Draft General Conformity Determination; Golden Pass LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project; Jefferson, Newton, and Orange Counties, TX, and Calcacieu Parish, LA, 35234-35238 [E5-3124]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
35234
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 116 / Friday, June 17, 2005 / Notices
also states that a person obtaining party
status will be placed on the service list
maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies of
all documents filed by the applicant and
by all other parties. Unless filing
electronically, a party must submit 14
copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to
the applicant and to every other party in
the proceeding.
Only parties to the proceeding can ask
for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to
intervene in order to have comments
considered. The second way to
participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as
possible, an original and two copies of
comments in support of or in opposition
to this project. The Commission will
consider these comments in
determining the appropriate action to be
taken, but the filing of a comment alone
will not serve to make the filer a party
to the proceeding. The Commission’s
rules require that persons filing
comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to
the party or parties directly involved in
the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only
on the environmental review of this
project should submit an original and
two copies of their comments to the
Secretary of the Commission.
Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission’s
environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents,
and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission’s
environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be
required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties.
However, the non-party commenters
will not receive copies of all documents
filed by other parties or issued by the
Commission (except for the mailing of
environmental documents issued by the
Commission) and will not have the right
to seek court review of the
Commission’s final order.
Comments, protests and interventions
may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission’s Web site under the
‘‘e-Filing’’ link.
Comment Date: July 1, 2005.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5–3100 Filed 6–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:59 Jun 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Draft General Conformity
Determination; Golden Pass LNG
Terminal and Pipeline Project;
Jefferson, Newton, and Orange
Counties, TX, and Calcacieu Parish, LA
June 10, 2005.
In Reply Refer to: OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 2,
Golden Pass LNG Terminal LP, Docket No.
CP04–386–000, Golden Pass Pipeline LP,
Docket Nos. CP04–400–000, CP04–401–000,
and CP04–402–000.
To the Party Addressed
The staff of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft
General Conformity Determination to
assess the potential air quality impacts
associated with the construction and
operation of a liquefied natural gas
(LNG) import terminal and natural gas
pipeline proposed by Golden Pass LNG
Terminal LP and Golden Pass Pipeline
LP, referred to as the Golden Pass LNG
Terminal and Pipeline Project, in the
above referenced dockets.
This Draft General Conformity
Determination was prepared to satisfy
the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Comment Procedures
Any person wishing to comment on
the Draft General Conformity
Determination may do so. To ensure
consideration of your comments in the
Final General Conformity
Determination, it is important that we
receive your comments before the date
specified below. Please carefully follow
these instructions to ensure that your
comments are received in time and
properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of
your comments to: Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
• Reference Docket Nos. CP04–386–
000 and CP04–400–000 et al.;
• Label one copy of the comments for
the attention of Gas Branch 2, PJ11.2;
and
• Mail your comments so that they
will be received in Washington, DC on
or before July 12, 2005.
Please note that we are continuing to
experience delays in mail deliveries
from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result,
we will include all comments that we
receive within a reasonable time frame
in our environmental analysis of this
Project. However, the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing of
any comments or interventions to this
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proceeding. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission’s Web site at
https://www.ferc.gov under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link and the link to the User’s
Guide. Before you can file comments
you will need to create a free account,
which can be created by clicking on
‘‘Login to File’’ and then ‘‘New User
Account.’’
After all comments are reviewed, the
staff will publish and distribute a Final
General Conformity Determination for
the Project.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction to Proposed Action
2.0 Regulatory Background—General
Conformity
3.0 General Conformity Applicability
4.0 Air Emissions Inventory
5.0 Preliminary General Conformity
Determination
5.1 NOX Emission Offsetting
5.2 Other Impact Mitigation Practices
5.3 Conditions for Granting a Final
Conformity Determination
Tables:
Table 4–1 Estimated Onshore and Marine
Construction Emissions
Table 4–2 Controlled Air Emission Estimates
for the Proposed LNG Terminal
Table 4–3 Estimated Indirect Emissions
During Terminal Operation
Attachments:
1 September 24, 2004, Conditional
Conformity Certification From the Texas
Council of Environmental Quality
Introduction to Proposed Action
On July 29, 2004, Golden Pass LNG
Terminal LP filed an application with
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or Commission) in
Docket No. CP04–386–000 for
authorization under Section 3(a) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) to site, construct,
and operate a liquefied natural gas
(LNG) terminal on the Port Arthur
Channel of the Sabine-Neches Waterway
(SNWW) in Jefferson County, Texas. In
related applications filed on August 20,
2004, Golden Pass Pipeline LP seeks a
Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity (Certificate) to site, construct,
and operate a new natural gas pipeline
system and ancillary facilities to
connect the LNG terminal to existing
intrastate and interstate gas
transmission facilities in Texas and
Louisiana (Docket No. CP04–400–000); a
blanket certificate to perform routine
activities in connection with the future
construction, operation, and
maintenance of the proposed natural gas
pipelines (Docket No. CP04–401–000);
and authority to provide open-access
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 116 / Friday, June 17, 2005 / Notices
transportation of natural gas to others
(Docket No. CP04–402–000). Golden
Pass LNG Terminal LP and Golden Pass
Pipeline LP hereafter are referred to
collectively as Golden Pass.
Golden Pass’ proposed facilities
would import, store, and vaporize an
average of approximately 2 billion cubic
feet per day (Bcfd) of natural gas (with
a peak capacity of 2.7 Bcfd) for delivery
into the existing intrastate and interstate
pipeline systems. The LNG import
terminal would be constructed in two
phases, each lasting approximately 48
months. Phase 2 construction would
begin approximately 12 months after the
start of Phase 1 construction and would
increase the average capacity from 1.0 to
2.0 Bcfd. The import terminal would be
designed to accept LNG cargoes,
temporarily store and vaporize LNG,
and would contain the following
facilities:
• A protected LNG unloading slip,
LNG ship and support vessel
maneuvering area that would be capable
of receiving up to 200 LNG ships per
year;
• Ship unloading facilities consisting
of two berths, each capable of
accommodating LNG ships ranging from
125,000 cubic meters (m3) to 250,000
m3, and associated facilities (the first
berth would be constructed during
Phase 1 and the second during Phase 2);
• A total of five full-containment LNG
storage tanks each with a working
capacity of 155,000 m 3 (three tanks
would be constructed during Phase 1
and two during Phase 2);
• A total of ten shell-and-tube heat
transfer fluid (HTF) LNG heat
exchangers to vaporize the LNG (five
exchangers would be installed during
Phase 1 and five during Phase 2); and
• Associated support facilities,
including administrative buildings,
storage and maintenance areas, electric
power systems, access roads, and other
facilities related to the LNG import
terminal.
