Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices 14743

1EcoEle ́ctrica filed an application with the

Commission on October 25, 1994 pursuant to

Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and Parts 153 and

380 of the Commission’s regulations. The action

involves authorization of a place of import and the

construction and operation of facilities at this place

of import. On November 23, 1994, the Land Use

Consultation was filed with the PRPB pursuant to

Law 75 of June 24, 1975.

tendered for filing a Transmission

Service Agreement between MPSI and

Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation

(Rainbow).

MPSI states that copies of this filing

were served on the Iowa Utilities Board,

the South Dakota Public Service

Commission, and Rainbow.

MPSI requests the Agreement become

effective upon the expiration of the

Commission’s 60-day notice period, or

as soon thereafter as may be practical.

Comment date: March 28, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

5. Madison Gas and Electric Company

[Docket No. ER95–696–000]

Take notice that on March 6, 1995,

Madison Gas and Electric Company

(MGE), tendered for filing a service

agreement with Electric Clearinghouse,

Inc., under MEG’s Power Sales Tariff.

MGE requests an effective date 60 days

from the date of filing.

Comment date: March 28, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

6. Madison Gas and Electric Company

[Docket No. ER95–697–000]

Take notice that on March 6, 1995,

Madison Gas and Electric Company

(MGE), tendered for filing a service

agreement with MidCon Power Services

Corporation under MGE’s Power Sales

Tariff. MGE requests an effective date 60

days from the date of filing.

Comment date: March 28, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

7. Madison Gas and Electric Company

[Docket No. ER95–698–000]

Take notice that on March 6, 1995,

Madison Gas and Electric Company

(MGE), tendered for filing a service

agreement with Louis Dreyfus Electric

Power, Inc., under MGE’s Power Sales

Tariff. MGE requests an effective date 60

days from the date of filing.

Comment date: March 28, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

8. Madison Gas and Electric Company

[Docket No. ER95–699–000]

Take notice that on March 6, 1995,

Madison Gas and Electric Company

(MGE), tendered for filing a service

agreement with AES Power, Inc., under

MGE’s Power Sales Tariff. MGE requests

an effective date 60 days from the date

of filing.

Comment date: March 28, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

9. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

[Docket No. ER95–701–000]

Take notice that on March 6, 1995,

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

(NMPC), tendered for filing with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

an executed Service Agreement between

NMPC and Maine Public Service

Company. This Service Agreement

specifies that MPSC has signed on to

and has agreed to the terms and

conditions of NMPC’s Power Sales

Tariff designated as NMPC’s FERC

Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 2.

This Tariff, approved by FERC on April

15, 1994, and which has an effective

date of March 13, 1993, will allow

NMPC and MPSC to enter into

separately scheduled transactions under

which NMPC will sell to MPSC capacity

and/or energy as the parties may

mutually agree.

In its filing letter, NMPC also

included a Certificate of Concurrence

executed by the Purchaser.

NMPC requests an effective date of

February 23, 1995. NMPC has requested

waiver of the notice requirements for

good cause shown.

NMPC has served copies of the filing

upon the New York State Public Service

Commission and MPSC.

Comment date: March 28, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance

with Rules 211 and 214 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR

385.214). All such motions or protests

should be filed on or before the

comment date. 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 motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–6744 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[FERC Docket No. CP95–35–000; PRPB

Docket No. 94–62–1219–JPU]

EcoEle ́ctrica, L.P.; Notice of Intent to

Prepare a Joint Draft Environmental

Impact Statement/Preliminary

Environmental Impact Statement for

the Proposed EcoEle ́ctrica LNG Import

Terminal and Cogeneration Project in

Guayanilla Bay, Puerto Rico; Request

for Comments on Environmental

Issues and Notice of Scoping Meetings

March 14, 1995.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare a joint

environmental impact statement (EIS)

with the Puerto Rico Planning Board

(PRPB or Board). The document will

discuss the environmental impacts of

the construction and operation of

facilities proposed for EcoEle ́ctrica L.P.

(EcoEle ́ctrica) Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG) Import Facility and Cogeneration

Project in Guayanilla Bay, Puerto Rico.

The FERC and the PRPB will use this

joint EIS in their decision-making

process (whether or not to authorize the

proposed project).1

The PRPB will be the lead agency for

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and

the FERC will be the lead Federal

agency in the preparation of this joint

EIS. The joint document will avoid

duplication of environmental analyses,

and satisfy the requirements of Puerto

Rico’s law requiring an EIS under the

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality

Board (PREQB) Regulations (Article 4[c]

of Law No. 9) and the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Summary of the Proposed Project

EcoEle ́ctrica is seeking approval for a

36-acre site in Guayanilla Bay near

Ponce, Puerto Rico, to import LNG for

power generation. The facilities that

require Commission approval

(‘‘jurisdictional’’ facilities) include the

construction and operation of the LNG

facilities. This would consist of a

marine unloading facility, two LNG

storage tanks with individual capacities

of up to 1,000,000 barrels, a

vaporization system, and a natural gas

accumulator pipeline.

In addition, EcoEle ́ctrica proposes to

construct a ‘‘non-jurisdictional’’

cogeneration facility that will use the

imported LNG as a fuel source for power
14744 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices

generation. The power plant facility

would consist of two gas turbines

operating on natural gas and one steam

turbine with a net station output of 461

megawatts (MW) at 230 kilovolts (kV).

The gas turbines could also use propane

(LPG) as a secondary fuel and high

grade fuel oil as an emergency fuel.

The electricity generated by

EcoEle ́ctrica’s cogeneration facility

would be purchased by the Puerto Rico

Electric Power Authority (PREPA), the

government-created public utility that

supplies nearly all of the electric power

consumed in Puerto Rico. PREPA has

identified a need for additional electric

generating capacity of 1,200 MW by the

year 2000 to meet future demand

growth, enhance system reliability and

to diversify the fuel sources that

generate electricity.

EcoEle ́ctrica also proposes to

construct a desalination facility that

would generate up to 4,000,000 gallons

of freshwater per day. Freshwater uses

at the power plant could require up to

1,000,000 gallons per day. The surplus

capacity would be sold for public use.

Other facilities necessary for the

operation of the cogeneration facility

include a 2.3-mile long, 230-kV

transmission line connecting the plant

substation to an existing PREPA

substation; a 3.5-mile long, 10-inch

diameter pipeline to supply LPG to the

facility; and a water pipeline for

connecting into an existing offsite water

supply or to outside delivery systems.

Summary of the Proposed Facilities

The general location of the proposed

facilities for the EcoEle ́ctrica LNG/

Cogeneration Project is shown in figure

1. The proposed LNG import terminal,

cogeneration power plant, and

desalination plant will be located in

Pen ̃uelas, about 9 miles west of the City

of Ponce on the south coast of Puerto

Rico. The proposed 36-acre site is at the

end of a peninsula presently owned by

Union Carbide Caribe, Inc. (Union

Carbide). The site is bordered on the

north by Union Carbide’s existing fuel

storage tank farm operations and on the

east, west, and south by Tallaboa and

Guayanilla Bays (see figure 2). The site

currently contains a decommissioned

naptha storage tank and ring foundation

for a demolished storage tank.

Major facilities of the proposed

project can be divided between LNG

import facilities and cogeneration/

desalination facilities.

LNG Import Facilities

The LNG import facilities include a

ship unloading system, two LNG storage

tanks, and LNG vaporization and vapor

handling systems. The proposed project

facilities would be designed,

constructed, and maintained to comply

with the Department of Transportation

(DOT) Federal Safety Standards for

Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities (49

Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part

193). The facilities constructed at the

site would also meet the National Fire

Protection Association 59A LNG

standards. The marine cargo transfer

system and any appurtenances located

between the vessel and the last valve

located immediately before a storage

tank will comply with the U.S. Coast

Guard (USCG) regulations in 33 CFR

Part 127 and Executive Order 10173.

