM at the WTP will be addressed by DOE’s 

current direction related to resolving PJM 

and transfer system uncertainty. Accordingly, 

DOE accepts Recommendation 2010–2. 

The Board’s Recommendation includes 

specific sub-recommendations that it believes 

need to be addressed as part of the DOE’s 

pulse jet mixed vessel testing program. There 

are certain specific details of the Board’s 

Recommendation that require clarification 

and are summarized below. We believe our 

intended actions should satisfy the Board’s 

concerns. 

• Sub-recommendations 1 and 2: Wording 

in both sub-recommendations calls for 

‘‘testing that envelope the complete range of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
13398 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 

physical properties for the high-level waste 

stored in the Hanford Tank Farms.’’ 

DOE intends to conduct large-scale testing 

with simulants selected to represent the vast 

majority of the waste in the tank farms, 

consistent with the approach used in WTP’s 

pulse jet mixing test program conducted to 

date. The WTP design and planned 

operations approach is intended to address 

residual uncertainty with other actions and 

design features. These include (1) waste feed 

pre-qualification activities; and (2) specific 

design features, including the ability to 

inspect vessels and equipment for vessel heel 

dilution and cleanout, that would enable 

waste particles that may not be mixing with 

the bulk of the waste to be moved forward 

to the melters. 

• Sub-recommendation 3: This subrecommendation calls for ‘‘* * * verification 

and validation of any computational models 

used by the WTP project team (e.g., Low 

Order Accumulation Model and FLUENT) 

based on the results from the ‘large-scale 

testing.’ ’’ 

The verification and validation effort is 

expected to be completed prior to the ‘‘large 

scale testing.’’ The WTP project intends to 

compare the results from the ‘‘large scale 

testing’’ with the computational models. 

• Sub-recommendation 4: This subrecommendation calls for ‘‘* * * including 

demonstrating that representative samples 

can be obtained even if the assumed WTP 

design particle size or density is exceeded. 

This will ensure that the sampling system 

does not exclude large, dense particles and 

artificially bias the measured particle size 

and density distribution.’’ 

The vessel testing activities will include 

determining the acceptability of vessel 

sampling in conditions where sampling may 

be challenged by mixing performance, i.e., 

solids-containing vessels. There may be cases 

where the sample system operation during 

normal vessel operations does not retrieve 

some large dense particles for analysis. As 

noted above, this is planned to be 

accommodated by the feed-prequalification 

process and by the ability to pull a sample 

during the heel dilution and cleanout 

process, when larger, denser particles would 

be retrieved into the sample system. 

Consequently, the large-scale testing program 

is not intending to demonstrate that normal 

sampling activities can retrieve all waste 

particles. 

DOE is committed to the safe design and 

operation of its nuclear facilities, consistent 

with the principles of Integrated Safety 

Management, and values input on how DOE 

can improve its activities. We look forward 

to working further with the Board and its 

staff on preparation of the DOE’s 

Implementation Plan for Recommendation 

2010–2 so that the WTP project can complete 

its design and construction activities while 

promoting nuclear safety for the life of WTP 

operations. 

If you have any further questions, please 

contact me or Ine ́s R. Triay, Assistant 

Secretary for Environmental Management, at 

(202) 586–7709. 

Sincerely, 

Steven Chu. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5608 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

Proposed Agency Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice and Request for 

Comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) invites public comment on a 

proposed collection of information to 

support the Weatherization Assistance 

Program ARRA–Period Evaluation that 

DOE is developing for submission to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and/or included in the 

request for OMB approval of this 

information collection; they also will 

become a matter of public record. 

Information about the operation of the 

program, energy used before and after 

weatherization, energy used by control 

group low-income homes, the 

effectiveness of specific energy 

efficiency measures, customer 

satisfaction with the program, and nonenergy benefits is needed for a 

comprehensive and rigorous evaluation 

of the program operated during the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (ARRA), which includes 

Program Years 2009, 2010, and 2011. 

DATES: Comments regarding this 

proposed information collection must 

be received on or before May 10, 2011. 

If you anticipate difficulty in submitting 

comments within that period, contact 

the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon 

as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

sent to: Bruce Tonn, Environmental 

Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, One Bethel Valley Road, 

P.O. Box 2008, MS–6038, Oak Ridge, TN 

37831–6038, Fax #: (865) 576–8646, 

tonnbe@ornl.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Bruce Tonn, Environmental 

Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, One Bethel Valley Road, 

P.O. Box 2008, MS–6038, Oak Ridge, TN 

37831–6038, Fax #: (865) 576–8646, 

tonnbe@ornl.gov. 

The plan for this evaluation can be 

found at http://weatherization.ornl.gov. 

The surveys and data forms that 

comprise this information request can 

also be found at http:// 

weatherization.ornl.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

package contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910– 

NEW; (2) Package Title: The 

Weatherization Assistance Program 

ARRA–Period Evaluation; (3) Type of 

Review: Regular; (4) Purpose: This 

collection of information is necessary 

for a complete evaluation of the program 

that will weatherize approximately 

600,000 low-income homes in Program 

Years 2009, 2010 and 2011; (5) 

Estimated Number of Total 

Respondents: 6,996. Information will be 

collected from seventy-four grantees 

(fifty states, five U.S. territories, 

Washington DC, two Native American 

tribes, and sixteen Weatherization 

Innovation grantees); one-thousand and 

nine local weatherization agencies; 

approximately one thousand utilities; 

approximately two thousand residents; 

and approximately 2,913 individuals 

working in the weatherization field; (6) 

Estimated Number of Total Responses: 

8,196; (7) Estimated Number of Total 

Burden Hours: The estimated burden is 

67,000 hours; (8) Estimated Reporting 

and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: There 

is no reporting or recordkeeping cost 

burden associated with this request. 

Authority: Section 6861 of title 42 of the 

United States Code and 10 CFR 440.25 

authorize the collection of this information. 

Issued in Washington, DC on March 3, 

2011. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5614 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #2 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER07–1195–000. 

Applicants: Mittal Steel USA, Inc. 

Description: Motion of ArcelorMittal 

USA LLC For Determination of Category 

1 Seller Status. 

Filed Date: 02/09/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110209–5165. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Friday, March 25, 2011. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES