25708 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

1Mississippi River Transmission Corporation’s

application was filed with the Commission under

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of

the Commission’s regulations.

15. Northeast Utilities Service Company

[Docket No. ER95–952–000]

Take notice that Northeast Utilities

Service Company (NUSCO), on April

26, 1995, tendered for filing, a Service

Agreement and a Certificate of

Concurrence with Vermont Public

Power Supply Authority (VPPSA) under

the NU System Companies’ System

Power Sales/Exchange Tariff No. 6.

NUSCO states that a copy of this filing

has been mailed to VPPSA.

NUSCO requests that the Service

Agreement become effective on May 1,

1995.

Comment date: May 18, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

16. Maine Public Service Company

[Docket No. ER95–954–000]

Take notice that on April 26, 1995,

Maine Public Service Company (Maine

Public), tendered for filing an agreement

providing for short-term interim

transmission for Central Maine Power

Company.

Comment date: May 18, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

17. Robert Mehrabian

[Docket No. ID–2878–000]

Take notice that on April 24, 1995,

Robert Mehrabian (Applicant) tendered

for filing an application under Section

305(b) of the Federal Power Act to hold

the following positions:

Outside Director: Duquesne Light

Company

Outside Director: Mellon Bank

Corporation

Outside Director: Mellon Bank, N.A.

Comment date: May 19, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

18. Air Products Hycal Company, L.P.

[Docket No. QF95–260–000]

On April 25, 1995, Air Products Hycal

Company, L.P., (Applicant), of 7201

Hamilton Boulevard, Allentown,

Pennsylvania 18195–1501, submitted

for filing an application for certification

of a facility pursuant to Section

292.207(b) of the Commission’s

Regulations. No determination has been

made that the submittal constitutes a

complete filing.

According to the Applicant, the

bottoming-cycle cogeneration facility

will be located adjacent to Ultramar

Inc.’s Wilmington Refinery, in

Wilmington, California, and will consist

of a steam-methane hydrogen reformer,

heat recovery boilers, a doubleextraction/condensing steam turbine

generator, and a substation. Heat

captured from the hydrogen production

process will be used for power

production. The maximum net electric

power production capacity will be 20.9

MW. The facility is expected to begin

commercial operation in January of

1996.

Comment date: June 12, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

19. Central Hudson Gas & Electric

Corporation

[Docket No. ER95–945–000]

Take notice that Central Hudson Gas

and Electric Corporation (Central

Hudson) on April 24, 1995, tendered for

filing its development of actual costs for

1994 related to substation service

provided to Consolidated Edison

Company of New York, Inc. (Con

Edison) in accordance with the

provisions of its Rate Schedule FERC

No. 43.

Central Hudson indicates that the

actual cost amounted to $253,028 for

1994 and will be the basis on which

estimated charges for 1995 will be

billed.

Central Hudson requests waiver of the

notice requirements to permit charges to

become effective January 1, 1995 as

agreed by the parties.

Central Hudson states that a copy of

its filing was served on Con Edison and

the State of New York Public Service

Commission.

Comment date: May 18, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, in accordance

with Rules 211 and 214 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR

385.214). All such motions or protests

should be filed on or before the

comment date. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11710 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket No. CP95–228–000]

Mississippi River Transmission Corp.;

Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Assessment for the

Proposed Main Line System 1995 and

1996 Modernization Project and

Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues

May 8, 1995.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare an

environmental assessment (EA) that will

discuss the environmental impacts of

the construction and operation of the

facilities proposed in the Main Line

System 1995 and 1996 Modernization

Project.1 This EA will be used by the

Commission in its decision-making

process to determine whether an

environmental impact statement is

necessary and whether to approve the

project.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Mississippi River Transmission

Corporation (MRT) proposes to

modernize and improve the reliability of

its Main Line System under a 16-year

plan. The 16-year plan would address

safety, system reliability, and rising

operating cost. MRT is not seeking

authority to implement its entire 16-year

modernization plan. MRT seeks

authority to implement only changes it

proposes for 1995 and 1996. MRT

indicates that its proposal would not

affect the capacity of its Main Line

System and service to any of its existing

customers.

MRT’s Main Line System consists of

three pipelines which run roughly

parallel from Perryville, Louisiana to the

vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri. Main

Line No. 1 is the oldest of the three

lines. MRT proposes to abandon in

place 93 miles of its Main Line No. 1,

and as a consequence, MRT also

proposes to make certain changes on its

Main Line System. MRT requests

Commission authorization in Docket

No. CP95–228–000, for the following:

• Abandon in place about 93 miles of

its Main Line No. 1 from milepost 214

in Jackson County, Arkansas to milepost

307 in Butler County, Missouri.

• Cut and cap existing Main Line No.

1 within the Poplar Bluff Compressor

Station yard at milepost 307 in Butler

County, Missouri.

• Retire one 1,000-horsepower (hp)

compressor unit and replace it with a

5,850-hp compressor unit at the Biggers
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25709

2The appendices referenced in this notice are not

being printed in the Federal Register. Copies are

available from the Commission’s Public Reference

and Files Maintenance Branch, Room 3104, 941

North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426,

or call (202) 208–1371. Copies of the appendices

were sent to all those receiving this notice in the

mail.

Compressor Station at milepost 267 in

Randolph County, Arkansas.

• Retire two 625-hp compressor units

and replace them with a 5,850-hp

compressor unit at the Tuckerman

Compressor Station at milepost 220 in

Jackson County, Arkansas.

• Cut and cap existing Main Line No.

1 within the existing Diaz Compressor

Station yard and remove the block gate

assembly, at milepost 214 in Jackson

County, Arkansas.

• Relocate 13 delivery point laterals

by extending the laterals across MRT’s

right-of-way from points (taps) of

interconnection with Main Line No. 1 to

Main Line No. 2 and/or Main Line No.

3, in Butler County, Missouri and Clay,

Randolph, Lawrence, and Jackson

Counties, Arkansas.

• Abandon in place, cut, and cap a

short pipeline segment (20 to 40 feet)

between Main Line No. 1 and Natural

Gas Pipeline Company of America’s

facility, at milepost 260 in Randolph

County, Arkansas.

• Abandon in place five short (20 to

40 feet) segments of pipe which serve as

crossovers between Main Line No. 1 and

Main Line No. 2, in Lawrence, Jackson,

and Randolph Counties, Arkansas.

• Abandon and remove valves and

headers on the north and south sides of

the Black River at milepost 261 in

Randolph County, Arkansas.

• Abandon and remove an orifice

fitting at milepost 243 in Lawrence

County, Arkansas.

• Abandon and remove 10 block gate

assemblies in Jackson, Lawrence,

Randolph, and Clay Counties, Arkansas,

and Ripley and Butler Counties,

Missouri.

The general location of the project

facilities and specific locations for

facilities are shown in appendix 1.2

Land Requirements

MRT indicates that no additional land

would be required. All construction

activities would occur within MRT’s

existing rights-of-way.

The EA Process

The National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to

take into account the environmental

impacts that could result from an action

whenever it considers the issuance of a

Certificate of Public Convenience and

Necessity. NEPA also requires us to

discover and address concerns the

public may have about proposals. We

call this ‘‘scoping.’’ The main goal of the

scoping process is to focus the analysis

in the EA on the important

environmental issues. By this Notice of

Intent, the Commission requests public

comments on the scope of the issues it

will address in the EA. All comments

received are considered during the

preparation of the EA. State and local

government representatives are

encouraged to notify their constituents

of this proposed action and encourage

them to comment on their areas of

concern.

The EA will discuss impacts that

could occur as a result of the proposed

abandonment under these general

headings:

• Soils.

• Water resources, fisheries, and

wetlands.

• Vegetation and wildlife.

• Endangered and threatened species.

• Cultural resources.

• Air and noise quality.

• Public safety.

We will also evaluate possible

alternatives to the proposed project or

portions of the project, and make

recommendations on how to lessen or

avoid impacts on the various resource

areas.

Our independent analysis of the

issues will be in the EA. Depending on

the comments received during the

scoping process, the EA may be

published and mailed to Federal, state,

and local agencies, public interest

groups, interested individuals, affected

landowners, newspapers, libraries, and

the Commission’s official service list for

this proceeding. A comment period will

be allotted for review if the EA is

published. We will consider all

comments on the EA before we

recommend that the Commission

approve or not approve the project.

Currently Identified Environmental

Issue

We have already identified three

issues that we think deserve attention

based on a preliminary review of the

proposed facilities and the

environmental information provided by

MRT. Keep in mind that this is a

preliminary list. The list of issues may

be added to, subtracted from, or

changed based on your comments and

our analysis. Issues are:

• Residences are located within 50

feet of the proposed project.

• Replacement of compressor units at

the Biggers and Tuckerman Compressor

Stations may increase ambient noise

levels.

• Federally listed or candidate plants

may occur in the project area.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by sending

a letter addressing your specific

comments or concerns about the project.

You should focus on the potential

environmental effects of the proposal,

alternatives to the proposal and

measures to avoid or lessen

environmental impact. The more

specific your comments, the more useful

they will be. Please follow the

instructions below to ensure that your

comments are received and properly

recorded:

• Address your letter to: Lois Cashell,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol St., NE.,

Washington, DC 20426;

• Reference Docket No. CP95–228–

000;

• Send a copy of your letter to: Mr.

Herman K. Der, EA Project Manager,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol St., NE., Room 7312,

Washington, DC 20426; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, DC on

or before June 12, 1995.

If you wish to receive a copy of the

EA, you should request one from Mr.

Herman K. Der at the above address.

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EA

scoping process, you may want to

become an official party to the

proceeding or become an ‘‘intervenor’’.

Among other things, intervenors have

the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and

filings by other intervenors. Likewise,

each intervenor must provide copies of

its filings to all other parties. If you

want to become an intervenor you must

file a motion to intervene according to

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214) (see appendix 2).

The date for filing of timely motions

to intervene in this proceeding has

passed. Therefore, parties now seeking

to file late interventions must show

good cause, as required by section

385.214(b)(3), why this time limitation

should be waived. Environmental issues

have been viewed as good cause for late

intervention. You do not need

intervenor status to have your scoping

comments considered.

Additional information about the

proposed project is available from Mr.
25710 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

1Steuben’s application was filed with the

Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act

and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s

regulations.

2The appendices referenced in this notice are not

being printed in the Federal Register. Copies are

available from the Commission’s Public Reference

and Files Maintenance Branch, Room 3104, 941

North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426,

or call (202) 208–1371. Copies of the appendices

were sent to all those receiving this notice in the

mail.

Herman K. Der, EA Project Manager, at

(202) 208–0896.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11724 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–119–001]

Steuben Gas Storage Company; Notice

of Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Assessment for the Proposed Thomas

Corners Gas Storage Field Project and

Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues

May 8, 1995.

On April 18, 1995, Steuben Gas

Storage Company (Steuben) filed an

amendment to its application which

substantially changed the routing of its

proposed 12-inch-diameter gathering

header. The beginning and ending

points and the approximate length of

the gathering header, as well as all other

aspects of Steuben’s proposal remain

unchanged by this amendment. This

notice supplements the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or

Commission) ‘‘Notice of Intent to

Prepare an Environmental Assessment

for the Proposed Thomas Corners Gas

Storage Field Project and Request for

Comments on Environmental Issues’’

issued March 3, 1995 (March 3 Notice).

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare an

environmental assessment (EA) that will

discuss the environmental impacts of

the construction and operation of

facilities proposed in the Thomas

Corners Gas Storage Field Project.1 This

EA will be used by the Commission in

its decision-making process to

determine whether an environmental

impact statement is necessary and

whether or not to approve the project.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Steuben requests Commission

authorization to convert a depleted

natural gas production field to storage

use in Steuben County, New York. It

proposes to construct and operate:

• 13 injection/withdrawal wells (11

new wells drilled from one central

location and two converted from

existing gas production wells);

• One observation well;

• 0.6 mile of 4-inch-diameter well

laterals;

• 0.3 mile of 12-inch-diameter well

laterals;

• A 3,284 horsepower compressor

station;

• 6.5 miles of 12-inch-diameter

gathering header including a pipeline

drip and storage tank; and

• Dehydration facilities.

Steuben indicates that the proposed

storage field, when fully developed,

would have a working gas capacity of

5,300,000 thousand cubic feet of gas.

Customers interested in using Steuben’s

storage service would have to arrange

for their own transportation. Steuben’s

existing facilities are interconnected

with the facilities of CNG Transmission

Corporation (CNG) in the town of

Woodhull, Steuben County, New York.

The 6.5 miles of gathering header would

connect the Thomas Corners Gas

Storage Field to Steuben’s existing

facilities.

Steuben states that the storage facility

would be developed in the nearly

depleted Thomas Corners gas

production reservoir. It lies about 3,530

feet below the surface. The aerial extent

of the reservoir is about 430 acres.

The location of the project facilities is

shown in appendix 1.2

Land Requirements for Construction

Steuben proposes to use a nominal

70-foot-wide right-of-way for

construction of the 6.5 miles of 12-inchdiameter pipeline. Following

construction, a 50-foot-wide easement

would be permanently maintained; the

remaining 20 feet would be restored and

allowed to revert to its former use.

Additional working right-of-way

width would be needed in areas of steep

side slopes and in agricultural areas

where topsoil would be segregated.

Additional working space would also be

needed adjacent to road and stream

crossings. About 60 acres would be

required for construction of the 12-inchdiameter gathering header.

A total of 37 acres would be needed

for construction of the Thomas Corners

Gas Storage Field. All new injection/

withdrawal wells would be

directionally drilled from one central

pad area covering approximately 31

acres. The wells would be drilled at

150-foot centers around the perimeter of

the pad area. All of the 4- and 12-inchdiameter well laterals would be

constructed within the central well pad

area.

An additional 6-acre work space

would be required adjacent to the pad

area for drilling, completion,

maintenance operations, and equipment

staging. After construction is complete,

this area would be used for the

dehydration facilities.

The proposed compressor station

would be located on Steuben’s existing

Adrian Compressor Station site.

The EA Process

The National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to

take into account the environmental

impacts that could result from an action

whenever it considers the issuance of a

Certificate of Public Convenience and

Necessity. NEPA also requires us to

discover and address concerns the

public may have about proposals. We

call this ‘‘scoping’’. The main goal of the

scoping process is to focus the analysis

in the EA on the important

environmental issues. By this Notice of

Intent, the Commission requests public

comments on the scope of the issues it

will address in the EA. All comments

received are taken into account during

the preparation of the EA. State and

local government representatives are

encouraged to notify their constituents

of this proposed action and encourage

them to comment on their areas of

concern.

The EA will discuss impacts that

could occur as a result of the

construction and operation of the

proposed project under these general

headings:

• Geology and soils.

• Water resources, fisheries and

wetlands.

• Vegetation and wildlife.

• Endangered and threatened species.

• Public safety.

• Land use.

• Cultural resources.

• Hazardous waste.

• Air and noise quality.

We will also evaluate possible

alternatives to the proposed project or

portions of the project, and make

recommendations on how to lessen or

avoid impacts on the various resource

areas.

Our independent analysis of the

issues will be in the EA. Depending on

the comments received during the

scoping process, the EA may be

published and mailed to Federal, state,

and local agencies, public interest

groups, interested individuals, affected

landowners, newspapers, libraries, and

the Commission’s official service list for

this proceeding. A comment period will

be allotted for review if the EA is

published. We will consider all

comments on the EA before we

recommend that the Commission

approve or not approve the project.