Golden Pass also proposes to
construct a pipeline system, capable of
transporting up to 2.5 Bcfd of natural
gas and consisting of three pipelines
and associated pipeline support
facilities, including pig launchers and
receivers, and meter stations. The
pipeline system would be installed in
overlapping phases across three
counties in Texas and one parish in
Louisiana, and would consist of the:
• Mainline—A 77.8-mile-long, 36inch-diameter pipeline extending from
the LNG import terminal in Jefferson
County through Orange, and Newton
Counties, Texas (66.5 miles) and
Calcacieu Parish, Louisiana (11.3 miles)
to an interconnection with an existing
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:59 Jun 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation (Transco) interstate
pipeline near Starks, Louisiana (to be
installed over an estimated 14-month
period);
• Loop—A 42.8-mile-long, 36-inchdiameter pipeline that would be
installed adjacent to (e.g.,) loop 1 the
Mainline and would extend from the
LNG import terminal in Jefferson
County to an interconnection with the
existing American Electric Power (AEP)
intrastate Texoma Pipeline in Orange
County, Texas (to be installed over an
estimated 9-month period beginning
with and concurrently with the
Mainline);
• Beaumont Lateral—A 1.8-mile-long,
24-inch-diameter pipeline extending
from the Mainline in Jefferson County,
Texas to industrial customers in
Beaumont-Port Arthur, including the
Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil)
Beaumont Refinery Complex (to be
installed over an estimated 1-month
period after installation of the Loop is
complete);
• Meter stations and interconnection
facilities to interconnect with up to 11
existing intrastate and interstate
pipelines; 2 and
• Associated pipeline facilities,
including pig launchers and receivers,
and block valves.
All of these facilities are referred to as
the Golden Pass LNG Terminal and
Pipeline Project. The LNG terminal
facilities (or Project) would be located in
Jefferson County, Texas, in the
Beaumont-Port Arthur area, which is
currently designated nonattainment for
the l-hour ozone standard. Therefore,
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) are
regulated as nonattainment pollutants
for this project and may trigger the
general conformity requirements
established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Regulatory Background—General
Conformity
The EPA promulgated the General
Conformity Rule on November 30, 1993
in Volume 58 of the Federal Register
(FR) Page 63214 (58 FR 63214) to
implement the conformity provision of
title I, section 176(c)(1) of the Federal
Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 176(c)(1)
requires that the Federal Government
not engage, support, or provide financial
assistance for licensing or permitting, or
approving any activity not conforming
1 A loop is a segment of pipeline that isusually
installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and
connected to it at both ends).
2 Currently, there are no formal agreements in
place for interconnects between the Golden Pass
pipeline system and other existing pipelines.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35235
to an approved CAA implementation
plan The applicable plan for this Project
is the Beaumont-Port Arthur ozone
attainment State Implementation Plan
(SIP).
The General Conformity Rule is
codified in Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51,
subpart W, ‘‘Determining Conformity of
General Federal Actions to State or
Federal Implementation Plans’’ and the
conformity analysis criteria are
specified in 40 CFR part 93. General
conformity provisions are also
incorporated in Texas regulations at 30
TAC § 114.260. The General Conformity
Rule applies to all Federal actions
except programs and projects requiring
funding or approval from the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT),
the Federal Highway Administration,
the Federal Transit Administration, or
the Metropolitan Planning Organization.
In lieu of a conformity analysis, these
latter types of programs and projects
must comply with the Transportation
Conformity Rule promulgated originally
by the EPA on November 24, 1993 (58
FR 62188) and revised several times
thereafter, most recently on July 1, 2004.
Title 1, Section 176(c)(1), of the CAA
defines conformity as the upholding of
‘‘an implementation plan’s purpose of
eliminating or reducing the severity and
number of violations of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and achieving attainment of
such standards.’’ Conforming activities
or actions should not, through
additional air pollutant emissions:
• Cause or contribute to new
violations of any NAAQS in any area;
• Increase the frequency or severity of
any existing violation of any NAAQS; or
• Delay timely attainment of any
NAAQS or interim emission reductions.
The General Conformity Rule
establishes conformity in coordination
with and as part of the National
Environmental Policy Act process. The
rule takes into account air pollution
emissions associated with actions that
are federally funded, licensed,
permitted, or approved, and ensures
emissions do not contribute to air
quality degradation, thus preventing the
achievement of State and Federal air
quality goals. In short, General
Conformity refers to the process of
evaluating plans, programs, and projects
to determine and demonstrate that they
meet the requirements of the CAA and
the SIP. The purpose of this General
Conformity requirement is to ensure
that Federal agencies consult with State
and local air quality districts so that
these regulatory entities know about the
expected impacts of the Federal action
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
35236
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 116 / Friday, June 17, 2005 / Notices
and can include expected emissions in
their SIP emissions budget.
Pursuant to the General Conformity
Rule, a Federal agency must make a
General Conformity Determination for
all Federal actions in nonattainment or
maintenance areas where the total of
direct and indirect emissions of a
nonattainment pollutant or its
precursors exceeds levels established by
the regulations.
The Beaumont-Port Arthur area
currently does not have an approved
ozone SIP. On March 30, 2004, EPA
published a final rule in the Federal
Register withdrawing its approval of the
Beaumont-Port Arthur attainment
demonstration and the associated 2007
attainment date, and finding that the
Beaumont-Port Arthur area had failed to
come into attainment by applicable
deadlines. The Beaumont-Port Arthur
area was reclassified as a serious onehour nonattainment area for ozone
effective April 29, 2004 with an
attainment deadline of November 15,
2005. Even though the Beaumont-Port
Arthur area does not currently have an
approved ozone SIP, a General
Conformity Determination is still
needed to ensure that the Project would
not interfere with efforts to achieve
attainment of the NAAQS.
