Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices 35209

1Etowah LNG Company, L.L.C.’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,

N.E., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 208–

1371. Copies of the appendices were sent to all

those receiving this notice in the mail.

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426. Please affix Project No. 1984–056

to all comments on the Petenwell-Castle

Rock Project, and Project No. 11162–002

to all comments on the Prairie du Sac

Project. For further information, please

contact Peter A. Leitzke at (202) 219–

2803.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17185 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Commission

[Docket No. CP98–363–000]

Etowah LNG Company, L.L.C.; Notice

of Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Assessment for the Proposed Etowah

LNG Project; Request for Comments

on Environmental Issues; and Notice

of Site Visit, Public Scoping Meeting,

and Technical Conference

June 23, 1998.

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

liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage plant

and associated pipeline facilities

proposed in the Etowah LNG Project.1

This EA will be used by the

Commission in its decision-making

process to determine whether the

project is in the public convenience and

necessity.

If you are a landowner receiving this

notice, you may be contacted by an

Etowah LNG Company, L.L.C. (Etowah)

representative about the acquisition of

an easement to construct, operate, and

maintain the proposed facilities. Etowah

would seek to negotiate a mutually

acceptable agreement. However, if the

project is approved by the Commission,

that approval conveys with it the right

of eminent domain. Therefore, if

easement negotiations fail to produce an

agreement, Etowah could initiate

condemnation proceedings in

accordance with state law. A fact sheet

addressing a number of typically asked

questions, including the use of eminent

domain, is attached to this notice as

appendix 1.2

Summary of the Proposed Project

Etowah seeks authority to construct

and operate an LNG storage plant and

associated pipeline facilities in Polk

County, Georgia. The proposed LNG

plant would be located approximately

4.5 miles northeast of Rockmart, Georgia

and 40 miles northwest of Atlanta,

Georgia. The purpose of the facilities is

to meet winter peak shaving

requirements, including those of Atlanta

Gas Light Company (AGLC) and the City

of Austell Gas System.

The primary components of the LNG

plant would include:

• A 750,000-barrel double-wall metal

LNG storage tank with a gas-equivalent

capacity of 2.5 billion cubic feet;

• A pretreatment and liquefaction

system with a capacity of 15 million

cubic feet per day (MMcfd);

• A boil-off recompression system;

• A vaporization and sendout system

with a design capacity of 300 MMcfd

with standby vaporization capacity of

up to 200 MMcfd;

• Measurement facilities;

• Associated control and hazardprotection sustems; and

• A trucking system capable of

loading 20,000 gallons per hour..

Etowah also proposes to construct:

• Approximately 12.5 miles of 12.75-

inch-diameter pipeline (Etowah

pipeline) in Polk County, Georgia. The

Etowah pipeline would be adjacent to

and overlap an existing utility right-ofway for 83 percent of its route; and

• A 1.3-mile-long permanent access

road and new bridge extending from the

plant site northward to Davis Town

Road.

The LNG storage tank would be

approximately 149 feet in height and

250 in diameter. The LNG tank area

would be surrounded by an earthen

berm that would slope towards an

impoundment basin that together form

the spill containment system. The

proposed project facilities would be

designed, constructed, operated, and

maintained to comply with the U.S.

Department of Transportation Federal

Safety Standards for Liquefied Natural

Gas Facilities (49 Code of Federal

Regulations [CFR] Part 193). The

facilities constructed at the site would

also meet the National Fire Protection

Association 59A LNG standards.

The following related

nonjurisdictional facilities would be

constructed:

• AGLC would construct and operate

approximately 16.8 miles of 24-inchdiameter pipeline (Etowah-Mars Hill

Road pipeline) in Polk, Paulding, and

Cobb Counties, Georgia connecting the

LNG plant to AGLC’s distribution

system. The Etowah-Mars Hill Road

pipeline would be adjacent to and

overlap an existing utility right-of-way

for 95 percent of its route; and

• Georgia Power would construct and

operate an approximately 0.9-mile-long

115 kilovolt (kV) overhead electric

powerline collocated with AGLC’s

pipeline, and a 0.4-acre 115 kV to 4,160

volt substation connecting the LNG

plant to the new Georgia Power electric

powerline in Polk County, Georgia.

All natural gas received at the LNG

facility for liquefaction and storage

would be shipped from Southern

Natural Gas Company’s (Southern)

system through the Etowah pipeline.

Vaporized natural gas would be

transported from the LNG facility either

through the Etowah pipeline to

Southern’s system or through the

Etowah-Mars Hill Road pipeline to

AGLC’s system.