Liquefied natural gas would be

imported to Puerto Rico for use in the

power plant portion of the project. No

firm supply of LNG has been identified

at this time. EcoEle ́ctrica is considering

potential LNG suppliers from Trinidad

and Nigeria. It is anticipated that the

project would import up to 130 million

MMBtu per year, requiring between 10

and 60 LNG tanker unloadings annually.

The LNG tankers that would be used

to transport the LNG would be the

125,000 cubic meter class and would

use any of six Coast Guard approved

containment systems. Any LNG carrier

used for the project would be built in

strict accordance with all current

regulatory and classification society

requirements.

The ship unloading system would

consist of unloading facilities and a

pier. The unloading facilities are

designed to handle LNG ships with a

capacity of up to 135,000 cubic meters

with a draft of up to 40 feet. Four

breasting and mooring dolphins are

proposed for securing the LNG ships to

the pier’s berth. The tanker berth would

be roughly parallel to the shore in 50

feet of water. The unloading platform

would be a two-level structure with a

40-foot wide by 100-foot long lower

level and a 20-foot wide by 76-foot long

upper level. The pier is proposed to be

27 feet wide and 1,800 feet long. It

would be constructed on 20- to 30-inch

diameter steel pipe piles, or prestressed

concrete tubes. The pile bents are

expected to be constructed on 70-foot

spacings. Pier framing, roadway, and

spill impoundment system contained

within the pier would be constructed of

reinforced and prestressed concrete.

On-board pumps would deliver the

LNG to the terminal. Four articulated

marine unloading arms would be

installed on the berth for this purpose.

Three of the arms would be used to

receive LNG from the ship, and one

would return natural gas vapor to the

ship. Fire fighting and fire and leak

detection systems would be installed on

the pier to comply with 33 CFR Part

127. Potential LNG spills from piping at

the unloading platform, on the piping

pier, and onshore would be impounded

in concrete trenches located below the

piping. The impoundment trenches

would drain to a single impoundment

basin located onshore near the end of

the pier.

LNG would be stored in two doublecontainment insulated tanks. The tanks

would be 166 feet in height and 254 feet

in diameter with an individual capacity

to store up to 1,000,000 barrels of LNG

each at a temperature of minus 260°F

and a pressure of 2.0 pounds per square

inch gauge (psig). Each storage tank

would consist of an inner tank

constructed of 9 percent nickel steel,

and an outer tank constructed of carbon

steel. Outer walls would be designed to

contain the product vapors and protect

the insulation systems from moisture.

Insulation would consist of perlite

installed between the inner and outer

tank walls. Each LNG tank would be

surrounded by a concrete wall capable

of containing 110 percent of the tank’s

LNG contents. This method of

construction would ensure spill

containment even if there were a

complete rupture of the double walled

metal tanks.

LNG from the storage tanks would be

pressurized, vaporized, and heated so

that natural gas can be delivered to the

power plant turbines at the required

pressure, temperature, and flow. Pumps

in the LNG tanks would transfer and

pressurize the LNG to between two and

six 95 million cubic feet per day

vaporizers. Two shell and tube

vaporizers would use a water-ethylene

glycol solution heated by the air intakes

of the gas turbines. Four open rack

vaporizers would use warm seawater to

provide the heat required for

vaporization. These are two

independent systems.

Cogeneration Facilities

The cogeneration facilities can be

subdivided into three distinct aspects:

power plant facilities, cooling water

systems, and desalination facilities. All

facilities will meet all applicable

Federal and Commonwealth laws. The

cogeneration facilities are ‘‘nonjurisdictional’’ from the FERC

perspective, and will not have any

permitting authority for the ‘‘nonjurisdictional’’ facilities. The PRPB will

have a primary role in assuring that all

aspects of the cogeneration facilities

meet the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

laws and regulations, including

environmental regulations. Since both

agencies require a NEPA document, this

joint EIS will serve the needs of both

agencies.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices 14745

The power plant would be located on

about 11 acres of the 36-acre site (see

figure 2). The plant would have a net

station output of about 461 MW at 230

kV when operating on natural gas under

base load conditions. The plant would

consist of two gas combustion turbines

operating principally on natural gas and

one steam turbine. The turbines could

also be operated on LPG as a secondary

fuel supply and high grade fuel oil as an

emergency source. The LPG would be

stored at a nearby location and

transported to the facility by a proposed

10-inch diameter pipeline. Fuel oil

would be stored on the site in a storage

tank.