This draft General Conformity
Determination has been prepared
pursuant to the CAA section 176(c)(1) to
assess whether the emissions that would
result from the FERC’s action in
authorizing the Golden Pass LNG
Project would be in conformity with the
Beaumont-Port Arthur SIP for ozone.
The FERC has worked with Golden Pass
to quantify and present the emissions
associated with the Project described
herein. Should the FERC act favorably
on Golden Pass’ application, any final
authorization for construction would be
withheld by the FERC until any
appropriate mitigation measures
required to ensure the Project’s
conformity with the SIP are finalized
and agreed to by Texas Council on
Environmental Quality (TXCEQ) and
Golden Pass.
General Conformity Applicability
The General Conformity Rule applies
to all nonattainment and maintenance
areas. The LNG terminal would be
located in the Beaumont-Port Arthur
Ozone Nonattainment Area, which has
been designated as a serious ozone
nonattainment area with respect to the
1-hour NAAQS for ozone. The Project
area is in attainment with NAAQS for
all other criteria pollutants.
A General Conformity Determination
in a serious ozone nonattainment area is
required for any project that would
result in combined direct and indirect
emissions of either NOX or VOCs equal
to or greater than 50 tons per year (tpy).
A General Conformity Determination is
not required for actions where the total
of direct and indirect emissions is below
these emissions levels. In addition, even
if the total of direct and indirect
emissions of NOX or VOCs is below 50
tpy, when the total of direct and indirect
emissions of any pollutant from the
Federal action represents 10 percent or
more of a nonattainment or maintenance
area’s total emissions of those
pollutants, then the action is defined as
a regionally significant action and a
General Conformity Determination
would be required.
Consistent with section 176(c)(1) of
the CAA, a Federal action is generally
defined as any activity engaged in or
supported in any way by any
department, agency, or instrumentality
of the Federal Government (40 CFR
51.852). Federal actions include
providing Federal financial assistance or
issuing a Federal license, permit, or
approval. Where the Federal action is a
permit, license, or other approval for
some aspect of a non-Federal
undertaking, the relevant activity is the
part, portion, or phase of the non-federal
undertaking that requires the Federal
license, permit, or approval. Because the
FERC would authorize the construction
and operation of the proposed Golden
Pass LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project
pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas
Act, it is considered a Federal action,
and the resulting emissions of NOX and
VOCs must be assessed to determine if
they would conform to the BeaumontPort Arthur SIP.
Air Emissions Inventory
The air emissions inventory for the
Project was prepared using widelyaccepted methods. Emissions were
estimated for both construction and
operation of the proposed project.
Onshore construction emissions
estimates include exhaust resulting from
combustion of fuels to operate
equipment, fugitive dust emissions from
operation of construction equipment at
the construction site, offsite vehicle
exhaust, and fugitive dust from vehicle
travel to the site. Marine construction
emissions estimates include vehicle
exhaust from deliveries made by off-site
vehicles, exhaust from marine
construction equipment, exhaust from
operation of the dredge, dredged
material maintenance activities, and
fugitive dust generated from these
activities. Estimated construction
emissions are listed in Table 4–1 for
onshore and marine construction
activities.
Emission estimates for terminal
operations include emissions from the
HTF heaters, diesel fuel storage tanks,
diesel firewater pumps, the emergency
diesel electric generator, and from
fugitive emissions from the terminal.
Emissions from the eight natural gasfired HTF heaters are based on an
operating heat duty of 227 MMBtu/hr
per heater. Emission estimates from
diesel fuel storage include a nominal
33,600-gallon primary storage tank, a
3,800-gallon day tank to supply diesel
fuel for the emergency electric
generator, and two 500-gallon day tanks
to supply diesel fuel for each of the two
firewater pumps. Emissions from the
diesel generator are based on a 2,500 kW
unit using diesel fuel containing 0.3
percent sulfur, and an assumed 100
hours of operation per year. Fugitive
emissions as based on the number of
valves, pumps, compressors, relief
valves, flanges/connections, open-ended
lines, and sampling connections
incorporated into the terminal facility
design.
TABLE 4–1.—ESTIMATED ONSHORE AND MARINE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Emission estimates (lb/hr)
Total emission estimates
(tons/yr)
Description
NOX
Estimated Onshore Emissions:
Onsite
Construction—Exhaust .................................
Offsite Vehicle—Exhaust ......
Construction—Fugitive Dust
Emissions ..........................
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:59 Jun 16, 2005
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
145.8
36.6
45.5
66.1
8.1
5.2
26.0
4.9
9.4
2.8
150.5
60.9
48.1
75.1
8.6
6.1
26.9
9.1
10.0
4.1
..............
..............
..............
..............
269.6
..............
..............
..............
..............
245.1
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
35237
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 116 / Friday, June 17, 2005 / Notices
TABLE 4–1.—ESTIMATED ONSHORE AND MARINE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS—Continued
Emission estimates (lb/hr)
Total emission estimates
(tons/yr)
Description
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
Offsite Vehicle Travel—Fugitive Dust ............................
..............
..............
..............
..............
Total ..............................
182.4
111.6
13.3
Estimated Marine Emissions:
Dredge
Spoils
Management—Exhaust .................
Marine Deliveries—Exhaust
Dredging Exhaust .................
Slip Construction Activities—
Exhaust .............................
7.9
34.9
143.1
1.8
3.4
29.7
87.4
Total ..............................
273.3
PM10
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
107.4
..............
..............
..............
..............
103.8
30.9
389.3
211.4
123.2
14.7
35.9
363.0
0.5
0.3
7.4
1.5
26.2
23.8
0.6
0.9
6.9
a 34.6
a 7.8
a 2.1
a 6.4
a 2.4
a 4.8
a 0.5
a 0.04
a 3.6
a 0.1
a 479.2
a 99.5
a 24.8
a 79.7
a 23.2
80.3
8.6
31.9
6.0
a 143.6
a 138.0
a 14.5
a 54.0
a 9.9
115.2
16.8
83.3
14.4
a 662.2
a 245.8
a 41.4
a 143.7
a 35.9
a Emissions are presented in total tons instead of tpy because most of the individual marine construction activities will be completed in less
than a year.
Estimated LNG terminal operating
emissions are listed in Table 4–2. The
listed values represent emissions with
the application of add-on emission
controls for the HTF heaters, which
consist of low-NOX burners and a
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
control system for NOX control. The
SCR system will also incorporate an
oxidation catalyst for reduction of CO
emissions.
The total estimated direct long-term
emissions from the Golden Pass LNG
terminal equipment are a maximum of
47.7 tpy NOX and 33.4 tpy of VOCs.
TABLE 4–2.—CONTROLLED AIR EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSED LNG TERMINAL
Emission estimates (lb/hr)
Emission estimates (tons/yr)
Description
NOX
HTF Heaters .................
Diesel Fuel Storage
Tanks ........................
Diesel Firewater Pumps
Emergency Generator ..
Fugitives—VOC from
Piping ........................
Ammonia Piping Fugitives ..........................
Total ......................
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
HAPs
NH3
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
HAPs
NH3
12.7
27.3
9.8
24.9
13.5
0.7
11.4
41.8
89.5
32.2
5.0
44.5
2.2
37.5
..........
37.2
80.4
..........
8.0
18.4
1.2
3.0
2.1
..........
2.5
8.1
..........
2.6
2.3
..........
0.1
0.2
..........
..........
..........
..........
1.9
4.0
..........
0.4
0.9
0.0
0.2
0.1
..........
0.1
0.4
..........
0.1
0.1
..........
0.0
0.0
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
0.2
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
1.0
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
0.2
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
0.8
130.3
53.7
16.4
35.5
18.5
1.0
11.6
47.7
90.9
33.4
5.5
44.7
2.2
38.4
The indirect long-term emissions
associated with operation of the LNG
terminal include emissions from LNG
ships, tug assists, and from commuting
and delivery vehicles. Estimated
indirect emissions associated with
operation of the LNG terminal are
summarized in Table 4–3. The
estimated emissions are based on an
assumption of 200 calls per year by LNG
carriers and correspond to the estimated
emissions submitted by Golden Pass to
the TXCEQ on August 9, 2004.
TABLE 4–3.—ESTIMATED INDIRECT EMISSIONS DURING LNG TERMINAL OPERATION
Total estimated emissions (tons/yr)
Source
Description
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
LNG Carriers ............................
LNG Carriers ............................
LNG Carriers ............................
Tug Assists ...............................
Tug Assists ...............................
Tug Assists ...............................
Motor Vehicles .........................
Main Propulsion Engines ..........................................................
On-board Electric Generators—Vessels Transiting ..................
On-board Electric Generators—Vessels at the Slip .................
Initial Tug Escort .......................................................................
Tug Assist—Midpoint Channel ..................................................
Maneuvering/Docking ................................................................
Commuting and Deliveries ........................................................
332.8
84.2
252.4
24.3
48.7
16.4
0.8
32.6
4.7
14.7
1.9
3.9
5.8
12.2
11.1
9.7
28.2
0.2
0.3
1.0
1.1
414.3
58.0
178.5
18.0
36.0
13.6
0.01
5.8
1.9
5.9
0.6
1.2
0.4
0.04
Total ..................................
....................................................................................................
759.6
75.8
51.6
718.4
15.8
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:59 Jun 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
35238
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 116 / Friday, June 17, 2005 / Notices
The combined (direct plus indirect)
emissions of NOX would exceed 50 tpy
during the construction and operational
phases of the project. Therefore, a
General Conformity Determination is
required for NOX emissions. Similarly,
the combined emissions of VOCs exceed
50 tpy during the operational phases of
the project, and a General Conformity
Determination is also required for VOC
emissions.
Preliminary General Conformity
Determination
A General Conformity Determination
must be completed for projects requiring
Federal authorization that are
undertaken in areas designated as
‘‘nonattainment’’ or ‘‘maintenance’’ for
certain criteria air pollutants and for
which the combined direct and indirect
emissions of those air pollutants will
equal or exceed certain thresholds. The
EPA has designated the Beaumont-Port
Arthur area as a serious nonattainment
area for the 1-hour ozone standard.
Consequently, a General Conformity
Determination is required for certain
projects undertaken in the BeaumontPort Arthur area for which the
combined direct and indirect emissions
of either NOX or VOCs, as ozone
precursors, will equal or exceed 50 tpy.
See 40 CFR 93.153(b) and 30 TAC
§ 101.30. The Project requires a General
Conformity Determination for NOX
because the combined direct and
indirect emissions of NOX would equal
or exceed 50 tpy. In addition, the Project
requires a General Conformity
Determination for VOC because the
combined direct and indirect emissions
of VOC would equal or exceed 50 tpy.
On September 24, 2004, the TXCEQ
issued a conditional general conformity
certification for the Project based on a
review of project emissions estimates,
modeling of the emissions from the
Project, and a number of commitments
proposed by Golden Pass (see
Attachment A). These commitments
include: (1) NOX emission offsetting of
terminal emissions, and (2) other impact
mitigation practices. Each is described
in the sections to follow.
NOX Emission Offsetting
The Project may potentially result in
NOX emission reductions that are far
greater then the NOX emissions
generated by the LNG terminal and
associated sources (LNG trucks and
ships). This emission reduction would
occur when power plants and
residential customers convert boilers
and furnaces to higher-efficiency natural
gas fired units. However, these NOX
emission reductions would not be
enforceable reductions; therefore their
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:59 Jun 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
impact on the Beaumont-Port Arthur
SIP cannot be quantified or credited for
purposes of the general conformity
determination.
Golden Pass has committed to
purchasing and retiring 48 tons of NOX
emission reduction credits prior to
commencement of operations. The 48
tons of NOX credits offset the maximum
projected long-term emissions of NOX
from terminal operations (47.7 tpy).
