Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 32171 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You can view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/

index.html. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 84.283B, Comprehensive Centers 

Program) 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 9601–9608. 

Dated: June 2, 2010. 

Thelma Mele ́ndez de Santa Ana, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13571 Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

American Electric Power Service 

Corporation’s Mountaineer 

Commercial Scale Carbon Capture and 

Storage Project: Mason County, WV; 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Potential Floodplain and Wetlands 

Involvement 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent and Notice of 

Potential Floodplain and Wetlands 

Involvement. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the Department) 

announces its intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508), 

and DOE’s NEPA implementing 

procedures (10 CFR Part 1021), to assess 

the potential environmental impacts of 

providing financial assistance for the 

construction and operation of a project 

proposed by American Electric Power 

Service Corporation (AEP). DOE 

selected this project for an award of 

financial assistance through a 

competitive process under the Clean 

Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) Program. 

AEP’s Mountaineer Commercial Scale 

Carbon Capture and Storage Project 

(Mountaineer CCS II Project) would 

construct a commercial scale carbon 

dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) 

system at AEP’s existing Mountaineer 

Power Plant and other AEP owned 

properties located near New Haven, 

West Virginia. 

For the Mountaineer CCS II Project, 

AEP would design, construct, and 

operate a CCS facility using Alstom’s 

chilled ammonia process that would 

capture approximately 1.5 million 

metric tons annually of CO2 from a 235- 

megawatt (MWe) flue gas slip stream 

taken from the 1,300 MWe Mountaineer 

Plant. The captured CO2 would be 

treated, compressed, and transported by 

pipeline to proposed injection site(s) on 

AEP properties within an estimated 12 

miles of the Mountaineer Plant where it 

would be injected into one or more 

geologic formations approximately 1.5 

miles below ground. The project would 

remove up to 90 percent of the CO2 from 

the 235–MWe slip stream and would 

demonstrate a commercial-scale 

deployment of the chilled ammonia 

process for CO2 capture and 

sequestration of CO2 in a saline 

formation. DOE selected this project for 

an award of financial assistance through 

a competitive process under Round 3 

(second selection phase) of the CCPI 

Program. 

The EIS will inform DOE’s decision 

on whether to provide financial 

assistance to AEP for the Mountaineer 

CCS II Project. DOE proposes to provide 

AEP with up to $334 million of the 

overall project cost, which would 

constitute about 50 percent of the 

estimated total development cost, 50 

percent of the capital cost of the project 

and 50 percent of the operational cost 

during the 3-year and 10-month 

demonstration period. The total project 

cost, including both DOE’s and AEP’s 

shares, is approximately $668 million 

(in 2010 dollars). The project would 

further a specific objective of Round 3 

of the CCPI program by demonstrating 

advanced coal-based technologies that 

capture and sequester, or put to 

beneficial use, CO2 emissions from coalfired power plants. 

The purposes of this Notice of Intent 

(NOI) are to: (1) Inform the public about 

DOE’s proposed action and AEP’s 

proposed project; (2) announce the 

public scoping meeting; (3) solicit 

comments for DOE’s consideration 

regarding the scope and content of the 

EIS; (4) invite those agencies with 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise 

to be cooperating agencies in 

preparation of the EIS; and (5) provide 

notice that the proposed project may 

involve potential impacts to floodplains 

and wetlands. 

DOE does not have regulatory 

jurisdiction over the Mountaineer CCS II 

Project, and its decisions are limited to 

whether and under what circumstances 

it would provide financial assistance to 

the project. As part of the EIS process, 

DOE will consult with interested Native 

American Tribes and Federal, state, 

regional and local agencies. 

DATES: DOE invites comments on the 

proposed scope and content of the EIS 

from all interested parties. Comments 

must be received within 30 days after 

publication of this NOI in the Federal 

Register to ensure consideration. In 

addition to receiving comments in 

writing and by e-mail [See ADDRESSES

below], DOE will conduct a public 

scoping meeting in which government 

agencies, private-sector organizations, 

and the general public are invited to 

present oral and written comments or 

suggestions with regard to DOE’s 

proposed action, alternatives, and 

potential impacts of AEP’s proposed 

project that DOE will consider in 

developing the EIS. The scoping 

meeting will be held at the New Haven 

Elementary School at 138 Mill Street in 

New Haven, West Virginia on Tuesday, 

June 22, 2010. Oral comments will be 

heard during the formal portion of the 

scoping meeting beginning at 7 p.m. 