The location of the project facilities is

shown in appendix 2.2 If you are

interested in obtaining procedural

information, please write to the

Secretary of the Commission.

Land Requirements for Construction

Construction of the LNG plant would

affect approximately 50 acres of an 833-

acre site owned by Etowah. An

additional 7.8 acres would be disturbed

during construction of the permanent

access road to the site. The 57.8 acres

of land for the plant site and access road

would be permanently affected by the

project.

Construction of the proposed Etowah

pipeline would affect approximately

132.3 acres of land, including temporary

extra work areas. Following

construction, about 50.5 acres of land

would be maintained as new permanent

right-of-way.

Construction of the related

nonjurisdictional facilities would affect

approximately 106.4 acres of land. Of

this, about 0.4 acre would be required

for the substation, 4.2 acres would be

required for the powerline, and 101.8

acres would be required for the EtowahMars Hill Road pipeline. Following

construction, about 4.6 acres would be

required for the substation and

permanent right-of-way for the

powerline and 61.1 acres would be

required for the permanent right-of-way

for the Etowah-Mars Hill Road pipeline.

The EA Process/Environmental Issues

The National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to

take into account the environmental
35210 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices

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 the general

headings listed below. 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 Etowah. This

preliminary list of issues may be

changed based on your comments and

our analysis.

• Geology and Soils:

—Effect of blasting and disposal of blast

rock.

—Landslide potential (moderate

incidence with high susceptibility).

—Erosion control.

—Facility site and right-of-way

restoration.

• Water Resources and Fisheries:

—Groundwater withdrawal and

discharge to surrounding surface

waters.

—Effect of blasting on potable water

sources.

—Effect of permanent access road and

bridge on Hills Creek.

—Crossings of 35 perennial

waterbodies.

—Impact on Silver Creek, a secondary

trout stream.

—Hydrostatic test water rates and

discharge locations.

• Vegetation and Wildlife:

Effect of facility construction and

operation on wildlife and fisheries

habitat, including federally and statelisted threatened and endangered, or

sensitive animal and plant species

and their habitats.

—Impact on forested wetlands.

—Clearing of upland forest.

• Cultural Resources:

—Effect on historic and prehistoric

sites.

—Native American and tribal concerns.

• Socioeconomics:

—Impact of a peak workforce of about

300 workers on housing and demands

for services in the surrounding area.

—Impact of timber removal on

landowners.

—Long-term effects of increased

employment and tax benefits on the

local economy.

• Land Use and Transportation:

—Crossing of one recreation area leased

by the Georgia Department of Natural

Resources.

—Effect on 18 residences within 50 feet

of the construction work area.

—Visual effect of the storage tank on the

surrounding area.

—Impact on future county plans (e.g.,

schools, roads).

—Consistency with local land use plans

and zoning

—Impact of construction and operation

traffic

• Air Quality and Noise:

—Air quality and noise impacts

associated with construction and

operation.

• 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.

—Design and operation of the firewater

system.

—Assessment of hazards associated

with natural gas pipelines.

• Cummulative Impact:

—Assessment of the combined effect of

the proposed project with other

projects which have been or may be

proposed in the same region and

similar time frame.

We will also evaluate possible site,

routing, and system 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 make

our recommendations to the

Commission.

To ensure your comments are

considered, please carefully follow the

instructions in the public participation

section of this notice.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by

providing us with your specific

comments or concerns about the project.

By becoming a commentor, your

concerns will be addressed in the EA

and considered by the Commission. You

should focus on the potential

environmental effects of the proposal,

alternatives to the proposal (including

alternative sites and routes, and

measures to avoid or lessen

environmental impact). The more

specific your comments, the more useful

they will be. Please carefully follow

these instructions to ensure that your

comments are received in time and

properly recorded:

• Send two copies of your letter to:

David P, Boergers, Acting Secretary,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First St., N.E., Room 1A,

Washington, DC 20426.

• Label one copy of the comments for

the attention of the Environmental

Review and Compliance Branch, PR–

11.1;

• Reference Docket No. CP98–363–

999; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, DC on

or before July 24, 1998.

Beyond asking for written comments,

we invite you to attend our public

scoping meeting that will be held on

July 13, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. at the

Rockmart Community Center, 604

Goodyear Street, Rockmart, Georgia.

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 LNG plant site and pipeline

routes on July 13, 1998.

On July 14, 1998, at 8:30 a.m., the

FERC staff will meet with

representatives of Etowah to conduct a

cryogenic design and engineering

review of the proposed LNG facilities.