This commitment by Golden Pass is
documented in the September 24, 2004
letter from TXCEQ.
Other Impact Mitigation Practices
TXCEQ’s conditional conformity
certification put forth additional
conditions as requirements for a
determination of acceptability of the
project relative to the Beaumont-Port
Arthur SIP. These additional conditions,
which are also stated in the September
24, 2004 letter from TCEQ (see
Attachment 1), are as follows:
• Golden Pass will encourage
construction contractors to participate
in the Texas Emission Reduction Plan
(TERP) grant program and to apply for
TERP grant funds;
• Golden Pass will establish bidding
conditions to give preference to ‘‘Clean
Contractors’’;
• Golden Pass will direct, through
provisions included in its construction
contracts, construction contractors to
exercise Best Management Practices
relating to air quality; and
• Golden Pass will encourage
construction contractors to use
appropriate low emission fuels.
Conditions for Granting a Final
Conformity Determination
The commitments by Golden Pass as
described in sections 5.1 and 5.2 above
constitute conditions for granting a final
conformity determination.
Documentation of fulfillment of each
condition is required prior to issuance
of the final conformity determination
and authorization of project
construction. Golden Pass may not
begin construction of the LNG terminal
until the Commission has issued its
final General Conformity Determination
and Golden Pass has received written
approval by the Director of Office of
Energy Projects of its filing stating that
it would comply with all requirements
of the General Conformity
Determination.
[FR Doc. E5–3124 Filed 6–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. RP05–368–000]
Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.;
Notice of Filing
June 10, 2005.
Take notice that on June 6, 2005,
Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
(Gulfstream) tendered for filing a service
agreement with Tampa Electric
Company (TECO).
Gulfstream states that it is requesting
approval of the service agreement with
TECO as part of the Bayside Lateral
project, in which TECO will construct a
pipeline from its Bayside, Florida
generation facility to Gulfstream’s
mainline in Manatee County, Florida.
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 and
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. Such notices, motions, or
protests must be filed on or before the
date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
Anyone filing an intervention or protest
on or before the intervention or protest
date need not serve motions to intervene
or protests on persons other than the
Applicant.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the
‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://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
https://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 email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please email
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 116 (Friday, June 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35234-35238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3124]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Draft General Conformity Determination; Golden Pass LNG Terminal
and Pipeline Project; Jefferson, Newton, and Orange Counties, TX, and
Calcacieu Parish, LA
June 10, 2005.
In Reply Refer to: OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 2, Golden Pass LNG
Terminal LP, Docket No. CP04-386-000, Golden Pass Pipeline LP,
Docket Nos. CP04-400-000, CP04-401-000, and CP04-402-000.
To the Party Addressed
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft General Conformity Determination to
assess the potential air quality impacts associated with the
construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import
terminal and natural gas pipeline proposed by Golden Pass LNG Terminal
LP and Golden Pass Pipeline LP, referred to as the Golden Pass LNG
Terminal and Pipeline Project, in the above referenced dockets.
This Draft General Conformity Determination was prepared to satisfy
the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Comment Procedures
Any person wishing to comment on the Draft General Conformity
Determination may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments in
the Final General Conformity Determination, it is important that we
receive your comments before the date specified below. Please carefully
follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in
time and properly recorded:
Send an original and two copies of your comments to:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Reference Docket Nos. CP04-386-000 and CP04-400-000 et
al.;
Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2, PJ11.2; and
Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before July 12, 2005.
Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail
deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include
all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our
environmental analysis of this Project. However, the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions
to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site at https://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-
Filing'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can file
comments you will need to create a free account, which can be created
by clicking on ``Login to File'' and then ``New User Account.''
After all comments are reviewed, the staff will publish and
distribute a Final General Conformity Determination for the Project.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction to Proposed Action
2.0 Regulatory Background--General Conformity
3.0 General Conformity Applicability
4.0 Air Emissions Inventory
5.0 Preliminary General Conformity Determination
5.1 NOX Emission Offsetting
5.2 Other Impact Mitigation Practices
5.3 Conditions for Granting a Final Conformity Determination
Tables:
Table 4-1 Estimated Onshore and Marine Construction Emissions
Table 4-2 Controlled Air Emission Estimates for the Proposed LNG
Terminal
Table 4-3 Estimated Indirect Emissions During Terminal Operation
Attachments:
1 September 24, 2004, Conditional Conformity Certification From the
Texas Council of Environmental Quality
Introduction to Proposed Action
On July 29, 2004, Golden Pass LNG Terminal LP filed an application
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) in
Docket No. CP04-386-000 for authorization under Section 3(a) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) to site, construct, and operate a liquefied
natural gas (LNG) terminal on the Port Arthur Channel of the Sabine-
Neches Waterway (SNWW) in Jefferson County, Texas. In related
applications filed on August 20, 2004, Golden Pass Pipeline LP seeks a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) to site,
construct, and operate a new natural gas pipeline system and ancillary
facilities to connect the LNG terminal to existing intrastate and
interstate gas transmission facilities in Texas and Louisiana (Docket
No. CP04-400-000); a blanket certificate to perform routine activities
in connection with the future construction, operation, and maintenance
of the proposed natural gas pipelines (Docket No. CP04-401-000); and
authority to provide open-access
[[Page 35235]]
transportation of natural gas to others (Docket No. CP04-402-000).
Golden Pass LNG Terminal LP and Golden Pass Pipeline LP hereafter are
referred to collectively as Golden Pass.
