1U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2004. " U. S. LNG Markets and Uses: June 2004 Update," http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ pub/ oil_ gas/ natural_ gas/ feature_ articles/ 2004/ lng/ lng2004. pdf.

Page 1 of 29 Memorandum From: Carey A. Johnston, P. E. USEPA/ OW/ OST ph: ( 202) 566 1014 johnston. carey@ epa. gov To: Public Record for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 DCN 01227, Section 3.23 EPA Docket Number OW 2003 0074 ( www. epa. gov/ edockets/)

Date: August 19, 2004 Re: Overview of Liquefied Natural Gas ( LNG) Import Terminals For CWA Section 304( m) Effluent Guidelines Planning Introduction Liquefied natural gas ( LNG) has become an increasingly important part of the U. S. energy market. Interest in LNG imports has been rekindled by higher U. S. natural gas prices in recent years, as well as increased competition and technological advances that have lowered costs for liquefaction, shipping, storing, and re gasification of LNG. 1 LNG is cooled to about minus 260 oF and transported by vessels to import facilities for re gasification.

During the re gasification process, the LNG is warmed from minus 260 oF to 40 oF and experiences a three fold increase in volume. Typically, LNG at import terminals is stored only until it can be re gasified and injected into the pipeline grid or until it can be trucked directly to customers. In order to minimize wait times for the ships and to avoid congestion, operators of LNG marine terminals process cargoes quickly. Each U. S. import terminal is equipped with storage tanks capable of holding between two and three tanker loads of LNG. Some new and expanded facilities in the United States will have a capacity closer to four tanker loads. ( DOE 2004) LNG import terminals may use surface waters for this heat exchange process and may use biocides ( e. g., sodium hypochlorite) to control biofouling of their intake structures.

This memorandum provides an overview of: ( 1) the existing and planned LNG import terminals in the United States; ( 2) estimates of pollutant discharges for existing and proposed 2U. S. DOE, Office of Fossil Energy, Order Granting Long Term Authorization to Import Liquified Natural Gas, Order No. 1042, http:// www. fe. doe. gov/ programs/ gasregulation/ authorizations/ orders/ ord1042. pdf, April 19, 1995. Page 2 of 29 LNG import terminals; and ( 3) the technology options available to reduce or eliminate pollutant discharges.

1.0 Existing LNG Import Terminals in the U. S.

The LNG industry in the United States has experienced periods of prolonged downturns, in part owing to price competition from domestic sources of natural gas. ( DOE 2004) Currently there are five existing onshore LNG import terminals and no existing offshore LNG import terminals. The five existing onshore LNG import terminals are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Five Existing Onshore LNG Import Terminals Location 2003 LNG Imports, Billion cubic feet ( Bcf) 2004 LNG Storage Capacity, Billion cubic feet ( Bcf) Operator Lake Charles, LA 238.2 6.3 Southern Union Cove Point, MD 66.1 5.0 Dominion Everett, MA 158.3 3.5 Tractebel Elba Island, GA 43.9 4.0 El Paso/ Southern LNG Guayanilla Bay, Puerto Rico 1302 N/ A Enron/ Edison Mission ( EcoElectrica)

Sources: ( DOE 2004), ( DOE 1995)

Although LNG imports exceeded historical highs in 2003, even at the current pace they represent only about 2.7 percent of U. S. consumption and 13 percent of imports. Through expansions at three of the four facilities, the United States will increase its peak re gasification capacity by more than 40 percent from the 2002 level ( 3.2 Bcf/ d) to approximately 4.6 Bcf/ d in 2005. Additionally, through recently announced additional expansion projects at Lake Charles and Cove Point, capacity would reach about 6.2 Bcf/ d by 2008. ( DOE 2004)

Since the 1970s, none of the four existing continental U. S. LNG import terminals use surface water for their vaporization operations, only as an emergency backup source to their 3 E mail communication from James Kelly, CH IV International, to Carey A. Johnston, U. S. EPA, April 28, 2004.