The power plant facility would

consist of a building to house the steam

turbine generator, condenser, control

room, electrical room, battery room,

maintenance area, offices, and other

activities. Administrative and storage

buildings would also be constructed on

the site. These buildings would serve

both the LNG import terminal and

power plant facilities. A perimeter

security system and fire protection/

detection system would be monitored

both from the administrative building

and the power plant control room.

The power plant facility would also

include a substation for the transfer of

electricity generated by the plant to the

PREPA system. The substation would be

designed to inter-tie the EcoEle ́ctrica

power plant facility to the PREPA

circuits. The substation system would

also be used to supply power to the LNG

facility’s electrical equipment.

A cooling water system would be

constructed at the facility to provide for

power plant cooling and desalinated

water production. EcoEle ́ctrica has

proposed to use a closed cycle seawater

cooling tower (SWCT) system. Other

methods of cooling would be analyzed

as possible alternatives.

The SWCT system would consist of

10 cells. Each cell would be 50 feet in

length and 50 feet in width. The overall

site area would encompass 100 feet by

250 feet, with a tower 55 feet high from

grade to the top of the fan stack. Water

would be obtained from Guayanilla Bay

from an intake pipeline placed under

the LNG pier. About 13,000 gallons per

minute of the SWCT blowdown would

be mixed with other treated site water

discharge for return to Guayanilla Bay

through an offshore diffuser or

discharged into Tallaboa Bay via a nearshore outfall structure. Water

temperatures of the outfall would not

exceed 91.4°F under any operating

scenario.

EcoEle ́ctrica has also proposed

construction of a desalination plant to

provide freshwater for power plant

operation and to supply potable water

for sale to other users. Freshwater uses

at the power plant would include

potable water for internal consumption,

utility water, and after further treatment,

high quality boiler feedwater totaling up

to 1,000,000 gallons per day. The

maximum freshwater production rate

proposed for the desalination plant is

expected to be up to 4,000,000 gallons

per day. The surplus capacity would be

sold for public use.

A Multi-Stage Flash (MSF) distillation

technology is proposed to be used for

desalination. MSF distillation plants use

thermal energy, generally supplied in

the form of low pressure steam to

desalinate seawater. The combined

cycle power plant facility would supply

sufficient amounts of steam at suitable

temperatures and pressures to drive the

desalination process.

Offsite Facilities

Several offsite facilities are associated

with the project. These include an

electric transmission line, a natural gas

accumulator pipeline, an LPG pipeline,

a potable water supply line and new

access roads (see figure 2 for locations

of these facilities).

Electric output from the power plant

would be supplied to the PREPA power

grid. A 2.3-mile long, 230-kV

transmission line would be constructed

between the power plant substation and

the existing PREPA substation. The line

would be constructed on steel structures

in a 100-foot wide right-of-way. Existing

easements for the transmission corridor

would be used whenever possible.

LPG would be used as the primary

fuel during the construction of the LNG

import facility, and as a backup fuel

after the LNG facility is operational.

LPG would be supplied to the power

plant through a 10-inch diameter

pipeline extending about 3.5 miles from

the existing ProCaribe LPG terminal to

the power plant (see figure 2). The LPG

supply line would follow previously

permitted pipeline routes and would

use existing pipe racks wherever

possible.

