13396 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 2011–5588 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–C 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Mountaineer Commercial Scale 

Carbon Capture and Storage Project, 

Mason County, WV 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability and 

Public Hearing. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) announces the availability 

of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Mountaineer 

Commercial Scale Carbon Capture and 

Storage Project (DOE/EIS–0445D) for 

public review and comment, as well as 

the date, location and time for a public 

hearing. The draft environmental impact 

statement (EIS) analyzes the potential 

environmental impacts of a project 

proposed by American Electric Power 

(AEP) Service Corporation, which was 

selected by DOE to receive financial 

assistance under the Clean Coal Power 

Initiative (CCPI) program. DOE’s 

Proposed Action is to provide costshared funding to AEP under the CCPI. 

DOE proposes to provide up to $334 

million of the project cost to support the 

construction and operation of AEP’s 

Mountaineer Commercial Scale Carbon 

Capture and Storage (CCS) Project 

(Mountaineer CCS II Project). AEP’s 

proposed project would construct a 

commercial-scale CCS system at its 

Mountaineer Power Plant (a 1,300- 

megawatt [MW] coal-fired power plant) 

and other AEP-owned properties in 

Mason County, West Virginia, near the 

town of New Haven. The project would 

capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from the 

existing pulverized coal-fired power 

plant, transport the captured CO2 by 

pipeline to well locations, and inject it 

into deep saline geologic formations for 

permanent geologic storage. 

DATES: DOE invites the public to 

comment on the Draft EIS during the 

public comment period, which ends 

April 18, 2011. DOE will consider all 

comments postmarked or received 

during the comment period in preparing 

the Final EIS, and will consider late 

comments to the extent practicable. In 

addition to receiving comments in 

writing and by e-mail [See ADDRESSES], 

DOE will conduct a public hearing at 

which government agencies, privatesector organizations, Native American 

Tribes and individuals are invited to 

present oral and written comments on 

the Draft EIS. The public hearing will be 

held at the New Haven Elementary 

School at 138 Mill Street in New Haven, 

West Virginia, on March 30, 2011. Oral 

comments will be heard during the 

formal portion of the public hearing 

beginning at 7 p.m. The public is also 

invited to an informal session to learn 

more about the project and DOE’s 

Proposed Action at the same location 

beginning at 6 p.m. Various displays 

and other information about DOE’s 

Proposed Action and AEP’s 

Mountaineer CCS II Project will be 

available. Representatives from DOE 

and AEP will discuss the proposed 

project, the CCPI program, and the EIS 

process at the informal session. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for information 

about the Draft EIS, requests to receive 

paper or electronic copies of it or to 

provide comments on the Draft EIS 

should be directed to: Mr. Mark W. 

Lusk, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. 

Department of Energy, National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins 

Ferry Road, M/S B07, P.O. Box 880, 

Morgantown, WV 26507–0880. Requests 

or comments can also be made by 

electronic mail at 

Mountaineer.EIS0445@netl.doe.gov; by 

telephone (412) 386–7435, toll-free 1– 

877–812–1569; or by fax (304) 285– 

4403. 

The Draft EIS is available on DOE’s 

NEPA Web page at: http:// 

nepa.energy.gov/ 

DOE_NEPA_documents.htm; and on the 

National Energy Technology 

Laboratory’s Web page at: http:// 

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

nepa/index.html. Copies of the Draft EIS 

will also be available at the locations 

listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this Notice. 

Written comments on the Draft EIS 

should be marked ‘‘AEP Mountaineer 

CCS Project’’ and sent to Mark W. Lusk, 

NEPA Document Manager, by one of the 

methods listed above. Oral comments 

on the Draft EIS will be accepted by 

telephone at the numbers listed above, 

or during the public hearing scheduled 

for the date and location provided in the 

DATES section of this Notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this project or 

the Draft EIS, please contact Mr. Mark 

W. Lusk (see ADDRESSES). For general 

information on the DOE NEPA process, 

please contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, 

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 

Compliance (GC–54), U.S. Department 

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone 

(202) 586–4600; fax (202) 586–7031; or 

leave a toll-free message (1–800–472– 

2756). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE’s 

Proposed Action is to provide $334 

million in cost-shared financial 

assistance to AEP to support the 

construction and operation of AEP’s 

Mountaineer CCS II Project. This 

financial assistance would constitute 

about 50 percent of the estimated total 

project cost during the 46-month 

demonstration period. Through a 

cooperative agreement with DOE, AEP 

would construct a CO2 capture facility 

using Alstom’s chilled ammonia process 

(CAP) at the Mountaineer Plant. 

Alstom’s CAP is a proprietary process 

for removing CO2 from combustion flue 

gas. The capture facility would be 

located within the boundaries of the 

existing Mountaineer Plant and would 

occupy approximately 11.5 acres. The 

capture facility would process a 

slipstream of the plant’s flue gas, 

equivalent in quantity to the emissions 

from a 235–MW power plant. Each year, 

approximately 1.5 million metric tons of 

CO2 would be captured, treated, and 

compressed into a highly concentrated 

form suitable for geologic storage. The 

processed CO2 would be transported by 

pipeline (primarily underground) to 

injection wells on AEP properties 

located within approximately 12 miles 

of the Mountaineer Plant. The captured 

CO2 would be injected into deep saline 

formations for permanent storage, 

approximately 1.5 miles below ground. 

Consistent with DOE’s objectives in 

CCPI Round 3, the Mountaineer CCS 

Project would be designed to: 

• Remove approximately 90 percent 

of the CO2 from the 235–MW slipstream; 

• Demonstrate a commercial-scale 

deployment of the CAP for CO2 capture; 

and 

• Demonstrate the injection, 

permanent geologic storage, and 

monitoring of CO2 in deep underground 

saline formations. 

Existing infrastructure (e.g., roadways, 

utilities) at the Mountaineer Plant 

would be used to the extent possible. 

However, upgrades to, and construction 

of, additional infrastructure may be 

required. Major new equipment would 

include absorbers, regenerators, 

strippers, pumps, heat exchangers, 

compressors, and a refrigeration system. 

In addition, the CO2 capture system 

would include reagent and refrigerant 

unloading equipment, water-handling 

equipment, a control room, maintenance 

and administrative facilities, and a 

laboratory. All of these would be located 

at the Mountaineer Plant. Carbon 

dioxide injection wells and pipelines 

would be located along existing rightsof-way (ROWs) to the extent possible 

and on other AEP properties in the area. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
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