4 Frangesh, Neal, 2004. Memorandum from Neal Frangesh, LGA Engineering, to David Moses, U. S. DOE, " Existing U. S. LNG Import Terminals: Sources of Cooling Water and Firewater," July 19, 2004.

5E mail communication from Elizabeth Aldridge, Hutton & Williams, to Carey A. Johnston, U. S. EPA, June 24, 2004. Page 3 of 29 firewater systems. 3,4 For example, at the Dominion Cove Point, MD, facility all water used on site is withdrawn from groundwater wells and is heated in the vaporizers and used to warm the LNG and convert back to a gaseous state. 5 Additionally, the EcoElectrica facility in Puerto Rico does use surface water for makeup and discharges blowdown for the power plant cooling tower, but does not discharge wastewater for the LNG processing ( warming or cooling). The EcoElectrica facility integrates LNG vaporization with its power plant operations. Figure 1 describes how this facility uses a glycol re circulating heat exchanger in combination with a electric power generator to re gasify the LNG.

Figure 1: EcoElectrica Simplified Flow Diagram 6Remarks of Suedeen G. Kelly, Commissioner of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to the Natural Gas Roundtable of Washington, " The Challenge of Natural Gas Interchangeability and Quality," Washington, D. C., February 24, 2004. See http:// www. ferc. gov/ press room/ sp current/ 02 24 04 kelly. pdf.

7Gaul, Damien, 2001. U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, " U. S. LNG Markets and Uses," See http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ pub/ oil_ gas/ natural_ gas/ feature_ articles/ 2003/ lng/ lng2003. pdf 8 University of Houston, 2003. " Introduction to LNG," http:// www. energy. uh. edu/ LNG/ documents/ IELE_ introduction_ to_ LNG. pdf, January 2003.

9 Kelly, Edward, 2004. " Factors Limit LNG's Role In U. S. Market," American Oil and Gas Reporter, March 2004.

10U. S. Department of Energy, 2004. " Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with Projections to 2025," DOE/ EIA 0383 ( 2004), January 2004. See http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ oiaf/ aeo/.

11Meyer, Keith, 2004. The Regasification of North America, World Energy, Vol. 7, No. 1, http:// www. worldenergysource. com/ articles/ pdf/ meyer_ WE_ v7n1. pdf. Page 4 of 29 2.0 Planned LNG Import Terminals in the U. S.

A competition to build LNG import terminals is taking place among U. S. and foreign companies in many regions of North America because of the perceived opportunity in the growing LNG industry. 6 Interest in LNG imports has been rekindled by higher U. S. natural gas prices in recent years and technological advances that have lowered costs for liquefaction, re gasification, shipping, and storing of LNG. 7,8 Potential investment in re gasification facilities in the U. S. is estimated at $ 15 billion. 9 Although LNG imports currently make up a small percentage of total gas supplies, higher natural gas prices and recent expansions of existing LNG import terminals and the constructions of new terminals will likely boost the net import of LNG from overseas. Net LNG imports are estimated to increase from 0.2 trillion cubic feet in 2002 to 2.2 and 4.8 trillion cubic feet in 2010 and 2025, respectively, as planned expansions at the four existing terminals are completed and new terminals are projected to start coming into operation in 2007.10 As shown in Figure 2 a number of LNG import terminals have been proposed for development to meet the increased demand for natural gas. ( FERC 2004) There are at least 40 company announcements of proposed terminals targeted for North America. Many of these projects are already before regulators, and, as of June 2004, some have achieved regulatory success. ( DOE, 2004). Many of these proposed projects are planned for the Gulf of Mexico ( GOM) area due to the area's largest demand for natural gas and significant pipeline infrastructure. 11 Page 5 of 29 Existing Terminals with Approved Expansions A. Everett, MA : 1.035 Bcfd ( Tractebel   DOMAC)

