Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Notices 70429 

19. LTG William Phillips, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology), 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Acquisition, Logistics and 

Technology). 

20. Mr. Wimpy D. Pybus, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Acquisition, Policy and Logisitics, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and 

Technology). 

21. Mr. Craig R. Schmauder, Deputy 

General Counsel (Installation, 

Environment and Civil Works), Office of 

the General Counsel. 

22. Mr. Karl F. Schneider, Principal 

Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), 

Office of Assistant Secretary of the 

Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs. 

23. Mr. Brian M. Simmons, Executive 

Technical Director/Deputy to the 

Commander, United States Army Test 

and Evaluation Command. 

24. Ms. Heidi Shyu, Acting Assistant 

Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, 

Logistics and Technology), Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology). 

25. Mr. Lawrence Stubblefield, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Diversity and Leadership), Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Manpower and Reserve Affairs). 

26. MG Merdith B. W. Temple, 

Deputy Commanding General, United 

States Army Corps of Engineers. 

27. LTG Dennis L. Via, Deputy 

Commanding General, United States 

Army Material Command. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29272 Filed 11–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Notice of Potential Floodplain and 

Wetlands Involvement for the W.A. 

Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture 

and Sequestration Project, 

Southeastern TX 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Notice of Potential Floodplain and 

Wetlands Involvement. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) 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 a project 

proposed by NRG Energy, Inc (NRG). 

DOE selected NRG’s proposed W.A. 

Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture 

and Sequestration Project (Parish PCCS 

Project) for a financial assistance award 

through a competitive process under the 

Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) 

program. NRG would design, construct 

and operate a commercial-scale carbon 

dioxide (CO2) capture facility at its 

existing W.A. Parish Generating Station 

(Parish Plant) in Fort Bend County, 

Texas; deliver the CO2 via a new 

pipeline to the existing West Ranch oil 

field in Jackson County, Texas for use in 

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations; 

and demonstrate monitoring techniques 

to verify the permanence of geologic 

CO2 storage. 

The project would use an aminebased post-combustion technology to 

capture 90 percent (approximately 1.6 

million tons) of the CO2 annually from 

a 250-megawatt equivalent (MWe) flue 

gas slip stream taken from the 617 

megawatt (MW) Unit 8 at the Parish 

Plant. Captured CO2 would be dried, 

compressed, and transported about 80 

miles in a new pipeline to an existing 

oil field where it would be used for 

EOR. The project would demonstrate an 

integrated commercial-scale deployment 

of post-combustion CO2 capture 

technology for use in EOR operations 

and long-term geologic storage. DOE 

selected this project to receive a 

financial assistance award through a 

competitive process under Round 3 

(second selection phase) of the CCPI 

program. 

The EIS will further inform DOE’s 

decision on whether to provide 

financial assistance to NRG for the 

Parish PCCS Project. DOE proposes to 

provide NRG with up to $355 million of 

the overall project cost, which would 

constitute approximately 42 percent of 

the estimated $845 million total (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 NRG’s 

proposed project; (2) announce the 

public scoping meetings; (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 Parish PCCS 

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 

federal, state, regional and local 

agencies and Native American tribes. 

DATES: DOE invites comments on the 

proposed scope and content of the EIS. 

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 email [See 

ADDRESSES below], DOE will conduct 

public scoping meetings to provide 

government agencies, private-sector 

organizations and the general public 

with opportunities to present oral and 

written comments or suggestions with 

regard to DOE’s proposed action, 

alternatives, and the potential impacts 

of NRG’s proposed project for DOE 

consideration during development of 

the EIS. The public scoping meetings 

will be held at the Needville High 

School, 100 Fritzella Road, in Needville, 

Texas, on Wednesday, November 30, 

2011; and at the Jackson County 

Services Building, 411 North Wells 

Street, in Edna, Texas, on Thursday, 

December 1, 2011. 

Oral comments will be heard during 

the formal portion of the scoping 

meetings beginning at 7 p.m. [See Public 

Scoping Process.] The public is also 

invited to informal sessions beginning at 

5 p.m. at the same locations to learn 

more about the project and the proposed 

action. Representatives from DOE and 

NRG will be present at the informal 

sessions to discuss the proposed project, 

the CCPI program, and the EIS process. 