This technical conference will be held

at the Northwest Atlanta Hilton, 2055

South Park Place, Atlanta, Georgia. The

discussion will initially be limited to

the staff and members of the applicant’s

staff who have expertise in the given

topics. Other attendees will be given the

opportunity to ask questions on the

above issues after the initial discussions

have concluded.

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EA

scoping process, you may want to

become an official party to the

proceeding known as an ‘‘intervenor’’.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices 35211

Intervenors play a more formal role in

the process. Among other things,

intervenors have the right to receive

copies of case-related Commission

documents and filings by other

intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor

must provide 14 copies of its filings to

the Secretary of the Commission and

must send a copy of its filings to all

other parties on the Commission’s

services list for this proceeding. 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 3). Only

intervenors have the right to seek

rehearing of the Commission’s decision.

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

internvention. You do not need

intervenor status to have your

environmental comments considered.

Additional information about the

proposed project, site visit, and

technical conference is available from

Mr. Paul McKee of the Commission’s

Office of External Affairs at (202) 208–

1088.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17183 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Notice Tendered for Filing With the

Commission

June 23, 1998.

Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filed

with the Commission and is available

for public inspection:

a. Type of Application: Major New

License (Tendered Notice).

b. Project No.: 372–008.

c. Date filed: June 12, 1998.

d. Applicant: Southern California

Edison Company.

e. Name of Project: Lower Tule River

Hydroelectric Project.

f. Location: On the North and South

Forks of the Middle Fork Tule River in

Tulare County, California, partially

within the boundaries of the Sequoia

National Forest.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act 16 USC 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. C. Edward

Miller, Manager, Hydro Generation,

Southern California Edison Company,

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, P.O. Box

800, Rosemead, California 91770, (626)

302–1564.

i. FERC Contact: Nan Allen at (202)

219–2938.

j. Description of Project: The existing

project consists of: (1) a 15-foot-high,

concrete dam; (2) a 5-foot-high, rubble

masonry dam; (3) a 31,802-foot-long

flow line; (4) a 2,815-foot-long steel

penstock; (5) a 3.37 acre-foot forebay; (6)

a powerhouse containing two turbinegenerator units with a total installed

capacity of 2,520 kilowatts (kW); and (7)

a 2,352-foot-long tailrace.

k. Under Section 4.32(b)(7) of the

Commission’s regulations (18 CFR), if

any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or

person believes that the applicant

should conduct an additional scientific

study to form an adequate factual basis

for a complete analysis of the

application on its merits, they must file

a request for the study with the

Commission, not later than 60 days after

the application is filed, and must serve

a copy of the request on the applicant.

l. With this notice, we are initiating

consultation with the California State

Historic Preservation Officer, as

required by Section 106, National

Historic Preservation Act, and the

regulations of the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17188 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS

ANNOUNCEMENT: June 22, 1998, 63 FR

33924.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

MEETING: June 24, 1998, 10:00 a.m.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The following

Docket Numbers and Companies have

been added on the Agenda scheduled

for the June 24, 1998 meeting.

Item No. Docket No. and company

CAE–19 EC96–19–007 and ER96–1663–

008, Pacific Gas and Electric

Company, Southern California

Edison Company and San

Diego Gas & Electric Company.

Item No. Docket No. and company

ER98–441–000 and 001, Southern California Edison Company.

ER98–495–000 and 001, Pacific

Gas and Electric Company.

ER98–496–000 and 001, San

Diego Gas & Electric Company.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17324 Filed 6–25–98; 11:39 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. GT98–57–000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission

Company; Notice of Refund Report

June 23, 1998.

Take notice that on June 19, 1998,

Algonquin Gas Transmission Company

(Algonquin) tendered for filing a refund

report pursuant to Ordering Paragraph

(C) of the Commission’s February 22,

1995 order in Gas Research Institute

(GRI), Docket No. RP95–124–000.

Algonquin states that on May 29,

1998, Algonquin received its share of

the GRI refund totaling $866,955.00.

Algonquin states that on June 6, 1998,

each eligible firm customer was redited

its pro rata share of the GRI refund.

Algonquin states that copies of the

filing were served on each of its affected

customers and interested state

commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest this filing should file a motion

to intervene or a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Sections

385.214 and 385.211 of the

Commission’s Rules and Regulations.

All such motions or protests must be

filed on or before June 30, 1998. 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 proceedings.

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 in the Public Reference

Room.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17193 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M