[See Public Scoping Process]. The 

public is also invited to an informal 

session to learn more about the project 

and the proposed action at the same 

location beginning at 5 p.m. Various 

displays and other information about 

DOE’s proposed action and AEP’s 

Mountaineer CCS II Project will be 

available, and representatives from DOE 

and AEP will be present at the informal 

session to discuss the proposed project, 

the CCPI program, and the EIS process. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

scope of the EIS and requests to 

participate in the public scoping 

meeting should be addressed to: Mr. 

Mark Lusk, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Energy Technology Laboratory, 

3610 Collins Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880, 

Morgantown, WV 26507–0880. 

Individuals and organizations who 

would like to provide oral or electronic 

comments should contact Mr. Lusk by 

postal mail at the above address; 

telephone (412–386–7435, or toll-free 

1–877–812–1569); fax (304–285–4403); 

or electronic mail 

(Mountaineer.EIS0445@netl.doe.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For further information about this 

project, contact Mr. Mark Lusk, as 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

32172 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 

described above. 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: 

Background 

Since the early 1970s, DOE and its 

predecessor agencies have pursued 

research and development programs 

that include large, technically complex, 

projects in pursuit of innovation in a 

wide variety of coal technologies 

through the proof-of-concept stage. 

However, helping a technology reach 

the proof-of-concept stage does not 

ensure its continued development or 

commercialization. Before a technology 

can be considered seriously for 

commercialization, it must be 

demonstrated at a sufficient scale to 

prove its reliability and economically 

competitive performance. The financial 

risk associated with such large-scale 

demonstration projects is often too high 

for the private sector to assume in the 

absence of strong incentives. 

The CCPI program was established in 

2002 as a government and private sector 

partnership to increase investment in 

clean coal technology. Through 

cooperative agreements with its private 

sector partners, the program advances 

clean coal technologies to 

commercialization. These technologies 

often involve combustion 

improvements, control system advances, 

improved gasifier designs, pollution 

reduction (including greenhouse gas 

reduction), efficiency improvements, 

fuel processing techniques, and other 

activities. 

Congress established criteria for 

projects receiving financial assistance 

under this program in Title IV of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109– 

58; EPAct 2005). Under this statute, 

CCPI projects must ‘‘advance efficiency, 

environmental performance and cost 

competitiveness well beyond the level 

of technologies that are in commercial 

service’’ (Pub. L. 109–58, Sec. 402(a)). 

On February 17, 2009, the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Pub. L. 111–5, 123 Stat. 115) 

appropriated $3.4 billion to DOE for 

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development; the Department intends to 

use a significant portion of these funds 

to provide financial assistance to CCPI 

projects. 

The CCPI program selects projects for 

its government-private sector 

partnerships through an open and 

competitive process. Potential private 

sector partners may include developers 

of technologies, utilities and other 

energy producers, service corporations, 

research and development firms, 

software developers, academia and 

others. DOE issues funding opportunity 

announcements that specify the types of 

projects it is seeking, and invites 

submission of applications. 

Applications are reviewed according to 

the criteria specified in the funding 

opportunity announcement; these 

criteria include technical, financial, 

environmental, and other 

considerations. DOE selects the projects 

that demonstrate the most promise 

when evaluated against these criteria, 

and enters into a cooperative agreement 

with the applicant. These agreements 

set out the project’s objectives, the 

obligations of the parties, and other 

features of the partnership. Applicants 

must agree to provide at least 50 percent 

of their project’s cost; for most CCPI 

projects, the applicant’s cost share is 

much higher. 

To date, the CCPI program has 

conducted three rounds of solicitations 

and project selections. Round 1 sought 

projects that would demonstrate 

advanced technologies for power 

generation and improvements in plant 

efficiency, economics, and 

environmental performance. Round 2 

requested applications for projects that 

would demonstrate improved mercury 

controls and gasification technology. 