Displays and other information about 

DOE’s proposed action and NRG’s 

proposed project will also be available. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on 

environmental concerns about the 

project, overall scope of the EIS, or 

requests to participate in the public 

scoping meetings should be addressed 

to Mr. Mark W. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

70430 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Notices 

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 

(Parish.EIS0473@netl.doe.gov.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this proposed 

project, contact Mr. Lusk, as described 

above. For general information on the 

DOE National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process, 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 

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. 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. DOE 

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. DOE issues 

funding opportunity announcements 

specifying the types of projects it seeks, 

and invites submission of applications. 

DOE reviews applications according to 

the criteria specified in the funding 

opportunity announcement; these 

criteria include technical, financial, 

environmental, and other 

considerations. DOE selects projects 

demonstrating the most promise when 

evaluated against these criteria, and 

enters into a cooperative agreement with 

the selected applicants. These 

agreements set out project objectives, 

obligations of the parties, and other 

features of the partnerships. Applicants 

must agree to provide at least 50 percent 

of their project’s cost; and 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, 

coupled with the capture and 

sequestration (or beneficial use) of 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 

Parish PCCS Project was one of three 

projects selected in the second phase of 

Round 3. DOE entered into a 

cooperative agreement with NRG on 

May 7, 2010. 

Purpose and Need for DOE Action 

The purpose and need for DOE action 

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. 

DOE Proposed Action 

DOE’s proposed action is to provide 

limited financial assistance through a 

cooperative agreement with NRG for a 

new post-combustion carbon capture 

and compression system that would be 

added to the existing W.A. Parish power 

plant, with the captured CO2 piped to 

an oil field for EOR. Under the original 

cooperative agreement, DOE agreed to 

provide approximately $167 million in 

cost-shared funding, or about 50 percent 

of the total estimated costs for a smaller 

project (about 60 MWe). However, the 

cooperative agreement also specified 

that NRG would perform a screening 

study to determine if a larger scale 

system can be employed to improve 

system economics and performance. As 

a result, NRG recently proposed that the 

technology be demonstrated at a larger 

scale and requested an increase in DOE 

funding to be applied to the total 

estimated $845 million project cost. 

DOE’s proposed action for purposes of 

the EIS is to provide up to $355 million 

in cost-shared funding for this project. 

The W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2

Capture and Sequestration Project 

NRG’s proposed project would 

demonstrate the commercial feasibility 

of a retrofit, commercial-scale CO2

capture and compression system, 

coupled with use of CO2 for enhanced 

oil recovery (EOR) and ultimate 

sequestration. NRG would design and 

construct a system that would capture 

approximately 90 percent of the CO2 in 

an up to 250 MWe flue gas slip stream 

of the combustion exhaust gases from 

the existing 617 MW coal-fired Unit 8 at 

NRG’s Parish Plant. The captured CO2

(up to 5,475 tons per day) would be 

transported an estimated 80 miles in a 

new pipeline to be constructed by NRG. 

The CO2 would be used for EOR and 

ultimately sequestered at the existing 

West Ranch oil field in Jackson County, 

Texas. 

Proposed Carbon Capture Facility: W.A. 

Parish Generating Station 

The proposed capture system would 

be constructed on NRG’s 4,880-acre 

W.A. Parish Plant in rural Fort Bend 

County near the small town of 

Thompsons, Texas. The plant site 

includes four large pulverized coalfueled power generating units, four 

smaller natural gas-fired units, and a 

2,100-acre lake used for cooling water. 

The proposed project would retrofit one 

of the coal-fueled units (Unit 8) with a 

post combustion CO2 capture system, 

using space available on the plant site 

immediately adjacent to the unit. The 

CO2 capture system would use the Fluor 

Corporation (Fluor) advanced 

Econamine FG PlusSM technology, with 

monoethanolamine as the basis for the 

solvent. The project demonstration 

period may also include tests of other 

amine-based solvents. A new natural 

gas-fired combined-cycle power plant, 

estimated to be 80 MW in size, would 

be constructed to produce the auxiliary 

power needed to drive the compressors 

and equipment of the capture system. 

The exhaust gases from the new 

combustion turbine would produce 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Notices 70431 

steam to provide heat for the solvent 

regeneration process. 

CO2 Compression and Transport 

Captured CO2 would be compressed 

and transported in a new pipeline to 

injection sites at the West Ranch oil 

field, an estimated 80 miles from the 

proposed capture facility. The pipeline 

route would traverse parts of Fort Bend, 

Wharton and Jackson counties. The 

anticipated route includes mostly rural, 

sparsely-developed agricultural lands. 