Normally, a natural gas accumulator

vessel would be incorporated into the

power plant facility infrastructure. It is

used to ensure that natural gas volumes

are available to prevent an

instantaneous ‘‘emptying’’ or ‘‘voiding’’

of the supply line during startup of the

plant and to prevent over-pressurization

of the line after a shutdown. Instead,

EcoEle ́ctrica has proposed to use a

pipeline ‘‘stub’’ rather than a vessel that

would be built to the northern edge of

the facility along the LPG pipeline rightof-way. This line would serve both as

the accumulator line for the power plant

and potentially as a feed for future

natural gas refueling efforts should these

markets develop. EcoEle ́ctrica is not

seeking approval for additional sales to

sources outside this proposed action.

A water pipeline is also proposed for

construction. Surplus freshwater would

be marketed to the Puerto Rico

Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

(PRASA) or to other municipal,

commercial, or retain customers. An

exact alignment for connection to offsite

water supplies or delivery systems

outside the easements acquired from the

present owner (Union Carbide) has not

been obtained. Those easements and

environmental documentation would be

the responsibility of the PRASA or other

users.

Access roads on the Union Carbide

property and the proposed site would be

developed or upgraded to bring workers

and construction materials from route

PR–127 and the existing Union Carbide

dock (see figure 2). Roads constructed or

upgraded would remain active during

operation of the facility for materials’

deliveries and worker access.

Construction

The LNG import facility and

cogeneration facilities at Guayanilla Bay

would be constructed by EcoEle ́ctrica

using conventional construction

procedures and techniques. Two design

and construction schedules have been

developed: one for the cogeneration

facilities and another for the LNG

import facilities.

The power plant and desalination

facilities would be designed and

constructed over a 18 to 24-month

period. Site preparation and levee

construction would begin six months

after the start of basic engineering

design. Preparation of the site would

require raising the base elevation of the

existing site interior (about 5 feet above

mean sea level [msl]) to about 10 feet

above msl. Increasing the existing

perimeter height of the levee from 10

feet to between 12 and 16 feet above msl

would also be done. The interior of the

site would be filled with imported soils

and caliche. The combined levee

construction and filling of the site

interior would require about 175,000

cubic yards of materials that would be

obtained locally from existing sources

and transported to the site.

The southeast quadrant of the

proposed site would be used for a

construction material laydown area and

the location of temporary offices. A

permanent access road and temporary

construction worker parking area would

be located north of the laydown area.

An existing construction off-loading
14746 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices

2The appendices and figures referenced in this

notice are not being printed in the Federal Register.

Copies are available from FERC’s Public Reference

Branch, Room 3104, 941 North Capitol 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.

dock would be used during construction

(see figure 2).

Foundation construction would begin

about six months after site preparation

activities are begun. Construction of the

power plant and desalination facilities

would be complete in about one year

from the start of foundation

construction. Startup of the facility is

anticipated two years after the start of

basic engineering. Commercial

operation would begin after a onemonth startup and commissioning

period.

The power plant structure would be

about 75 feet high and constructed of a

steel frame with insulated metal siding

and roofing. The structures will be

designed following all Federal,

Commonwealth, and local building

codes.

Construction of the proposed LNG

facilities would follow a similar

schedule. From basic engineering design

to commercial operation would take

about 24 to 30 months. Foundation

installation on the LNG facility would

begin about six months after the start of

power plant foundations.

Marine terminal construction would

begin four months after the start of

foundation construction. The pier

would connect the shore facilities with

the unloading platform.

LNG tank construction would begin

one month after the start of the marine

terminal construction. The tanks would

be constructed on insulated concrete

pads. The tanks would be designed and

constructed following all requirements

of American Petroleum Institute (API)

620 and 49 CFR Part 193. Completion of

all LNG facilities is anticipated about 18

months after initial foundation work.

Commercial operation of the LNG

facility is expected to start about one

year after the start of commercial

operation of the cogeneration facilities.