Round 3, which DOE conducted in two 

phases, sought projects that would 

demonstrate advanced coal-based 

electricity generating technologies 

which capture and sequester (or put to 

beneficial use) CO2 emissions. DOE’s 

overarching goal for Round 3 projects 

was to demonstrate technologies at 

commercial scale in a commercial 

setting that would: (1) Operate at 90 

percent capture efficiency for CO2; (2) 

make progress towards capture and 

sequestration at less than a 10 percent 

increase in the cost of electricity for 

gasification systems and a less than 35 

percent increase for combustion and 

oxy-combustion systems; and (3) make 

progress towards capture and 

sequestration of 50 percent of the 

facility’s CO2 output at a scale sufficient 

to evaluate full impacts of carbon 

capture technology on a generating 

plant’s operations, economics, and 

performance. The Mountaineer 

Commercial Scale CCS II Project was 

one of three selected in the second 

phase of Round 3. DOE entered into a 

cooperative agreement with AEP on 

February 1, 2010. 

Purpose and Need for DOE Action 

The purpose and need for DOE 

action—providing limited financial 

assistance to AEP’s project—is to 

advance the CCPI program by funding 

projects with the best chance of 

achieving the program’s objectives as 

established by Congress: 

Commercialization of clean coal 

technologies that advance efficiency, 

environmental performance, and cost 

competitiveness well beyond the level 

of technologies currently in commercial 

service. 

The Mountaineer CCS II Project 

AEP proposes to design, construct, 

and operate a CCS facility using 

Alstom’s chilled ammonia process to 

capture approximately 1.5 million 

metric tons annually of CO2 from a 235– 

MWe flue gas slip stream from the 

Mountaineer Plant. The captured CO2

would be treated, compressed, and 

transported by pipeline to proposed 

injection site(s) on AEP properties 

within an estimated 12 miles of the 

Mountaineer Plant where it would be 

injected into one or more geologic 

formations approximately 1.5 miles 

below the earth’s surface. These 

formations potentially include the Rose 

Run Formation, which is composed 

primarily of sandstone, and the Copper 

Ridge Formation, which is composed 

primarily of dolomite. 

Proposed Carbon Capture Facility Site: 

AEP Mountaineer Power Plant 

The proposed carbon capture facility 

would be located at the existing 1,300 

MWe AEP Mountaineer Plant and other 

AEP owned property near the town of 

New Haven in Mason County, West 

Virginia. The Mountaineer Plant uses an 

average of approximately 10,000 tons of 

coal per day with coal being delivered 

to the facility by barge on the Ohio 

River, rail, and conveyors from a nearby 

coal mine west of the site. The 

Mountaineer Plant began commercial 

operation in 1980 and consists of a 

nominally rated 1,300 MWe pulverized 

coal-fired electric generating unit, a 

hyperbolic cooling tower, material 

delivery and unloading facilities, and 

various ancillary facilities required to 

support plant operation. The plant is 

equipped with air pollution control 

equipment including an electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) for particulate 

control, selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) control, 

and a wet flue gas desulfurization unit 

for sulfur dioxide (SO2) control. The 

plant includes a small chilled ammonia 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 32173 

process validation facility constructed 

in 2009 which currently captures CO2

from a 20 MWe flue gas slip stream, and 

injects the captured CO2 into the Rose 

Run Formation and the Copper Ridge 

Formation beneath the site. Two CO2

injection wells and three monitoring 

wells are located on the Mountaineer 

Plant property to support the injection 

and monitoring of the injected CO2. The 

property is bounded to the west by U.S. 

Route 62, to the east by the Ohio River, 

to the south by AEP’s Phillip Sporn 

Power Plant, and one mile to the 

northwest (downriver) by the town of 

New Haven, West Virginia. A coal mine 

is located to the west of U.S. Route 62. 