NRG is currently evaluating potential 

pipeline routes; and plans to use 

existing rights-of-way and avoid 

sensitive resources to the greatest extent 

practical. Potential pipeline routes will 

be considered as part of the NEPA 

process. 

CO2 Sequestration via Enhanced Oil 

Recovery 

The proposed project would deliver 

up to 1.6 million tons of CO2 per year 

to the West Ranch oil field, located in 

Jackson County near the central Gulf 

Coast of Texas, to be used for EOR. The 

oil field has operated since 1938 and is 

well-characterized. However, CO2 floods 

have not been previously demonstrated 

in this field. A joint venture between 

NRG and Hilcorp Energy Company 

would conduct the EOR operations. 

Project activities eligible for costsharing would include: engineering and 

design, permitting, equipment 

procurement, construction, startup and 

demonstration. Infrastructure 

investments in the oil field by NRG and 

the costs of EOR operations would not 

be cost-shared by DOE and are not 

included in the total project cost 

estimates. DOE would, however, costshare in monitoring, verification, and 

accounting (MVA) activities at the EOR 

site to demonstrate the permanence of 

CO2 sequestration through EOR. 

Following the DOE cost-shared 

demonstration phase, the system would 

likely continue long-term commercial 

operations, without further DOE 

funding. 

CO2 Monitoring, Verification, and 

Accounting Program 

NRG would implement a MVA 

program to monitor the injection and 

migration of CO2 within the geologic 

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 NRG 

includes three phases: (1) Planning and 

conceptual design; (2) detailed 

engineering, procurement and 

construction; and (3) three years of 

demonstration and monitoring. NRG 

plans to start construction in November 

2012 and begin commercial operations 

(demonstration phase) by 2015. The 

schedule is contingent on NRG 

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 on completion of the NEPA 

process. 

Connected and Cumulative Actions 

Under the cooperative agreement 

between DOE and NRG, DOE would 

share in the cost of the carbon capture 

and supporting facilities at the power 

plant site, pipeline construction, 

development of monitoring wells and 

related facilities at the EOR site, and 

some of the operational costs (e.g., MVA 

activities) during the three-year 

demonstration phase. DOE will consider 

the potential impacts associated with 

connected actions, such as potential 

development of additional support 

facilities or infrastructure that would be 

anticipated for the proposed project. 

DOE will also consider the 

cumulative impacts of the proposed 

project along with any other connected 

actions, including those of third parties. 

The cumulative impacts analysis will 

include an assessment 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 is to advance the CCPI program 

by providing cost-shared funding for 

selected 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 currently in service. 

DOE’s NEPA implementing 

procedures include a process for 

identifying and analyzing reasonable 

alternatives in the context of providing 

financial assistance through the 

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 directly by the federal 

government, DOE 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 

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 projects from the 

applications that meet the CCPI 

program’s goals. 

DOE prepared an environmental 

critique (see 10 CFR § 1021.216) that 

assessed the environmental impacts and 

issues relating to each of the proposals 

received in CCPI Round 3 that met the 

basic eligibility requirements. The DOE 

selecting official considered 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. 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 locations of the 

processing units, pipelines, and 

injection sites on land proposed for the 

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

DOE currently plans to evaluate the 

project as proposed by NRG (with and 

without any mitigating conditions that 

DOE may identify as reasonable and 

appropriate), alternatives to NRG’s 

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

CO2 capture rates and solvents, power 

and steam supply options, locations of 

alternative pipeline routes, and 

locations of injection and monitoring 

wells), and the no action alternative. 

The EIS may also analyze other 

reasonable project-specific alternatives 

identified by DOE (in consultation with 

NRG) or the public (as part of the public 

scoping process). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

70432 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Notices 

Under the no action alternative, DOE 

would not provide funding to NRG. In 

the absence of financial assistance from 

DOE, NRG 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 NRG’s proposed 

project, except any DOE-required 

mitigations would not be imposed. 

Alternatively, NRG 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 being considered by NRG 

related to specifics of the proposed 

project will also be discussed in the EIS. 

NRG and its partners are considering 

locations for the injection and 

monitoring wells and the pipeline 

corridors necessary for transportation of 

the CO2. 

Floodplains and Wetlands 

The footprint of the proposed capture 

facilities and related infrastructure that 

would be constructed at the existing 

Parish Plant would be located to avoid 

or minimize potential impacts to 

wetlands or floodplains. Wetland and 

floodplain impacts, if any, would likely 

only be associated with installation of 

monitoring and injection wells, or the 

construction of CO2 pipelines or other 

linear features required for this project. 

The CO2 pipeline would likely need to 

cross the Colorado, Navidad and Lavaca 

rivers, as well as smaller streams along 

the route. DOE will identify such 

impacts during preparation of the EIS 

and, if any are identified, DOE will 

prepare a floodplain and wetland 

assessment in accordance with its 

regulations (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 NRG’s 

proposed project and any connected 

actions. This list is neither intended to 

be all-inclusive, nor a predetermined set 

of potential impacts. DOE invites 

comments on the list of important issues 

to be considered in the EIS. The 

preliminary list of potentially affected 

resources or activities and their related 

environmental issues includes, but is 

not limited to: 

• Air quality resources: potential air 

quality impacts from emissions during 

construction and operation of the 

proposed project on local sensitive 

receptors, local environmental 

conditions, and special-use areas, 

including impacts to smog and haze, 

impacts from dusts, and impacts from 

amine and greenhouse gas emissions; 

• Water resources: potential impacts 

from water utilization and consumption, 

plus potential impacts from wastewater 

discharges; 

• Infrastructure and land use: 

potential impacts associated with 

delivery of feed materials and 

distribution of products (e.g., access 

roads, pipelines); 

• Visual resources: potential impacts 

to the viewshed, 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 (generation, 

treatment, transport, storage, disposal or 

use), including hazardous materials; 

• 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 and 

pipelines; 

• 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 land 

disturbance and development associated 

with new 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 by its use for EOR; 

• 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; 

• Disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and 

environmental impacts on minority and 

low-income populations; 

• Noise and light: potential impacts 

from construction, transportation of 

materials, and facility operations; 

• Connected actions: potential 

development of support facilities or 

supporting infrastructure (e.g., facilities 

and utilities anticipated for EOR 

operations); 

• Cumulative effects: incremental 

impacts of the proposed project when 

added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects; 

and 

• Compliance with regulatory and 

environmental permitting requirements. 

Public Scoping Process 

This NOI initiates the public scoping 

process under NEPA, which will assist 

in the development of the draft EIS. To 

ensure identification of issues related to 

DOE’s proposed action and NRG’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, tribal governments, privatesector 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, emailed, or 

faxed comments should be received 

within 30 calendar days of this notice 

(see ADDRESSES). 

DOE will conduct public scoping 

meetings at the Needville High School, 

100 Fritzella Road, in Needville, Texas, 

on Wednesday, November 30, 2011; and 

at the Jackson County Services Building, 

411 North Wells Street, in Edna, Texas, 

on Thursday, December 1, 2011. The 

public is invited to learn more about the 

project at informal sessions at these 

locations beginning at 5 p.m. DOE will 

begin the formal meetings with an 

overview of NRG’s proposed project. 

Oral comments will be heard during the 

formal portion of the scoping meetings 

beginning at 7 p.m. DOE requests that 

anyone wishing to speak at the public 

scoping meetings should contact Mr. 

Lusk, either by phone, email, fax, or 

postal mail (see ADDRESSES). Those who 

do not make advance arrangements may 

register at the meetings (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. 

Speakers wanting more than five 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Notices 70433 

minutes should indicate the length of 

time desired in their requests. 

Depending on the number of speakers, 

DOE may need to limit all speakers to 

five minutes initially and provide 

second opportunities as time permits. 

Oral and written comments will be 

given equal consideration. 

The meetings will not be conducted 

as evidentiary hearings and speakers 

will not be cross-examined. However, 

speakers may be asked clarifying 

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 meetings. A 

court stenographer will record the 

proceedings, including all oral 

comments received. Individuals may 

also provide written materials in lieu of, 

or to supplement, their oral comment. 

Issued in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, this 4th 

day of November 2011. 

