[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 108 (Monday, June 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32171-32175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13568]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
coal-fired 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
([email protected]).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
project, contact Mr. Mark Lusk, as
[[Page 32172]]
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
[[Page 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 four-year 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
[[Page 32174]]
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 Sec.
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 special-use 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 on-site 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;
[[Page 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 cross-examined. 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