Golden Pass' proposed facilities would import, store, and vaporize
an average of approximately 2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) of
natural gas (with a peak capacity of 2.7 Bcfd) for delivery into the
existing intrastate and interstate pipeline systems. The LNG import
terminal would be constructed in two phases, each lasting approximately
48 months. Phase 2 construction would begin approximately 12 months
after the start of Phase 1 construction and would increase the average
capacity from 1.0 to 2.0 Bcfd. The import terminal would be designed to
accept LNG cargoes, temporarily store and vaporize LNG, and would
contain the following facilities:
A protected LNG unloading slip, LNG ship and support
vessel maneuvering area that would be capable of receiving up to 200
LNG ships per year;
Ship unloading facilities consisting of two berths, each
capable of accommodating LNG ships ranging from 125,000 cubic meters
(m\3\) to 250,000 m\3\, and associated facilities (the first berth
would be constructed during Phase 1 and the second during Phase 2);
A total of five full-containment LNG storage tanks each
with a working capacity of 155,000 m \3\ (three tanks would be
constructed during Phase 1 and two during Phase 2);
A total of ten shell-and-tube heat transfer fluid (HTF)
LNG heat exchangers to vaporize the LNG (five exchangers would be
installed during Phase 1 and five during Phase 2); and
Associated support facilities, including administrative
buildings, storage and maintenance areas, electric power systems,
access roads, and other facilities related to the LNG import terminal.
Golden Pass also proposes to construct a pipeline system, capable
of transporting up to 2.5 Bcfd of natural gas and consisting of three
pipelines and associated pipeline support facilities, including pig
launchers and receivers, and meter stations. The pipeline system would
be installed in overlapping phases across three counties in Texas and
one parish in Louisiana, and would consist of the:
Mainline--A 77.8-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline
extending from the LNG import terminal in Jefferson County through
Orange, and Newton Counties, Texas (66.5 miles) and Calcacieu Parish,
Louisiana (11.3 miles) to an interconnection with an existing
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) interstate
pipeline near Starks, Louisiana (to be installed over an estimated 14-
month period);
Loop--A 42.8-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline that
would be installed adjacent to (e.g.,) loop \1\ the Mainline and would
extend from the LNG import terminal in Jefferson County to an
interconnection with the existing American Electric Power (AEP)
intrastate Texoma Pipeline in Orange County, Texas (to be installed
over an estimated 9-month period beginning with and concurrently with
the Mainline);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A loop is a segment of pipeline that isusually installed
adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaumont Lateral--A 1.8-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter
pipeline extending from the Mainline in Jefferson County, Texas to
industrial customers in Beaumont-Port Arthur, including the Exxon Mobil
Corporation (ExxonMobil) Beaumont Refinery Complex (to be installed
over an estimated 1-month period after installation of the Loop is
complete);
Meter stations and interconnection facilities to
interconnect with up to 11 existing intrastate and interstate
pipelines; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Currently, there are no formal agreements in place for
interconnects between the Golden Pass pipeline system and other
existing pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated pipeline facilities, including pig launchers
and receivers, and block valves.
All of these facilities are referred to as the Golden Pass LNG
Terminal and Pipeline Project. The LNG terminal facilities (or Project)
would be located in Jefferson County, Texas, in the Beaumont-Port
Arthur area, which is currently designated nonattainment for the l-hour
ozone standard. Therefore, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are regulated as nonattainment
pollutants for this project and may trigger the general conformity
requirements established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Regulatory Background--General Conformity
The EPA promulgated the General Conformity Rule on November 30,
1993 in Volume 58 of the Federal Register (FR) Page 63214 (58 FR 63214)
to implement the conformity provision of title I, section 176(c)(1) of
the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 176(c)(1) requires that the
Federal Government not engage, support, or provide financial assistance
for licensing or permitting, or approving any activity not conforming
to an approved CAA implementation plan The applicable plan for this
Project is the Beaumont-Port Arthur ozone attainment State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
The General Conformity Rule is codified in Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, subpart W, ``Determining Conformity
of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans''
and the conformity analysis criteria are specified in 40 CFR part 93.
General conformity provisions are also incorporated in Texas
regulations at 30 TAC Sec. 114.260. The General Conformity Rule
applies to all Federal actions except programs and projects requiring
funding or approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration,
or the Metropolitan Planning Organization. In lieu of a conformity
analysis, these latter types of programs and projects must comply with
the Transportation Conformity Rule promulgated originally by the EPA on
November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188) and revised several times thereafter,
most recently on July 1, 2004.
Title 1, Section 176(c)(1), of the CAA defines conformity as the
upholding of ``an implementation plan's purpose of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and achieving attainment of such
standards.'' Conforming activities or actions should not, through
additional air pollutant emissions:
Cause or contribute to new violations of any NAAQS in any
area;
Increase the frequency or severity of any existing
violation of any NAAQS; or
Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim emission
reductions.
The General Conformity Rule establishes conformity in coordination
with and as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process. The
rule takes into account air pollution emissions associated with actions
that are federally funded, licensed, permitted, or approved, and
ensures emissions do not contribute to air quality degradation, thus
preventing the achievement of State and Federal air quality goals. In
short, General Conformity refers to the process of evaluating plans,
programs, and projects to determine and demonstrate that they meet the
requirements of the CAA and the SIP. The purpose of this General
Conformity requirement is to ensure that Federal agencies consult with
State and local air quality districts so that these regulatory entities
know about the expected impacts of the Federal action
[[Page 35236]]
and can include expected emissions in their SIP emissions budget.
Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, a Federal agency must make
a General Conformity Determination for all Federal actions in
nonattainment or maintenance areas where the total of direct and
indirect emissions of a nonattainment pollutant or its precursors
exceeds levels established by the regulations.
The Beaumont-Port Arthur area currently does not have an approved
ozone SIP. On March 30, 2004, EPA published a final rule in the Federal
Register withdrawing its approval of the Beaumont-Port Arthur
attainment demonstration and the associated 2007 attainment date, and
finding that the Beaumont-Port Arthur area had failed to come into
attainment by applicable deadlines. The Beaumont-Port Arthur area was
reclassified as a serious one-hour nonattainment area for ozone
effective April 29, 2004 with an attainment deadline of November 15,
2005. Even though the Beaumont-Port Arthur area does not currently have
an approved ozone SIP, a General Conformity Determination is still
needed to ensure that the Project would not interfere with efforts to
achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
This draft General Conformity Determination has been prepared
pursuant to the CAA section 176(c)(1) to assess whether the emissions
that would result from the FERC's action in authorizing the Golden Pass
LNG Project would be in conformity with the Beaumont-Port Arthur SIP
for ozone. The FERC has worked with Golden Pass to quantify and present
the emissions associated with the Project described herein. Should the
FERC act favorably on Golden Pass' application, any final authorization
for construction would be withheld by the FERC until any appropriate
mitigation measures required to ensure the Project's conformity with
the SIP are finalized and agreed to by Texas Council on Environmental
Quality (TXCEQ) and Golden Pass.
General Conformity Applicability
The General Conformity Rule applies to all nonattainment and
maintenance areas. The LNG terminal would be located in the Beaumont-
Port Arthur Ozone Nonattainment Area, which has been designated as a
serious ozone nonattainment area with respect to the 1-hour NAAQS for
ozone. The Project area is in attainment with NAAQS for all other
criteria pollutants.
A General Conformity Determination in a serious ozone nonattainment
area is required for any project that would result in combined direct
and indirect emissions of either NOX or VOCs equal to or
greater than 50 tons per year (tpy). A General Conformity Determination
is not required for actions where the total of direct and indirect
emissions is below these emissions levels. In addition, even if the
total of direct and indirect emissions of NOX or VOCs is
below 50 tpy, when the total of direct and indirect emissions of any
pollutant from the Federal action represents 10 percent or more of a
nonattainment or maintenance area's total emissions of those
pollutants, then the action is defined as a regionally significant
action and a General Conformity Determination would be required.
Consistent with section 176(c)(1) of the CAA, a Federal action is
generally defined as any activity engaged in or supported in any way by
any department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government
(40 CFR 51.852). Federal actions include providing Federal financial
assistance or issuing a Federal license, permit, or approval. Where the
Federal action is a permit, license, or other approval for some aspect
of a non-Federal undertaking, the relevant activity is the part,
portion, or phase of the non-federal undertaking that requires the
Federal license, permit, or approval. Because the FERC would authorize
the construction and operation of the proposed Golden Pass LNG Terminal
and Pipeline Project pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, it
is considered a Federal action, and the resulting emissions of
NOX and VOCs must be assessed to determine if they would
conform to the Beaumont-Port Arthur SIP.
Air Emissions Inventory
The air emissions inventory for the Project was prepared using
widely-accepted methods. Emissions were estimated for both construction
and operation of the proposed project. Onshore construction emissions
estimates include exhaust resulting from combustion of fuels to operate
equipment, fugitive dust emissions from operation of construction
equipment at the construction site, offsite vehicle exhaust, and
fugitive dust from vehicle travel to the site. Marine construction
emissions estimates include vehicle exhaust from deliveries made by
off-site vehicles, exhaust from marine construction equipment, exhaust
from operation of the dredge, dredged material maintenance activities,
and fugitive dust generated from these activities. Estimated
construction emissions are listed in Table 4-1 for onshore and marine
construction activities.
Emission estimates for terminal operations include emissions from
the HTF heaters, diesel fuel storage tanks, diesel firewater pumps, the
emergency diesel electric generator, and from fugitive emissions from
the terminal. Emissions from the eight natural gas-fired HTF heaters
are based on an operating heat duty of 227 MMBtu/hr per heater.
Emission estimates from diesel fuel storage include a nominal 33,600-
gallon primary storage tank, a 3,800-gallon day tank to supply diesel
fuel for the emergency electric generator, and two 500-gallon day tanks
to supply diesel fuel for each of the two firewater pumps. Emissions
from the diesel generator are based on a 2,500 kW unit using diesel
fuel containing 0.3 percent sulfur, and an assumed 100 hours of
operation per year. Fugitive emissions as based on the number of
valves, pumps, compressors, relief valves, flanges/connections, open-
ended lines, and sampling connections incorporated into the terminal
facility design.
Table 4-1.--Estimated Onshore and Marine Construction Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission estimates (lb/hr) Total emission estimates (tons/yr)
Description ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX CO VOC SO2 PM10 NOX CO VOC SO2 PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Onshore Emissions:
Onsite Construction--Exhaust................... 145.8 45.5 8.1 26.0 9.4 150.5 48.1 8.6 26.9 10.0
Offsite Vehicle--Exhaust....................... 36.6 66.1 5.2 4.9 2.8 60.9 75.1 6.1 9.1 4.1
Construction--Fugitive Dust Emissions.......... ........ ........ ........ ........ 269.6 ........ ........ ........ ........ 245.1
[[Page 35237]]
Offsite Vehicle Travel--Fugitive Dust.......... ........ ........ ........ ........ 107.4 ........ ........ ........ ........ 103.8
-----------
Total...................................... 182.4 111.6 13.3 30.9 389.3 211.4 123.2 14.7 35.9 363.0
===========
Estimated Marine Emissions:
Dredge Spoils Management--Exhaust.............. 7.9 1.8 0.5 1.5 0.6 a 34.6 a 7.8 a 2.1 a 6.4 a 2.4
Marine Deliveries--Exhaust..................... 34.9 3.4 0.3 26.2 0.9 a 4.8 a 0.5 a 0.04 a 3.6 a 0.1
Dredging Exhaust............................... 143.1 29.7 7.4 23.8 6.9 a 479.2 a 99.5 a 24.8 a 79.7 a 23.2
Slip Construction Activities--Exhaust.......... 87.4 80.3 8.6 31.9 6.0 a 143.6 a 138.0 a 14.5 a 54.0 a 9.9
-----------
Total...................................... 273.3 115.2 16.8 83.3 14.4 a 662.2 a 245.8 a 41.4 a 143.7 a 35.9
-----------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emissions are presented in total tons instead of tpy because most of the individual marine construction activities will be completed in less than a
year.
Estimated LNG terminal operating emissions are listed in Table 4-2.
The listed values represent emissions with the application of add-on
emission controls for the HTF heaters, which consist of low-
NOX burners and a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
control system for NOX control. The SCR system will also
incorporate an oxidation catalyst for reduction of CO emissions.
The total estimated direct long-term emissions from the Golden Pass
LNG terminal equipment are a maximum of 47.7 tpy NOX and
33.4 tpy of VOCs.
Table 4-2.--Controlled Air Emission Estimates for the Proposed LNG Terminal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission estimates (lb/hr) Emission estimates (tons/yr)
Description ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX CO VOC SO2 PM10 HAPs NH3 NOX CO VOC SO2 PM10 HAPs NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTF Heaters............................ 12.7 27.3 9.8 24.9 13.5 0.7 11.4 41.8 89.5 32.2 5.0 44.5 2.2 37.5
Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks.............. ...... ...... 1.2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 0.0 ...... ...... ...... .......
Diesel Firewater Pumps................. 37.2 8.0 3.0 2.5 2.6 0.1 ...... 1.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 .......
Emergency Generator.................... 80.4 18.4 2.1 8.1 2.3 0.2 ...... 4.0 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 .......
Fugitives--VOC from Piping............. ...... ...... 0.2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 1.0 ...... ...... ...... .......
Ammonia Piping Fugitives............... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 0.2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 0.8
---------
Total.............................. 130.3 53.7 16.4 35.5 18.5 1.0 11.6 47.7 90.9 33.4 5.5 44.7 2.2 38.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The indirect long-term emissions associated with operation of the
LNG terminal include emissions from LNG ships, tug assists, and from
commuting and delivery vehicles. Estimated indirect emissions
associated with operation of the LNG terminal are summarized in Table
4-3. The estimated emissions are based on an assumption of 200 calls
per year by LNG carriers and correspond to the estimated emissions
submitted by Golden Pass to the TXCEQ on August 9, 2004.
Table 4-3.--Estimated Indirect Emissions During LNG Terminal Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total estimated emissions (tons/
yr)
Source Description NOX -----------------------------------
CO VOC SO2 PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG Carriers......................... Main Propulsion Engines..... 332.8 32.6 11.1 414.3 5.8
LNG Carriers......................... On-board Electric 84.2 4.7 9.7 58.0 1.9
Generators--Vessels
Transiting.
LNG Carriers......................... On-board Electric 252.4 14.7 28.2 178.5 5.9
Generators--Vessels at the
Slip.
Tug Assists.......................... Initial Tug Escort.......... 24.3 1.9 0.2 18.0 0.6
Tug Assists.......................... Tug Assist--Midpoint Channel 48.7 3.9 0.3 36.0 1.2
Tug Assists.......................... Maneuvering/Docking......... 16.4 5.8 1.0 13.6 0.4
Motor Vehicles....................... Commuting and Deliveries.... 0.8 12.2 1.1 0.01 0.04
----------
Total............................ ............................ 759.6 75.8 51.6 718.4 15.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35238]]
The combined (direct plus indirect) emissions of NOX
would exceed 50 tpy during the construction and operational phases of
the project. Therefore, a General Conformity Determination is required
for NOX emissions. Similarly, the combined emissions of VOCs
exceed 50 tpy during the operational phases of the project, and a
General Conformity Determination is also required for VOC emissions.
Preliminary General Conformity Determination
A General Conformity Determination must be completed for projects
requiring Federal authorization that are undertaken in areas designated
as ``nonattainment'' or ``maintenance'' for certain criteria air
pollutants and for which the combined direct and indirect emissions of
those air pollutants will equal or exceed certain thresholds. The EPA
has designated the Beaumont-Port Arthur area as a serious nonattainment
area for the 1-hour ozone standard. Consequently, a General Conformity
Determination is required for certain projects undertaken in the
Beaumont-Port Arthur area for which the combined direct and indirect
emissions of either NOX or VOCs, as ozone precursors, will
equal or exceed 50 tpy. See 40 CFR 93.153(b) and 30 TAC Sec. 101.30.
The Project requires a General Conformity Determination for
NOX because the combined direct and indirect emissions of
NOX would equal or exceed 50 tpy. In addition, the Project
requires a General Conformity Determination for VOC because the
combined direct and indirect emissions of VOC would equal or exceed 50
tpy.
On September 24, 2004, the TXCEQ issued a conditional general
conformity certification for the Project based on a review of project
emissions estimates, modeling of the emissions from the Project, and a
number of commitments proposed by Golden Pass (see Attachment A). These
commitments include: (1) NOX emission offsetting of terminal
emissions, and (2) other impact mitigation practices. Each is described
in the sections to follow.
NOX Emission Offsetting
The Project may potentially result in NOX emission
reductions that are far greater then the NOX emissions
generated by the LNG terminal and associated sources (LNG trucks and
ships). This emission reduction would occur when power plants and
residential customers convert boilers and furnaces to higher-efficiency
natural gas fired units. However, these NOX emission
reductions would not be enforceable reductions; therefore their impact
on the Beaumont-Port Arthur SIP cannot be quantified or credited for
purposes of the general conformity determination.
Golden Pass has committed to purchasing and retiring 48 tons of
NOX emission reduction credits prior to commencement of
operations. The 48 tons of NOX credits offset the maximum
projected long-term emissions of NOX from terminal
operations (47.7 tpy). This commitment by Golden Pass is documented in
the September 24, 2004 letter from TXCEQ.
Other Impact Mitigation Practices
TXCEQ's conditional conformity certification put forth additional
conditions as requirements for a determination of acceptability of the
project relative to the Beaumont-Port Arthur SIP. These additional
conditions, which are also stated in the September 24, 2004 letter from
TCEQ (see Attachment 1), are as follows:
Golden Pass will encourage construction contractors to
participate in the Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) grant program
and to apply for TERP grant funds;
Golden Pass will establish bidding conditions to give
preference to ``Clean Contractors'';
Golden Pass will direct, through provisions included in
its construction contracts, construction contractors to exercise Best
Management Practices relating to air quality; and
Golden Pass will encourage construction contractors to use
appropriate low emission fuels.
Conditions for Granting a Final Conformity Determination
The commitments by Golden Pass as described in sections 5.1 and 5.2
above constitute conditions for granting a final conformity
determination. Documentation of fulfillment of each condition is
required prior to issuance of the final conformity determination and
authorization of project construction. Golden Pass may not begin
construction of the LNG terminal until the Commission has issued its
final General Conformity Determination and Golden Pass has received
written approval by the Director of Office of Energy Projects of its
filing stating that it would comply with all requirements of the
General Conformity Determination.
[FR Doc. E5-3124 Filed 6-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