Proposed Chilled Ammonia Process 

Carbon Capture Facility 

AEP would construct and operate a 

chilled ammonia process CO2 capture 

system that would be located on AEP’s 

property within the boundaries of the 

existing power plant. The process 

would use chilled ammonia to capture 

CO2 and isolate it in a highly 

concentrated, high-pressure form 

suitable for sequestration. The 

concentrated CO2 stream would be 

cooled and compressed to a 

supercritical state for transport via a 

network of pipelines to the injection 

sites. The process would be expected to 

remove approximately 90 percent of the 

CO2 in the treated flue gas. The system 

would occupy an area of approximately 

500 feet by 1,000 feet, and would 

process a slip-stream of flue gas after it 

exits the plant’s flue gas desulfurization 

system. AEP is currently evaluating the 

optimum location at the plant for the 

proposed capture facility. Existing 

infrastructure (roadways, utilities) 

would be used; however, upgrades or 

construction of additional infrastructure 

may be required. Major equipment 

includes absorbers, regenerators, 

pumps, heat exchangers, and 

refrigeration equipment. In addition, 

maintenance facilities, water-handling 

equipment and laboratories would be 

required. 

CO2 Compression and Transport 

Captured CO2 would be compressed 

at the Mountaineer facility to 

approximately 2,000 pounds per square 

inch pressure and transported via 

pipelines to injection sites expected to 

be within 12 miles of the Mountaineer 

Plant. AEP is currently evaluating 

potential pipeline routes, which will 

depend on selection of CO2 injection 

sites. However, AEP would use existing 

rights-of-way to the greatest extent 

practical. Potential pipeline routes will 

be considered as part of the NEPA 

process. 

CO2 Injection and Monitoring 

Captured CO2 would be injected into 

one or more geologic formations 

approximately 1.5 miles below the 

earth’s surface. These formations 

include the Rose Run Formation, which 

is composed primarily of sandstone, and 

the Copper Ridge Formation, which is 

composed primarily of dolomite. The 

properties of these formations are 

known to be generally amenable to 

sequestration and the formations are 

overlaid by cap rock that would provide 

a seal to prevent upward migration of 

the CO2. AEP is considering several of 

its properties in Mason County, West 

Virginia, for installation of CO2 injection 

and monitoring wells. However, specific 

injection sites have not been determined 

as site characterization work is needed 

to confirm the geologic suitability of 

specific locations. AEP is in the process 

of planning characterization work at 

these properties that would include the 

drilling of at least one deep test well to 

evaluate subsurface geology. 

Information collected during these 

characterization efforts will be used by 

DOE in the EIS and by AEP to determine 

injection locations. Potential injection 

well sites will be considered as part of 

the NEPA process. 

A monitoring, verification, and 

accounting (MVA) program would be 

implemented to monitor the injection 

and migration of CO2 within the 

geologic formations and verify that it 

stays within the target formations. The 

MVA program must meet regulatory and 

CCPI Program requirements and may 

consist of the following components: 

(1) Injection system monitoring; 

(2) containment monitoring (via 

monitoring wells, mechanical integrity 

testing, and other means); (3) CO2 plume 

tracking via multiple techniques; (4) 

CO2 injection simulation modeling; and 

(5) experimental techniques yet to be 

developed. 

Proposed Project Schedule 

The project proposed by AEP includes 

four phases consisting of planning, 

design, construction, and operation of 

the CCS system. There will be a fouryear DOE demonstration phase. AEP 

plans to start construction in 2013 and 

begin commercial operations 

(demonstration phase) by 2015. The 

schedule is contingent upon AEP 

receiving the necessary permits and 

regulatory approvals, as well as 

financial closing on all the necessary 

funding sources, including DOE’s 

financial assistance. DOE’s decision to 

provide financial assistance for detailed 

design, procurement of equipment, 

construction, and operations is 

contingent upon DOE’s completion of 

the NEPA process and the EIS. 

Connected and Cumulative Actions 

Under the cooperative agreement 

between DOE and AEP, DOE would 

share in the cost of the CCS facilities, 

injection wells, monitoring wells, 

pipelines, supporting facilities and site 

infrastructure, and the operational costs 

during the 4-year demonstration phase. 

For other activities that would not occur 

if not for DOE funding, DOE will 

evaluate in the EIS and consider the 

potential impacts associated with these 

activities as connected actions. 

DOE will consider the cumulative 

impacts of the cost-shared activities 

along with any other connected actions, 

including those of third parties. 

