31424 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 

miles (80 kilometers). It is important to 

note that according to the 2000 census, 

the average population density within 

50 miles of the center of the 20 highest 

population urbanized areas in the 

United States is about 380 people per 

square kilometer, so the consequences 

would likely be lower if a severe truck 

or rail accident took place in an urban 

area. In addition, the severe accidents 

were assumed to take place during 

stable atmospheric conditions. As 

illustrated in Table 4–13, if the 

accidents took place during neutral 

atmospheric conditions, the 

consequences would be substantially 

lower. For example, if the severe truck 

accident involving LEU product 

occurred during neutral atmospheric 

conditions, the consequences would 

range from 3 to 5 LCFs, substantially 

lower than 75 to 125 LCFs. If the severe 

rail accident involving LEU product 

occurred during neutral atmospheric 

conditions, the consequences would be 

about 12 LCFs, substantially lower than 

310 LCFs. 

• Three individuals could suffer 

irreversible health effects from severe 

truck accidents and four individuals 

could suffer irreversible health effects 

from severe rail accidents due to the 

chemical toxicity associated with UF6, 

hydrogen fluoride (HF), and uranyl 

fluoride (UO2F2). No fatalities are 

estimated to result from chemical 

exposure. 

• Although it is not possible to 

predict the probability of an intentional 

destructive act, implementation of 

elements identified in the Department of 

Transportation-required security plan 

(personnel security, unauthorized 

access, and en route security) are judged 

to make these occurrences very 

unlikely. The consequences of such acts 

would be similar to the consequences 

discussed above for severe truck and rail 

accidents involving DU, NU, and LEU. 

• If a severe accident involving stored 

LEU product were to occur, the accident 

would result in an estimated population 

dose. For example, at Global Nuclear 

Fuel–Americas (GNF–A), a severe 

accident was estimated to result in a 

population dose of 29,000 person-rem. 

In the assumed exposed population 

around the GNF–A facility, this 

radiation dose is estimated to result in 

17 LCFs. The radiation dose for an 

individual located 2 kilometers from the 

facility was estimated to be 5 rem. The 

probability of an LCF for this person is 

estimated to be 0.003. If this accident 

occurred at other sites, the results 

would vary depending on the amount of 

material involved in the accident; the 

enrichment of the UF6; the release 

fractions, aerosolized fractions, and 

respirable fractions; release assumptions 

such as whether the release was 

elevated or from ground level; the 

number of people exposed; atmospheric 

conditions; and radiation dosimetry 

assumptions. 

• The potential market impacts 

(including socioeconomic impacts) on 

the domestic uranium mining, 

conversion, and enrichment industries 

(i.e., domestic uranium industry) from 

direct sales or transfers of uranium 

under the Proposed Action are expected 

to be small. In any event, DOE has 

prepared a mitigation action plan (MAP) 

to mitigate any potentially significant 

impacts on the domestic uranium 

industry from DOE decisions to 

disposition the excess NU, DU, and LEU 

inventory at DOE’s Paducah and 

Portsmouth sites as analyzed in this EA. 

• Cumulative impacts under the 

Enrichment Alternative would 

essentially be the same as those 

previously evaluated for the sites 

involved because DOE’s uranium 

inventory would not increase the sites’ 

enrichment capacity or throughput. 

Under the Direct Sale Alternative, DOE 

assumes that actions by the purchasers 

would be essentially the same as DOE 

under the Enrichment Alternative. For 

that reason, DOE finds that the 

cumulative transportation, enrichment, 

and storage impacts of the Direct Sale 

Alternative would be essentially 

identical to those of the Enrichment 

Alternative. The cumulative impacts 

that would occur under the No Action 

Alternative assessed in this EA are the 

same as the cumulative impacts 

identified for the two new conversion 

facilities at Paducah and Portsmouth. 

[FR Doc. E9–15534 Filed 6–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. OR09–13–000] 

BP Canada Energy Marketing Corp, 

Complainant v. Kinder Morgan Cochin 

LLC, Respondent; Notice of Complaint 

June 24, 2009. 

Take notice that on June 19, 2009, 

pursuant sections 2, 3(1), 4(1), 9, 13(1), 

and 15(1) of the Interstate Commerce 

Act, 49 U.S.C. app. 2, 3(1), 4(1), 9, 13(1), 

and 15(1) (1988), Rule 206 of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission’s (Commission) Rules of 

Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, 

and section 343.2 of the Commission’s 

Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil 

Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343.2, BP 

Canada Energy Marketing Corp 

(Complainant) filed a formal complaint 

against Kinder Morgan Cochin LLC 

(Respondent) challenging the 

Respondent’s line fill policy which 

Complainant alleges has expired by its 

own terms, but Respondent continues to 

apply the policy to its shippers. 

The Complainant states that copies of 

the complaint were served on the 

Respondent. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing must file in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 

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 notice of 

intervention or motion to intervene, as 

appropriate. The Respondent’s answer 

and all interventions, or protests must 

be filed on or before the comment date. 

The Respondent’s answer, motions to 

intervene, and protests must be served 

on the Complainants. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper using the 

‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 14 copies 

of the protest or intervention to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

This filing is accessible on-line at 

http://www.ferc.gov, using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive e-mail notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on July 9, 2009. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–15457 Filed 6–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P