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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices 2249

—Effect of facility construction and

operation on wildlife and fisheries

habitat, including threatened,

endangered, or sensitive animal and

plant species and their habitats (i.e.,

Carolina darter and burreed

community).

—Effect on wetland habitats.

• Cultural Resources.

—Effect on historic and prehistoric

sites.

—Native American and tribal concerns.

• Socioeconomics.

—Impact of a peak workforce of about

115 workers on the surrounding area.

—Long-term effects of increased

employment and taxes on the local

economy.

• Land Use.

—Impact on state areas of critical

environmental concern.

—Effect of aboveground facilities on

visual aesthetics in the area.

—Consistency with local land use plans

and zoning.

—Impact on residences and recreation

areas.

• Air Quality and Noise.

—Air quality and noise impacts

associated with construction.

—Impact on regional air quality and

noise-sensitive areas associated with

operation of the proposed LNG

facility.

• Public Safety.

—Compliance with 49 CFR 193 for

exclusion zones (thermal and vapor

gas dispersion), siting criteria, seismic

criteria, and cryogenic criteria.

—Consequences of a major spill.

—Safety concerns associated with

design of firewater pond dam.

We will also evaluate possible site

and technology 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.

Public Participation/Scoping Meeting

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 sites), 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., NE.,

Washington, DC 20426;

• Reference Docket No. CP96–52–

000;

• Send a copy of your letter to: Mr.

Michael Boyle, EA Project Manager,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First St., NE., Room 72–59,

Washington, DC 20426; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, DC on

or before March 22, 1996.

If you wish to receive a copy of the

EA, you should request one from Mr.

Boyle at the above address.

Beyond asking for written comments,

we invite you to attend our public

scoping meeting that will be held on

February 15, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., at the

Stokesdale Elementary School,

Stokesdale, North Carolina. This public

meeting will be designed to provide you

with more detailed information and

another opportunity to offer your

comments on the proposed project. The

staff will also visit the proposed site on

February 15, 1996.

On March 19, 1996, at 9:00 a.m., the

FERC staff will meet with

representatives of Pine Needle to

conduct a cryogenic design and

engineering review of the proposed LNG

facilities. This technical conference will

be held at the Stokesdale Town Hall,

U.S. Hwy 158, Stokesdale, North

Carolina. The staff will also visit the

proposed site area.

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 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 and site visits is

available from Mr. Michael Boyle, EA

Project Manager, at (202) 208–0839.

Additional information concerning the

March 19 cryogenic design and

engineering technical conference is

available from Mr. Robert Arvedlund,

Chief, Environmental Review and

Compliance Branch I, at (202) 208–0091.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–1110 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP96–92–000]

Amoco Production Company vs. ANR

Pipeline Company; Notice of

Complaint and Request for Refunds

January 19, 1996.

Take notice that, on December 22,

1995, Amoco Production Company

(Amoco), 501 Westlake Park Blvd.,

Houston, Texas 77079, filed a complaint

and request for refunds, pursuant to

sections 4 and 5 of the Natural Gas Act

and Rules 206 and 212 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.206 and

385.212), against ANR Pipeline

Company (ANR) regarding the charges

ANR assesses to the Mooreland Plant

owners for the transportation of gas

used to replace [make-up] gas removed

at the Mooreland Plant as plant fuel and

shrinkage resulting from processing, i.e.,

Plant Thermal Reduction (PTR), all as

more fully set forth in the application,

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

The Mooreland Plant is located in

Oklahoma and is operated by Amoco.

Amoco asserts that ANR owns and

operates an extensive gathering system

behind the Mooreland Plant, which

gathers gas from hundreds of wells but

does not perform a transportation

service with respect to field production

delivered to the inlet of the Mooreland

Plant.

Amoco claims that ANR has classified

certain of its pipeline facilities upstream

of the Mooreland Plant as transmission

facilities (including a portion of ANR

pipeline that connects the rest of ANR’s

gathering system to the Mooreland Plant

and a portion of ANR’s Mooreland

Compression Station which is used to