Cumulative impacts analysis will 

include the analysis of pollutant 

emissions (including greenhouse gas 

emission reductions) and other 

incremental impacts that, when added 

to past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future impacts, may have 

significant effects on the human 

environment. 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action 

NEPA requires that an EIS evaluate 

the range of reasonable alternatives to 

an agency’s proposed action. The range 

of reasonable alternatives encompasses 

those alternatives that would satisfy the 

underlying purpose and need for agency 

action. The purpose and need for DOE 

action—providing limited financial 

assistance to the proposed AEP 

project—are to advance the CCPI 

program by selecting projects that have 

the best chance of achieving the 

program’s objectives as established by 

Congress: The commercialization of 

clean coal technologies that advance 

efficiency, environmental performance, 

and cost competitiveness well beyond 

the level of technologies that are 

currently in service. 

DOE’s NEPA regulations include a 

process for identifying and analyzing 

reasonable alternatives in the context of 

providing financial assistance through 

competitive selection of projects 

proposed by entities outside the Federal 

government. The range of reasonable 

alternatives in competitions for grants, 

loans, loan guarantees and other 

financial support is defined initially by 

the range of responsive proposals 

received by DOE. Unlike projects 

undertaken by DOE itself, the 

Department cannot mandate what 

outside entities propose, where they 

propose their project, or how they 

propose to do it, beyond expressing 

basic requirements in the funding 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

32174 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 

opportunity announcement; and these 

express requirements must be limited to 

those that further the program’s 

objectives. DOE’s decision is then 

limited to selecting among the 

applications that meet the CCPI’s goals. 

Recognizing that the range of 

reasonable alternatives in the context of 

financial assistance and contracting 

processes is in large part determined by 

the number and nature of the proposals 

received, Section 216 of DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations requires the 

Department to prepare an 

‘‘environmental critique’’ that assesses 

the environmental impacts and issues 

relating to each of the proposals that the 

DOE selecting official considers for an 

award (see 10 CFR § 1021.216). This 

official considers these impacts and 

issues, along with other aspects of the 

proposals (such as technical merit and 

financial ability) and the program’s 

objectives, in making awards. DOE 

prepared a critique of the proposals that 

were deemed suitable for selection in 

this round of awards for the CCPI 

program. 

After DOE selects a project for an 

award, the range of reasonable 

alternatives becomes the project as 

proposed by the applicant, any 

alternatives still under consideration by 

the applicant or that are reasonable 

within the confines of the project as 

proposed (e.g., the particular location of 

the processing units, pipelines, and 

injection sites on land proposed for the 

project) and a ‘‘no action’’ alternative. 

Regarding the no action alternative, 

DOE assumes for purposes of the EIS 

that, if DOE decides to withhold 

financial assistance, the project would 

not proceed. 

DOE currently plans to evaluate the 

project as proposed by AEP (with and 

without any mitigating conditions that 

DOE may identify as reasonable and 

appropriate), alternatives to AEP’s 

proposal that it is still considering (e.g., 

sales options for CO2, location of 

alternative pipeline routes, and location 

of injection and monitoring wells on 

properties owned by AEP), and the no 

action alternative. DOE will consider 

other reasonable alternatives suggested 

during the scoping period. 

Under the no action alternative, DOE 

would not provide funding to AEP. In 

the absence of financial assistance from 

DOE, AEP could reasonably pursue two 

options. It could build the project 

without DOE funding; the impacts of 

this option would be essentially the 

same as those of AEP’s proposed action, 

except any DOE-required mitigations 

would not be imposed. Alternatively, 

AEP could choose not to pursue its 

project, and there would be no impacts 

from the project. This latter option 

would not contribute to the goal of the 

CCPI program, which is to accelerate 

commercial deployment of advanced 

coal technologies that provide the 

United States with clean, reliable, and 

affordable energy. However, as required 

by NEPA, DOE analyzes this option as 

the no action alternative for the purpose 

of making a meaningful comparison 

between the impacts of DOE providing 

financial assistance and withholding 

that assistance. 

Alternatives considered by AEP in 

developing its proposed project will 

also be discussed in the EIS. AEP is 

considering locations for the injection 

and monitoring wells on properties 

selected by AEP, and the pipeline 

corridors to be used to transport CO2 for 

sequestration. 

Floodplains and Wetlands 

The footprint of the proposed 

Mountaineer CCS II Project that would 

be constructed at the existing 

Mountaineer Plant and on other nearby 

AEP properties would be designed to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts to 

wetlands or floodplains. Wetland and 

floodplain impacts, if any, which would 

be expected to result from installation of 

monitoring and injection wells, or the 

construction of CO2 pipelines or other 

linear features required for this project, 

would be identified during preparation 

of the EIS and described in the EIS. In 

the event that the EIS identifies 

wetlands and floodplains that would be 

affected by the proposed project, 

including as a result of pipeline routes, 

injection facilities, or connected actions, 

DOE will prepare a floodplain and 

wetland assessment in accordance with 

its regulations at 10 CFR Part 1022, and 

include the assessment in the EIS. 

Preliminary Identification of 

Environmental Issues 

DOE intends to address the issues 

listed below when considering the 

potential impacts resulting from the 

construction and operation of AEP’s 

proposed project and any connected 

actions. This list is neither intended to 

be all-inclusive, nor to be a 

predetermined set of potential impacts. 

DOE invites comments on whether this 

is the correct list of important issues 

that should be considered in the EIS. 

The preliminary list of potentially 

affected resources or activities and their 

related environmental issues includes: 

• Air quality resources: Potential air 

quality impacts from emissions during 

construction and operation of the CCS 

facilities and appurtenant facilities on 

local sensitive receptors, local 

environmental conditions, and specialuse areas, including impacts to smog 

and haze and impacts from dust and any 

significant vapor plumes, including 

greenhouse gas emissions; 

• Water resources: Potential impacts 

from water utilization and consumption, 

plus potential impacts from wastewater 

discharges; 

• Infrastructure and land use: 

Potential environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts associated with 

the project, including delivery of feed 

materials and distribution of products 

(e.g., access roads, pipelines); 

• Visual resources: Potential impacts 

to the view shed, scenic views (e.g., 

impacts from the injection wells, 

pipelines, and support facilities for the 

injection wells and pipelines), and 

internal and external perception of the 

community or locality; 

• Solid wastes: Pollution prevention 

and waste management issues 

(generation, treatment, transport, 

storage, disposal or use), including 

potential impacts from the generation, 

treatment, storage, and management of 

hazardous materials and other solid 

wastes; 

• Ecological resources: Potential onsite and off-site impacts to vegetation, 

wildlife, threatened or endangered 

species, and ecologically sensitive 

habitats; 

• Floodplains and wetlands: Potential 

wetland and floodplain impacts from 

construction of project facilities, 

pipelines and other facilities; 

• Traffic: Potential impacts from the 

construction and operation of the 

facilities, including changes in local 

traffic patterns, deterioration of roads, 

traffic hazards, and traffic controls; 

• Historic and cultural resources: 

Potential impacts related to site 

development and the associated linear 

facilities (pipelines, etc.); 

• Geology: Potential impacts from the 

injection and storage of CO2 on 

underground resources such as ground 

water supplies, mineral resources, and 

fossil fuel resources; 

• Fate and stability of CO2 being 

sequestered; 

• Health and safety issues: Potential 

impacts associated with use, transport, 

and storage of hazardous chemicals 

(including ammonia), and CO2 capture 

and transport to the sequestration 

site(s); 

• Socioeconomic impacts, including 

the creation of jobs; 

• Disproportionate adverse impacts 

on minority and low-income 

populations; 

• Noise and light: Potential impacts 

from construction, transportation of 

materials, and facility operations; 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 32175 

• Connected actions: Potential 

development of support facilities or 

supporting infrastructure; 

• Cumulative effects that result from 

the incremental impacts of the proposed 

project when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects; 

• Compliance with regulatory and 

environmental permitting requirements; 

and 

• Environmental monitoring plans 

associated with the carbon capture 

facility and CO2 sequestration activities. 