The EIS Process

The NEPA requires the Commission

to take into account the environmental

impacts that could result from a major

Federal action whenever it considers the

approval of a place of import for natural

gas. The PRPB, as a Commonwealth

Agency with authority over location

approval and land use control, is

required to consider the same potential

impacts within the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico under PREQB regulations

under Article 4(c) of Law No. 9. The

joint EIS we are preparing will give both

the PRPB and the Commission the

information we need to do that.

NEPA also requires us to discover and

address public concerns about

proposals. We call this ‘‘scoping.’’ The

main goal of the scoping process is to

focus the analysis in the joint EIS on the

important environmental issues, and to

separate those issues that are

insignificant and do not require detailed

study. By the Notice of Intent, the

Commission requests public comments

on the scope of the issues it will address

in the joint EIS. All comments received

are considered during the preparation of

the EIS. 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 joint EIS will discuss impacts

that could occur from the construction

and operation of the proposed project.

These impacts may include, but are not

limited to:

• Geology and Soils

—Seismology and soil liquefaction

—Erosion control

—Right-of-way restoration

—Hazardous waste sites

—Seismic criteria

• Water Resources

—Site-specific impacts on surface and

groundwater

—Potential introduction of nonindigenous species and diseases from

tanker ballast water

—Effect on potable water supplies

—Effect in wetland hydrology

—Effect on construction in areas with

shallow, contaminated groundwater

—Effects of water discharge on marine

water quality and ambient

temperature

• Biological Resources

—Effect of plant construction and

operation on threatened and

endangered species

—Effect of increased tanker traffic and

marine construction traffic on

manatees along the route

—Effects of construction of terminal on

marine life in Guayanilla and

Tallaboa Bays

• Cultural Resources

—Effect on historic and prehistoric sites

—Effect on underwater cultural

resources

—Native American and tribal concerns

• Socioeconomics

—Impact of a peak work force of 400 on

surrounding area

—Long-term effects of increased

employment and taxes on local

economy

• Air Quality and Noise

—Air quality and noise impacts

associated with LNG and

congeneration facilities during

operations

—Air quality and noise impacts

associated with construction

• Marine Transportation

—Effects of increased marine traffic on

existing commercial and recreational

marine traffic

—Probability of increased accident risk

and potential for release of LNG or

other hazardous materials

• Public Safety

—Compliance with 49 CFR 193 for

exclusion zones (thermal and vapor

gas dispersion) siting criteria, and

seismic criteria

—Consequences of a major spill, both

on land and marine

—Cryogenic design and technical

review

• Land Use

—Impact on industrial areas

—Effect of rights-of-way and

aboveground facilities on visual

aesthetics in the region

—Consistency with local land use plans

—Impact on homes

• Cumulative Impacts

—Identification of related projects

—Analysis of cumulative impacts and

mitigation measures

We will also evaluate possible site

and technology alternatives to the

project and recommend specific

mitigation measures to lessen or avoid

impacts on the various resource areas.

Federal and Commonwealth agencies

are being asked to indicate whether they

wish to cooperate with us in the

preparation of the joint EIS. These

agencies are listed in appendix A and

may choose to participate once they

have evaluated the proposed project and

their agencies’ responsibilities.2

Our independent analysis of the

issues will result in the publication of

a Draft/Preliminary EIS (the term

Preliminary EIS is a specific milestone

in the Puerto Rico environmental

documentation procedures). This

document will be mailed to Federal,

state, and local agencies, public interest

groups, interested individuals, affected

landowners, newspapers, libraries, and

the Commission’s official service list for

these proceedings. A 45-day comment

period will be allotted for the review of

the Draft/Preliminary EIS. We will

consider all comments on the Draft/

Preliminary EIS and revise the

document, as necessary, before issuing a

Final EIS. The final EIS will include our

response to each comment received.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices 14747

Public Participation and Scoping

Meetings

You can make a difference by sending

a letter with 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 letters to:

Lois Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 825 North

Capitol St., NE., Washington, DC

20426

Luis Frı ́as, Secretary, Puerto Rico

Planning Board, P.O. Box 41119,

Santurce, PR 00940–1119

• Reference Docket No. CP95–35–000

(FERC)

• Reference Docket No. 94–62–1219–

JPU (PRPB)

• Send a copy of your letter to the

following individuals:

Mr. Chris Zerby, FERC EIS Project

Manager, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol St.,

NE, Room 7312, Washington, DC

20426

Mrs. Marı ́a Gordillo, PRPB EIS Project

Manager, Puerto Rico Planning Board,

P.O. Box 41119, Santurce, Puerto Rico

00940–1119

• Mail your comments so that they

are received in Washington, D.C. or

Santurce, PR on or before April 17,

1995.

Beside seeking your written

comments, we invite you to attend any

of the joint public scoping meetings the

FERC and the PRPB will conduct. The

locations and times for these meetings

are listed below. Requests to hold

additional public scoping meetings will

be considered.

The public meetings will be designed

to give you more detailed information

and another opportunity to offer your

comments on the proposed project.

Those wanting to speak at the meetings

can call the EIS Project Manager to preregister their names on the speaker list.

Those people on the speaker list before

the date of the meeting will be allowed

to speak first. A second speaker list will

be developed at each meeting. Priority

will be given to people representing

groups. A transcript of each meeting

will be made so that your comments

will be accurately recorded. This

transcript will be available in both

Spanish and English.

Schedule for Joint EIS Public Scoping

Meetings

April 18, 1995 (5:00–7:00 pm)

Puerto Rico Planning Board, Minillas

Governmental Center, De Diego

Avenue, Stop 22, San Juan, Puerto

Rico 00940

April 19, 1995 (5:00–7:00 pm)

City Hall, Pen ̃uelas, Puerto Rico

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EIS

process, you may want to become an

official party to the proceedings or an

‘‘intervenor.’’ Among other things,

intervenors have the right to receive

copies of case-related FERC 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 FERC’s Rules

of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214) which is attached as appendix

B.

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.

Environmental Mailing List

This notice is being sent to all

potential interested parties to solicit

focused comments regarding

environmental considerations related to

the proposed project. As details of the

project become established,

representatives of EcoElectrica will

directly contact communities, and

public agencies concerning any other

matters, including acquisition of

permits and rights-of-way.

If you do not want to send comments

at this time but still want to keep

informed and receive copies of the

Draft/Preliminary and Final EIS, please

return the Information Request

(appendix C). If you do not return the

Information Request, you will be taken

off the mailing list.

Additional information about the

proposed project is available from Mr.

Chris Zerby, FERC Project Manager, at

(202) 208–0111. Information concerning

the involvement of the Puerto Rico

Planning Board can be obtained from

Mrs. Maria Gordillo, PRPB Project

Manager, at (809) 727–4444.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–6702 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Project No. 8835–019 California]

Dewey B. Smith; Notice of Availability

of Environmental Assessment

March 14, 1995.

An environmental assessment (EA) is

available for public review. The EA is

for the termination of the license of the

Dewey Smith Hydroelectric Project. The

EA finds that termination of the license

would not constitute a major federal

action significantly affecting the quality

of the human environment. The Dewey

Smith Project is located on the Shasta

River in Siskiyou County, California.

The EA was prepared by staff in the

Office of Hydropower Licensing,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Copies of the EA can be viewed at the

Commission’s Reference and

Information Center, Room 3308, 941

North Capitol Street, NE., Washington,

DC 20426. Copies can also be obtained

by calling the project manager listed

below.

Please submit any comments within

45 days from the date of this notice. Any

comments, conclusions, or

recommendations that draw upon

studies, reports or other working papers

of substance should be supported by

appropriate documentation.

Comments should be addressed to

Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 825

North Capitol Street, NE., Washington,

DC 20426. Please denote ‘‘Comments:

Project No. 8835–019’’ on all comments.

For more information, please contact the

project manager, John Mudre, at (202)

219–1208.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–6700 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–217–000, et al.]

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation, et al.; Natural Gas

Certificate Filings

March 10, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission: