![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District; Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cove Point Expansion Project
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: May 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 26491-26493]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05my06-58]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. CP05-130-000, CP05-132-000, Corps Application #
CENAB-OP-RMS200565510-4; Docket No. CP05-131-000]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District; Dominion Cove Point LNG,
LP; Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Cove Point Expansion Project
April 28, 2006.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and U.S. Coast Guard, (Coast Guard) has prepared a final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a liquefied natural gas (LNG)
import terminal expansion
[[Page 26492]]
and natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Dominion Cove Point
LNG, L.P. and Dominion Transmission, Inc. (collectively referred to as
Dominion) in the above-referenced dockets. The final EIS was prepared
to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The final EIS addresses federally listed species, cultural
resources, and essential fish habitat issues. A draft General
Conformity Determination was also prepared by the FERC to assess the
potential air quality impacts associated with construction and
operation of the proposed project and is included as Appendix H of the
final EIS.
The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project with
appropriate mitigating measures, as recommended, would have limited
adverse environmental impact.
The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following LNG terminal and natural
gas (steel) pipeline facilities:
? Two new 160,000 cubic meter single containment LNG storage tanks;
? Additional vaporization capacity consisting of shell and
tube vaporizers and associated equipment;
? Additional power generation equipment consisting of two
21.7 megawatt gas turbine generators and three emergency generators;
? Infrastructure associated with the LNG terminal expansion
including roads and storage and work areas at the existing site;
? About 47.8 miles of 36-inch-diameter, loop pipeline in
Calvert, Prince Georges, and Charles County, Maryland (TL-532 Pipeline);
? Ancillary areas for pipeline construction, including
access roads, staging areas, and work spaces;
? About 81 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline lateral in
Juniata, Mifflin, Huntingdon, Centre, and Clinton Counties,
Pennsylvania (PL-1 EXT2 Pipeline);
? Two new compressor stations in Juniata County (Perulack
Station) and Centre County (Centre Relay Station), Pennsylvania;
? About 11 miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline loop in Wetzel County,
West Virginia and Greene County, Pennsylvania (TL-492 EXT3 Pipeline);
? About 12 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline loop in Potter
County, Pennsylvania (TL-453 EXT1 Pipeline);
? About 10 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline loop in Potter
County, Pennsylvania (TL-536 Pipeline);
? Replacement of about 0.6 mile and pressure testing and
possible replacement of about 0.4 mile of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in
Franklin County, Pennsylvania (PL-1 Pipeline Pressure Restoration Sites);
? Minor modifications to the existing Loudoun Measuring and
Regulating (M&R) Station in Loudoun County, Virginia;
? About 2,800 horsepower (hp) of additional compression at the existing
Mockingbird Hill Compressor Station in Wetzel County, West Virginia;
? Minor modifications to the existing Leesburg Compressor
Station in Loudoun County, Virginia;
? Minor modifications to the existing Chambersburg
Compressor Station in Franklin County, Pennsylvania;
? Additional facilities and pipeline replacement at the
existing Leidy M&R Station located at the Leidy Hub complex in Clinton
County, Pennsylvania;
? About 3,550 hp of additional compression at Dominion's
previously approved Wolf Run Compressor Station in Lewis County, West
Virginia; and
? Minor modifications to Dominion's previously approved
Quinlan Compressor Station in Cattaraugus County, New York.
Dominion's proposed LNG terminal expansion would increase the send-
out capability by 800,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) and increase the
storage capacity by 6.8 MMDth/d. Dominion's proposed pipeline and
related facilities in Maryland and Virginia would allow it to deliver
an additional 800,000 Dth/d from its LNG terminal to its connections
with other interstate pipelines. Dominion's proposed pipelines and
related facilities in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New York would
allow it to transport an additional 700,000 Dth/d to various delivery
points on its system, and offer a new underground storage service of
6.0 MMDth, with an additional demand of 100,000 Dth/d.
Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP has applied, concurrently, to the Corps
for a Department of the Army Individual Permit pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) for proposed structures in and
under navigable waters and the discharge of dredged, excavated, and/or
fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands to
construct the preferred alternative identified in the final EIS. The
decision whether to issue the permits will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed
projects on the public interest. The decision will reflect the national
concern for the protection and utilization of important resources. The
benefits, which would be reasonably expected to accrue from the
proposed projects, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable
detriments. All factors, which may be relevant to the proposed work,
will be considered, including the cumulative effects thereof; among
those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply, and conservation, water quality,
energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, consideration of
property ownership, and in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
The Corps solicited comments from the public; Federal, State, and
local agencies and officials; Indian tribes; and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed
project. Comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine
whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for the proposal.
To make this decision, the Corps uses comments received to access
impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality,
general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors
listed above.
The evaluation of the impact of the work described above on the
public interest will also include application, by the Corps, of the
guidelines [Section 404(b)(1)]
promulgated by the Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, under authority of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
For Corps permitting purposes, if applicable, the applicant is
required to obtain a Water Quality Certification in accordance with
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, and the State of West Virginia Division of Environmental
Protection. The Section 401 certifying agencies have a statutory limit
of one year in which to make their decisions. Additionally, for Corps
permitting purposes, the applicant is required to obtain Coastal Zone
Management Consistency concurrence from the MDE, as well. It should be
noted that the MDE has a statutory limit of 6 months in which to make
its consistency determination.
The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) within the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security is also participating as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EIS because it exercises regulatory authority over LNG
[[Page 26493]]
facilities that affect the safety and security of port areas and
navigable waterways under Executive Order 10173; the Magnuson Act (50
U.S.C. 191); the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1221, et seq.); and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2002 (46 U.S.C. 701). The Coast Guard also has authority for LNG
facility plan review, approval and compliance verification as provided
in title 33 CFR part 105, and siting as it pertains to the management
of vessel traffic in and around the LNG facility. As required by its
regulations, the Coast Guard is responsible for issuing a Letter of
Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG
marine traffic.
The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and
is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-1371.
Copies of the final EIS have been mailed to Federal, State, and
local agencies; public interest groups; individuals and affected
landowners who requested a copy of the final EIS or provided comments
during scoping; libraries; newspapers; and parties to this proceeding.
A limited number of documents and CD-ROMs are available from the Public
Reference Room identified above. In addition, hard-copies of the
document are also available for reading at public libraries along the
proposed project route.
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on a proposed action
may be made until 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency publishes a notice of availability of a final EIS. However, the
CEQ regulations provide an exception to this rule when an agency
decision is subject to a formal internal appeal process which allows
other agency review or the public to make their views known. In such
cases, the agency decision may be made at the same time the notice of
the final EIS is published, allowing both periods to run concurrently.
The Commission decision for this proposed action is subject to a 30-day
rehearing period.
Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) 
using the eLibrary
link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site
also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Internet Web site.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6844 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P