Public Scoping Process 

This Notice of Intent initiates the 

scoping process under NEPA, which 

will guide the development of the Draft 

EIS. To ensure identification of issues 

related to DOE’s Proposed Action and 

AEP’s Proposed Project, DOE seeks 

public input to define the scope of the 

EIS. The public scoping period will end 

30 days after publication of this NOI in 

the Federal Register. Interested 

government agencies, private-sector 

organizations and individuals are 

encouraged to submit comments or 

suggestions concerning the content of 

the EIS, issues and impacts that should 

be addressed, and alternatives that 

should be considered. Scoping 

comments should clearly describe 

specific issues or topics that the EIS 

should address. Written, e-mailed, or 

faxed comments should be received by 

Friday, July 9, 2010 (see ADDRESSES). 

DOE will conduct a public scoping 

meeting at the New Haven Elementary 

School at 138 Mill Street in New Haven, 

West Virginia, on Tuesday, June 22, 

2010. Oral comments will be heard 

during the formal portion of the scoping 

meeting beginning at 7 p.m. The public 

is also invited to learn more about the 

project at an informal session at this 

location beginning at 5 p.m. DOE 

requests that anyone who wishes to 

speak at this public scoping meeting 

should contact Mr. Mark Lusk, either by 

phone, e-mail, fax, or postal mail (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Those who do not arrange in advance 

to speak may register at the meeting 

(preferably at the beginning of the 

meeting) and may be given an 

opportunity to speak after previously 

scheduled speakers. Speakers will be 

given approximately five minutes to 

present their comments. Those speakers 

who want more than five minutes 

should indicate the length of time 

desired in their request. Depending on 

the number of speakers, DOE may need 

to limit all speakers to five minutes 

initially and provide second 

opportunities as time permits. 

Individuals may also provide written 

materials in lieu of, or supplemental to, 

their presentations. Oral and written 

comments will be given equal 

consideration. 

DOE will begin the formal meeting 

with an overview of AEP’s proposed 

project. The meeting will not be 

conducted as an evidentiary hearing, 

and speakers will not be crossexamined. However, speakers may be 

asked questions to help ensure that DOE 

fully understands the comments or 

suggestions. A presiding officer will 

establish the order of speakers and 

provide any additional procedures 

necessary to conduct the meeting. A 

stenographer will record the 

proceedings, including all oral 

comments received. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of 

June 2010. 

James J. Markowsky, 

Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13568 Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. RF–013] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Decision and 

Order Granting a Waiver to Haier From 

the Department of Energy Residential 

Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer 

Test Procedure 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Decision and Order. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) gives notice of the 

decision and order (Case No. RF–013) 

that grants to Haier Group and Haier 

America Trading, L.L.C. (Haier) a waiver 

from the DOE electric refrigerator and 

refrigerator-freezer test procedure for 

certain basic models containing relative 

humidity sensors and adaptive control 

anti-sweat heaters. Under today’s 

decision and order, Haier shall be 

required to test and rate its refrigeratorfreezers with adaptive control antisweat heaters using an alternate test 

procedure that takes this technology 

into account when measuring energy 

consumption. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective June 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9611, E-mail: 

Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov. 

Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mail Stop GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0103, (202) 287–6111, E-mail: 

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.govmailto:. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 430.27(l), 

DOE gives notice of the issuance of its 

decision and order as set forth below. 

The decision and order grants Haier a 

waiver from the applicable residential 

refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test 

procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix A1 for certain basic models 

of refrigerator-freezers with relative 

humidity sensors and adaptive control 

anti-sweat heaters, provided that Haier 

tests and rates such products using the 

alternate test procedure described in 

this notice. Today’s decision prohibits 

Haier from making representations 

concerning the energy efficiency of 

these products unless the product has 

been tested consistent with the 

provisions and restrictions in the 

alternate test procedure set forth in the 

decision and order below, and the 

representations fairly disclose the test 

results. Distributors, retailers, and 

private labelers are held to the same 

standard when making representations 

regarding the energy efficiency of these 

products. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: Haier Group and 

Haier America Trading, L.L.C. (Case No. 

RF–013). 

Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a 

variety of provisions concerning energy 

efficiency, including Part A, which 

provides for the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309. Part A of Title III includes 

definitions, test procedures, labeling 

provisions, energy conservation 

standards, and the authority to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers. Further, EPCA 

authorizes the Secretary of Energy to 

prescribe test procedures that are 

reasonably designed to produce results 

that measure energy efficiency, energy 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES