Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices 2247

potential source must be able to provide

NEPOOL with energy and/or capacity

benefits which are comparable to those

provided by the proposed tie-line. Such

purchases would not be possible from

existing sources. In addition, the New

York Power Pool (NYPP), a contiguous

utility system that is a potential source

of purchased power for NEPOOL

members, is a competitor of NEPOOL

for the energy available in Canada and

the coal-fired energy in the midwestern

United States. Therefore, purchase of

power from NYPP was not considered a

viable alternative to the proposed

project.

The Midwest is another potential

source of purchased power because of

its surplus of non-oil-fired capacity.

Factors that precluded consideration of

this source as a viable alternative to the

proposed action are as follows:

• Load and capacity projections

indicate that the present capacity

surpluses would not last long enough to

sustain a firm energy sale to NEPOOL

through the 1990s.

• Any available surpluses are likely

to be purchased by utilities in regions

with existing direct transmission

connections.

• Any power purchased must flow

through the central New York State and

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland

(PJM) systems. The transmission

systems in these areas are already

heavily used and could not readily

withstand the additional load imposed

by transmitting midwestern energy to

New England.

• The construction of additional

transmission lines through New York or

the states of the PJM systems could

encounter various regulatory, legal, and

environmental obstacles that could

prevent or delay implementation and

raise the final cost of the energy.

Installing the transmission line

underground and alternative structure

designs were also considered. The

environmental impacts and construction

costs of installing the transmission line

underground would be greater than

those for the proposed project, and the

reliability would be lower than that of

an overhead system. The wood H-frame

structure was chosen largely because of

economic considerations, and because

the impacts caused by most structure

types would be similar. The primary

impacts associated with an underground

system that precluded it from

consideration as a viable alternative

included (1) extensive excavation,

grading, and backfilling; (2) potential for

oil contamination of soils; (3) disruption

of land use patterns along the entire

length of the route; (4) limitation on

land uses allowed over or near the

route; (5) instream disturbance of all

waterways crossed by the route; (6)

potential for oil spills or leaks into

surface water and wetlands; (7)

potential for oil contamination of

groundwater; (8) decreased habitat

diversity along the route because the

area would have to be maintained as

grasses; (9) increased potential for

damage to surface and subsurface

archaeological sites; and (10) increased

worker safety concerns because of the

increased construction and maintenance

activities that would be required.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Upon completion of a thorough

review of all proposed alternatives, DOE

has concluded that construction of the

Stud Mill Road route is the

environmentally preferred alternative

and that adequate safeguards of the

environment can be accomplished using

mitigation measures identified in the

EIS as well as the standard practices of

utility companies constructing and

maintaining ROW. With approximately

83 miles of transmission line to be sited

within Maine, the Stud Mill Road route

is the shortest when compared to the

106 mile Existing Line and 115 mile

Straight-Line routes. The preferred route

would require the fewest transmission

structures with the greatest spacing. The

preferred route would require the least

amount of forest clearing, stream

crossings and new service road

construction due to use of existing

service roads and timber haul roads that

traverse the route. Construction of the

transmission line along the preferred

route will have the least impact to

wildlife species due to the reduced

amount of vegetation clearing. Where

the proposed alternative will parallel

existing 345-kV transmission facilities,

interactions between the phases

(conductors) of the existing and

proposed line will decrease magnetic

field exposure to residents located near

the two-line corridor. Application of the

No Action alternative would likely have

a negative impact on air quality in the

region as a result of continued or

increased fossil fuel use in the New

England region. The technology for use

of nonconventional generation sources

in place of the proposed facilities is not

considered to have advanced

sufficiently to provide the energy

resources required today. Construction

of a new, non-oil-fired generating plant,

would require an extensive design and

construction phase and would clearly

have significant negative environmental

impacts especially in terms of air

emissions.

Decision

DOE will issue Presidential Permit

PP–89 to BHE for the construction,

connection, operation, and maintenance

of a 345-kV transmission line across the

international border between the United

States, at Baileyville, Maine, and

Canada for interconnection with

facilities of the New Brunswick Power

Commission in New Brunswick,

Canada. In the United States, the

transmission line will follow the Stud

Mill Road route, as described in

Presidential Permit PP–89. As a

condition of granting the Presidential

permit, BHE will be required to

implement all mitigative measures to

which BHE has committed, as presented

in the EIS. This conditional requirement

shall be deemed adequate mitigation

protection to satisfy the requirements

for a Mitigation Action Plan (10 CFR

1021.331).

Copies of this Record of Decision will

be made available upon request, for

public inspection and copying at the

Department of Energy, Room 3F–090,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on January 18,

1996.

Anthony J. Como,

Director, Office of Coal & Electricity, Office

of Fuels Programs, Office of Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 96–1070 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Privatization of Isotope Activities;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of rescheduling of public

meeting.

SUMMARY: DOE published a Notice in

the December 5, 1995 Commerce

Business Daily and December 11, 1995

Federal Register seeking Expressions of

Interest concerning the possible

privatization of DOE isotope activities.

The Notice was to remain effective until

February 23, 1996, responses were due

by February 23, 1996, and an

information meeting was to be held at

the DOE facility auditorium in

Germantown, Maryland, on January 10,

1996. Due to severe weather, the

information meeting was not held. This

Notice announces a change in public

meeting dates.

DATES: The Notice seeking Expressions

of Interest concerning the possible

privatization of DOE isotope activities

will now remain effective until March

29, 1996. Responses may be submitted
2248 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices

1Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC’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

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.

at any time prior to March 29, 1996. An

information meeting addressing this

notice will be held at the DOE facility

auditorium in Germantown, Maryland,

from 9:00 a.m. until noon on February

13, 1996. Information packages

distributed during the February 13,

1996, meeting will be made available to

interested parties after February 14,

1996. Submit requests to the

programmatic information contact listed

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: All

information, other than the dates,

presented in the December 1995 Notice

remains the same. Requests for

information should be directed to: Mr.

Owen W. Lowe, U.S. Department of

Energy, Isotope Production and

Distribution, NE–70 (GTN), 19901

Germantown Road, Germantown, MD

20874, (301) 903–5161.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 18,

1996.

Owen W. Lowe,

Associate Director for Isotope Production and

Distribution, Office of Nuclear Energy,

Science and Technology.

[FR Doc. 96–1068 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP96–52–000]

Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC;

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Assessment for the

Proposed Pine Needle LNG Project and

Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues and Notice of

Technical Conference and Site Visits

January 19, 1996.

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 Pine Needle

LNG Project. This EA will be used by

the Commission in its decision-making

process to determine whether an

environmental impact statement (EIS) is

necessary and whether to approve the

project.1

Summary of the Proposed Project

Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC

(Pine Needle), is seeking approval to

construct and operate a liquefied natural

gas (LNG) production and storage

facility approximately 13 miles

northwest of Greensboro in Guilford

County, North Carolina. The purpose of

the facility is to meet winter peak

shaving requirements of several

customers, including Piedmont Natural

Gas Company, Inc., Public Service

Company of North Carolina, Inc., North

Carolina Natural Gas Corporation, and

the Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia.

The primary components of the LNG

facility would include:

• Two double-wall, suspended-deck

LNG storage tanks, each with a gasequivalent capacity of 2 billion cubic

feet;

• A pretreatment and liquefaction

system with the capacity of 20 million

cubic feet per day (MMcfd);

• A boil-off recompression system;

• A vaporization and sendout system

with the capacity of 400 MMcfd;

• 1.05 miles of 10- and 24-inchdiameter pipelines;

• Fire protection systems; and

• A 54.5 acre-foot firewater pond and

earthen dam.

The storage tanks would be

approximately 161 feet in height and

206 feet in diameter. Each storage tank

would be surrounded by a 30-foot high

earthen dike to form individual spill

containment areas sized to hold 150

percent of the volume of LNG contained

within each tank. The proposed project

facilities would be designed,

constructed, and maintained to comply

with the U.S. Department of

Transportation Federal Safety Standards

for Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities (49

CFR Part 193). The facilities constructed

at the site would also meet the National

Fire Protection Association 59A LNG

standards.

Natural gas would be delivered to and

from the LNG facility through a 10-inchdiameter inlet pipeline and a 24-inchdiameter outlet pipeline, respectively.

These pipelines would be constructed

from the LNG facility to

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation’s Mainline transmission

system, a distance of 1.05 miles. A new

1.6-mile-long, 100 kV transmission

powerline would be provided by Duke

Power Company to supply power for a

step-down substation at the proposed

LNG facility. The majority of this

powerline would be constructed parallel

and adjacent to the new pipelines.

The proposed LNG facility would be

accessed during construction and

operation using a 3,900-foot-long road

extending from the facility eastward to

a public road. The location of the

proposed Pine Needle LNG Project is

shown in appendix 1.2

Land Requirements for Construction

The proposed facilities would affect

approximately 86.6 acres of an 828-acre

site. Pine Needle would permanently

clear approximately 57.9 acres for the

LNG facility site and security buffer,

10.0 acres for the firewater pond and

associated dam, 6.4 acres for the new

pipeline right-of-way, and 3.0 acres for

the permanent access road. An

additional 9.5 acres would be

temporarily disturbed during

construction but would be allowed to

revert back to its original condition

following construction.

The EA Process/Environmental Issues

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 and whether an

EIS is necessary. 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.

—Seismology and soil liquefaction.

—Effect of blasting.

—Erosion control.

—Facility site and right-of-way

restoration.

• Water Resources.

—Groundwater withdrawal and

discharge to surrounding surface

waters.

—Effect of dam and pond construction

on Rock Branch and downstream

flows.

—The directional drilling of the Haw

River and the potential to affect water

quality and riparian resources.

• Biological Resources.