Anthony V. Cugini 

Director, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29333 Filed 11–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 12790–001] 

Andrew Peklo III; Notice of Application 

Accepted for Filing with the 

Commission, Intent to Waive Scoping, 

Soliciting Motions to Intervene and 

Protests, Ready for Environmental 

Analysis, Soliciting Comments, Terms 

and Conditions, Recommendations, 

and Prescriptions, and Establishing an 

Expedited Schedule for Processing 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection. 

a. Type of Application: Exemption 

From Licensing. 

b. Project No.: 12790–001. 

c. Date filed: February 16, 2011. 

d. Applicant: Andrew Peklo III. 

e. Name of Project: Pomperaug Hydro 

Project. 

f. Location: On the Pomperaug River, 

in the Town of Woodbury, Litchfield 

County, Connecticut. The project would 

not occupy lands of the United States. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility 

Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 

U.S.C. 2705, 2708. 

h. Applicant Contact: Andrew Peklo 

III, 29 Pomperaug Road, Woodbury, CT 

06798, (203) 263–4566, 

themill@charter.net. 

i. FERC Contact: Steve Kartalia, (202) 

502–6131 or Stephen.kartalia@ferc.gov. 

j. Deadline for filing motions to 

intervene and protests, comments, terms 

and conditions, recommendations, and 

prescriptions: Due to the small size and 

particular location of this project and 

the close coordination with state and 

federal agencies during the preparation 

of the application, the 60-day timeframe 

in 18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing comments, 

terms and conditions, 

recommendations, and prescriptions is 

shortened. Instead, comments, terms 

and conditions, recommendations, and 

prescriptions will be due 30 days from 

the issuance date of this notice. Further, 

the date for filing motions to intervene 

and protests will be due 30 days from 

the issuance date of this notice. All 

reply comments must be filed with the 

Commission within 45 days from the 

date of this notice. 

All documents may be filed 

electronically via the Internet. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 

brief comments up to 6,000 characters, 

without prior registration, using the 

eComment system at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at 1–(866) 208–3676, or for TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. Although the 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filing, documents may also be 

paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an 

original and seven copies to: Kimberly 

D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

The Commission’s Rules of Practice 

require all intervenors filing documents 

with the Commission to serve a copy of 

that document on each person on the 

official service list for the project. 

Further, if an intervenor files comments 

or documents with the Commission 

relating to the merits of an issue that 

may affect the responsibilities of a 

particular resource agency, they must 

also serve a copy of the document on 

that resource agency. 

k. This application has been accepted 

for filing and is now ready for 

environmental analysis. 

l. Project Description: The Pomperaug 

Hydro Project would consist of: (1) the 

existing 90-foot-long, 15-foot-high 

Pomperaug River dam equipped with 

three existing gates; (2) an existing 0.1- 

acre impoundment with a normal water 

surface elevation of 226 feet above mean 

sea level; (3) an existing 40-foot-long, 

42- to 50-inch-diameter penstock; and 

(4) an existing powerhouse integral to 

the dam, containing one new 76- 

kilowatt turbine generating unit. Project 

power would be transmitted through a 

new 24-foot-long, 208-volt underground 

transmission line. The proposed project 

is estimated to generate an average of 

300,000 kilowatt-hours annually. 

The applicant proposes to: (1) 

Rehabilitate the existing gates including 

constructing a new intake structure with 

a trashrack; and (2) construct a new fish 

passage facility adjacent to the existing 

powerhouse. 

m. Due to the project works already 

existing and the limited scope of 

proposed rehabilitation of the project 

site described above, the applicant’s 

close coordination with Federal and 

State agencies during the preparation of 

the application, completed studies, and 

agency recommended preliminary terms 

and conditions, we intend to waive 

scoping, shorten the notice filing period, 

and expedite the exemption process. 

Based on a review of the application, 

resource agency consultation letters 

including the preliminary terms and 

conditions, and comments filed to date, 

Commission staff intends to prepare a 

single environmental assessment (EA). 

Commission staff determined that the 

issues that need to be addressed in its 

EA have been adequately identified 

during the pre-filing period, which 

included a public meeting and site visit, 

and no new issues are likely to be 

identified through additional scoping. 

The EA will consider assessing the 

potential effects of project construction 

and operation on geology and soils, 

aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and 

endangered species, recreation and land 

use, aesthetic, and cultural and historic 

resources. 

n. A copy of the application is 

available for review at the Commission 

in the Public Reference Room or may be 

viewed on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket 

number excluding the last three digits in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, contact FERC 

Online Support. 

Register online at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

esubscription.asp to be notified via 

email of new filings and issuances 

related to this or other pending projects. 

For assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support. 

o. Anyone may submit comments, a 

protest, or a motion to intervene in 

accordance with the requirements of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES