65316 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Notices

TABLE 1.—NUCLEAR MATERIALS AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE—Continued

[From DOE/EIS–0220, ‘‘Interim Management of Nuclear Materials’’]

Description Quantity a Location(s)

Failed TRR b and EBR–II c

slugs.

82 canisters ...................................................... RBOF.

aQuantities of materials shown are approximate. Quantities of radioactive solutions stored in tanks fluctuate due to natural evaporation and the

addition of materials (e.g., nitric acid) to maintain chemistry within established parameters. bTaiwan Research Reactor—81 canisters.

cExperimental Breeder Reactor–II—1 canister.

TABLE 2.—ALTERNATIVES FOR THE INTERIM MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS AT THE SRS

[From DOE/EIS–0220, ‘‘Interim Management of Nuclear Materials’’]

Material

Alternatives

Continuing

storage (no

action)

Processing

to metal

Processing

to oxide

Blending

down to low

enriched

uranium

Processing

and storage

for vitrification

(DWPF)a

Vitrification

(F-canyon)

Improving

storage

Stable ........................................................ ✔ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Plutonium-242 ........................................... x x ✔ .................... x x ....................

Americium and curium .............................. ✔c .................... x .................... x ✔c ....................

Neptunium ................................................ x .................... ✔ .................... x x ....................

Plutonium-239 solutions ........................... x x ✔ .................... x x ....................

Highly enriched uranium solutions ........... x .................... x ✔ x .................... ....................

Plutonium and uranium in vaultsd ............ x ✔ ✔ .................... x ✔ ✔

Mark-31 targets ........................................ x ✔ x .................... x x x

Mark-16 and Mark-22 fuels ...................... ✔ .................... x x x .................... x

Other aluminum-clad targets .................... ✔ .................... .................... .................... x .................... x

Failed TRR fuel and EBR–II slugse .......... x ✔ x .................... x x x

x=alternative evaluated.

✔=preferred alternative designated by DOE in Final EIS. aDWPF=Defense Waste Processing Facility.

bTargets.

cSolutions.

dFor the plutonium and uranium stored in vaults, there were four preferred alternatives. DOE will base its choice of the applicable alternative

for a particular solid upon inspection of the material. eTRR=Taiwan Research Reactor, EBR–II—Experimental Breeder Reactor–II.

[FR Doc. 95–30750 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P–M

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. QF86–896–007]

Piney Creek Limited Partnership;

Notice of Application for Commission

Recertification of Qualifying Status of

a Small Power Production Facility

December 13, 1995.

On November 28, 1995, Piney Creek

Limited Partnership (Piney Creek) of 25

West 3rd Street, Suite 803,

Williamsport, Pennsylvania, 17701

submitted for filing an application for

recertification of a facility as a

qualifying small Power production

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

bituminous coal refuse-fueled small

power production facility is located in

Clarion County, Pennsylvania. The

Commission previously certified the

capacity of the facility to be 29.9 MW.

The facility consists of a fluidized bed

boiler and an extraction/condensing

steam turbine generator. The instant

application for recertification was

submitted to report a change in

ownership of the facility and an

increase in the maximum net electric

power production capacity from 29.9

MW to 33 MW. In addition, applicant

requests that the Commission certify

certain proposed fuel sources as

‘‘waste’’.

Any person desiring to be heard or

objecting to the granting of qualifying

status should file a motion to intervene

or protest with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street

N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426, in

accordance with rules 211 and 214 of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure. All such motions or protests

must be filed within 30 days after the

date of publication of this notice in the

Federal Register and must be served on

the applicant. 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 petition to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30715 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket Nos. CP66–111–003 and CP96–26–

000]

Great Lakes Gas Transmission

Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare

an Environmental Assessment for the

Proposed St. Clair River Crossing

Project and Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues

December 13, 1995.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare an
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Notices 65317

1 Great Lakes Transmission Limited Partnership’s

application was filed with the Commission under

section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, sections 153.10

through 153.12 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure, and Executive Order 10485

(as amended by Executive Order 12038 and

Secretary of Energy Delegation Order No. 0204–

112).

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, 888 First Street,

NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 208–1371.

Copies of the appendices were sent to all those

receiving this notice in the mail.

environmental assessment (EA) that will

discuss the environmental impacts of

the construction and operation of the

facilities proposed in the St. Clair River

Crossing Project.1 This EA will be used

by the Commission in its decisionmaking process to determine whether an

environmental impact statement is

necessary and whether to approve the

project.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited

Partnership (Great Lakes) seeks

authority to amend its Presidential

Permit (under Docket No. CP66–111–

003) and construct, connect, operate,

and maintain (under Docket No. CP96–

26–000) about 1,500 feet of 36-inchdiameter pipeline loop at the

international border between the United

States and Canada, in St. Clair County,

Michigan.

Great Lakes states that the proposed

border facilities would be used to

provide 50,000 thousand cubic feet per

day of winter firm transportation service

to TransCanada Pipelines Limited

(TransCanada). Great Lakes indicates

that the facilities, along with additional

facilities TransCanada would build on

its system, would provide TransCanada

with greater system security and

reliability of service.

The proposed river crossing would be

directionally drilled. Great Lakes

proposes to operate the drill rig on the

United States side of the river, on land

owned by Great Lakes. The pipeline

would be strung and staged on the

Canadian side.

The general location of the project

facilities is shown in appendix 1.2

Land Requirements for Construction

Construction of the proposed facilities

would require a staging area about 150

feet by 250 feet. No additional

permanent right-of-way would be

required after construction. An existing

cleared area north of Puttygut Road

would be used as a contractor yard. This

area was used for this purpose during

construction of the RG&E III Project

(Docket No. CP92–595–000).

Permanent aboveground facilities

would consist of a mainline valve and

a ‘‘pig launcher’’ in the vicinity of Great

lakes’ existing mainline valve.

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

construction and operation of the

proposed project under these general

headings:

• Geology and soils.

• Water resources, fisheries, and

wetlands.

• Land use.

• Cultural resources.

• Vegetation and wildlife.

• Endangered and threatened species.

• Air quality and noise.

• Hazardous waste.

We will also evaluate possible

alternatives to the proposed 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

Issues

We have already identified several

issues that we think deserve attention

based on a preliminary review of the

proposed facilities and the

environmental information provided by

Great Lakes. Keep in mind that this is

a preliminary list:

• Noise generated during the

continuous operation of the directional

drill rig used to install the pipeline

under the St. Clair River may

significantly impact nearby residences.

• Drilling mud and fluids must be

handled and disposed of properly or

significant impact on the St. Clair River

and nearby wetland could result.

• Construction activities may impact

the wetland located near the proposed

staging area.

• There may be visual impacts

associated with the permanent

aboveground facilities.

The list of issues may be added to,

subtracted from, or changed based on

your comments and our analysis.

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 (including

alternative locations), 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, 888 First St., N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426;

• Reference Docket Nos. CP66–111–

003 and CP96–26–000;

• Send a copy of your letter to: Mr.

Howard Wheeler, EA Project Manager,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First St., N.E., PR–11.2,

Washington, D.C. 20426; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, D.C. on

or before January 19, 1996.

If you wish to receive a copy of the

EA, you should request one from Mr.

Wheeler 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
65318 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Notices

1Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation’s

application was filed with the Commission under

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 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

Room, 888 First 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.

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.

Howard Wheeler, EA Project Manager,

at (202) 208–2299.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30712 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP96–16–000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation; Notice of Intent To

Prepare an Environmental Assessment

for the Proposed Sunbelt Expansion

Project and Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues

December 13, 1995.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or the

Commission) will prepare an

environmental assessment (EA) that will

discuss the environmental impacts of

the construction and operation of the

facilities proposed in the SunBelt

Expansion Project.1 This EA will be

used by the Commission in its decisionmaking process to determine whether an

environmental impact statement is

necessary and whether to approve the

project.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation (Transco) wants to expand

the capacity of its facilities in

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and

South Carolina to transport an

additional 145,666 thousand cubic feet

per day of natural gas to nine local

distribution companies and one electric

cogeneration plant. Transco seeks

authority to construct and operate:

• 14.9 miles of 42-inch-diameter

pipeline loop (Loop D) from milepost

(MP) 1222.66 to MP 1237. 58 in

Cherokee County, South Carolina;

• 15,000 horsepower (hp) of

compression (gas turbine) at a new

station, to be known as Compressor

Station 105 in Coosa County, Alabama;

• 15,000 hp of compression (gas

turbine) at a new station to be known as

Compressor Station 125 in Walton

County, Georgia; and

• 15,000 hp of compression (gas

turbine) at the existing Compressor

Station 80 in Jones and Jasper Counties,

Mississippi.

Transco also seeks to uprate:

• A compressor (gas turbine) from

14,100 hp to 15,000 hp at Compressor

Station 100 in Chilton County, Alabama;

and

• One compressor (gas turbine) from

12,600 hp to 15,000 hp at each of three

stations: Compressor Station 110 in

Randolph County, Alabama;

Compressor Station 130 in Madison

County, Georgia; and Compressor

Station 140 in Spartanburg County,

South Carolina.

The general location of the project

facilities and specific locations for Loop

D and the new compressor stations are

shown in appendix 1.2

Land Requirements for Construction

Loop D would be constructed adjacent

to Transco’s existing right-of-way.

Transco has proposed an 85-foot-wide

construction right-of-way, which

includes 35 feet of its existing right-ofway. Consequently, about 50 feet of new

clearing would be required in most

areas. Following construction, about 25

feet of the newly cleared right-of-way

would be allowed to revert to former

uses and 25 feet would be retained as

new permanent right-of-way.

Additional work space would be

required adjacent to the construction

right-of-way at crossings of roads,

railroads, streams, wetlands, and other

utility lines. In addition, Transco

proposes to use two off-right-of-way

parcels of land for staging and pipe

fabrication and storage. Construction of

Loop D would require about 171.9 acres,

including 63.3 acres of existing

maintained right-of-way. Following

construction, about 45.2 acres would be

maintained as new permanent right-ofway. The remaining 126.7 acres would

be allowed to revert to former land uses.

Transco currently owns the properties

that would be developed for the two

new compressor stations. Construction

would require a total of about 28.0 acres

of land, of which about 16.0 acres

would be fenced for operation of the

new compressor stations. All additions

and modifications at the other

compressor stations would occur inside

the fencelines on existing compressor

station property.

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

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.

• Land use.

• Cultural resources.

• Air quality and noise.

• 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

Issues

We have already identified several

issues that we think deserve attention