B. Cove Point, MD : 1.0 Bcfd ( Dominion   Cove Point LNG)

C. Elba Island, GA : 1.2 Bcfd ( El Paso   Southern LNG)

D. Lake Charles, LA : 1.2 Bcfd ( Southern Union   Trunkline LNG)

Approved Terminals 1. Hackberry, LA : 1.5 Bcfd, ( Sempra Energy)

2. Port Pelican: 1.6 Bcfd, ( Chevron Texaco)

3. Bahamas : 0.84 Bcfd, ( AES Ocean Express)*

4. Gulf of Mexico: 0.5 Bcfd, ( El Paso Energy Bridge GOM, LLC)

5. Bahamas : 0.83 Bcfd, ( Calypso Tractebel)*

Proposed Terminals and Expansions   FERC 6. Freeport, TX : 1.5 Bcfd, ( Cheniere/ Freeport LNG Dev.)

7. Fall River, MA : 0.8 Bcfd, ( Weaver's Cove Energy/ Hess LNG)

8. Long Beach, CA : 0.7 Bcfd, ( SES/ Mitsubishi)

9. Corpus Christi, TX : 2.6 Bcfd, ( Cheniere LNG Partners)

10. Sabine, LA : 2.6 Bcfd ( Cheniere LNG)

11. Corpus Christi, TX : 1.0 Bcfd ( Vista Del Sol  ExxonMobil)

12. Sabine, TX : 1.0 Bcfd ( Golden Pass  ExxonMobil)

13. Logan Township, NJ : 1.2 Bcfd ( Crown Landing LNG   BP)

14. Lake Charles, LA: 0.6 Bcfd ( Southern Union   Trunkline LNG)

15. Bahamas : 0.5 Bcfd, ( Seafarer  El Paso/ FPL )

16. Corpus Christi, TX: 1.0 Bcfd ( Occidental Energy Ventures)

17. Providence, RI : 0.5 Bcfd ( Keyspan & BG LNG)

18. Port Arthur, TX: 1.5 Bcfd ( Sempra)

Proposed Terminals   Coast Guard 19. California Offshore: 1.5 Bcfd, ( Cabrillo Port   BHP Billiton)

20. Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd ( Gulf Landing   Shell)

21. So. California Offshore : 0.5 Bcfd, ( Crystal Energy)

22. Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd ( Main Pass McMoRan Exp.)

23. Gulf of Mexico: n/ a ( Compass Port  ConocoPhillips)

Planned Terminals and Expansions 24. Brownsville, TX : n/ a, ( Cheniere LNG Partners)

25. Mobile Bay, AL: 1.0 Bcfd, ( ExxonMobil)

26. Somerset, MA : 0.65 Bcfd ( Somerset LNG)

27. Belmar, NJ Offshore : n/ a ( El Paso Global)

28. Altamira, Tamulipas : 1.12 Bcfd, ( Shell)

29. Baja California, MX : 1.0 Bcfd, ( Sempra & Shell)

30. Baja California  Offshore : 1.4 Bcfd, ( Chevron Texaco)

31. California  Offshore : 0.5 Bcfd, ( Chevron Texaco)

32. St. John, NB : 0.5 Bcfd, ( Canaport   Irving Oil)

33. Point Tupper, NS 1.0 Bcf/ d ( Bear Head LNG  Access Northeast Energy)

34. Pleasant Point, ME : 0.5 Bcf/ d ( Quoddy Bay, LLC)

35. St. Lawrence, QC : n/ a ( Enbridge/ Gaz Met)

36. Lázaro Cárdenas, MX : 0.5 Bcfd ( Tractebel/ Repsol)

37. Gulf of Mexico : 1.0 Bcfd ( Pearl Crossing  ExxonMobil)

38. Mobile Bay, AL: 1.0 Bcfd ( Cheniere LNG Partners)

39. Cherry Point, WA: 0.5 Bcfd ( Cherry Point Energy LLC)

40. Cove Point, MD : 0.8 Bcfd ( Dominion)

41. Puerto Libertad, MX: 1.3 Bcfd ( Sonora Pacific LNG)

42. Offshore Boston, MA: 0.8 Bcfd ( Northeast Gateway   Excelerate Energy)

43. Kitimat, BC: 0.34 Bcfd ( Galveston LNG)

* US pipeline approved; LNG terminal pending in Bahamas Existing and Proposed North American LNG Terminals June 2004 FERC Office of Energy Projects A C 1 3 5 2 4 32 7 27 15 6 24 28 9 19 8 26 22 21 33 35 34 36 20 29 30 11 37 10 12 17 13 B 31 25 14 39 40 16 38 23 18 D 41 US Jurisdiction FERC US Coast Guard 42 43 Figure 2: Existing and Proposed North American LNG Import Terminals 12U. S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2004. " LNG Briefing," http:// www. ferc. gov/ industries/ gas/ indus act/ lng briefing. pps, April 2004.

13 Hall, Wayne F. 2004. " The North American LNG Supply Chain: Strategies for Economic Growth," World Energy, Vol. 7, No. 1, http:// www. worldenergysource. com/ articles/ pdf/ hall_ WE_ v7n1. pdf. Page 6 of 29 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 In Service and Approved Pending

FERC Pending

Coast Guard Planned B c f p e r D a y Planned Pending  Coast Guard Pending  FERC In Service and A pproved As shown in Figure 3, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC) estimates that the planned and pending LNG import terminals will tripled the U. S. capacity to import LNG. 12 However, not all planned LNG import terminals will be built. It is estimated that in order to provide the needed LNG supply to the U. S. gas system, 10 to 12 LNG import terminals will be built within the decade with an investment of more than $ 5 billion. 13 Figure 3: Existing and Proposed North American LNG Terminals 2.1 New Onshore LNG Import Terminals Current information indicates that all new onshore LNG import terminals are proposing to use LNG vaporization systems with no wastewater discharges ( e. g., integration with other industrial facilities, ambient air vaporization through heating towers, gas fired heaters). Table 2 lists proposed new onshore LNG import terminals and their vaporization design. 14 E mail communication from James Martin, FERC, to Carey A. Johnston, U. S. EPA, August, 4, 2004.

Page 7 of 29 Table 2: Proposed U. S. Onshore LNG Import Terminals14 No. Project Name/ Operator/ FERC Docket No. Location Sendout Capacity Vaporizer Design 1 Freeport LNG Project ( Cheniere/ Freeport)

CP03 75 000 $ 400 million facility cost Freeport, TX 1.5 Bcf/ d Closed loop:

Air heat exchanger ( heating tower)

Supplemental gas fired heater for cold weather 2 Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project ( Cheniere)

CP04 38 000 CP04 47 000 $ 600 million facility cost Cameron Parish, LA ( across from Sabine Pass) 2.6 Bcf/ d Closed loop:

Gas fired heater 3 Cheniere Corpus Christi LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project ( Cheniere)

CP04 37 000 CP04 44 000 $ 450 million facility cost Corpus Christi, TX 2.6 Bcf/ d Closed loop:

Gas fired heater 4 Golden Pass LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project ( ExxonMobil)

PF04 1 000 $ 600 million facility cost Sabine, TX Phase 1:

1 Bcf/ d Phase 2:

2 Bcf/ d Closed loop:

Gas fired heater No. Project Name/ Operator/ FERC Docket No. Location Sendout Capacity Vaporizer Design Page 8 of 29 5 Vista del Sol LNG Terminal Project ( ExxonMobil)

PF04 3 000 PF04 9 000 $ 600 million facility cost Corpus Christi, TX Phase 1:

1 Bcf/ d Closed loop:

Gas fired heater 6 Ingleside Energy Center LNG Project ( Occidental)

PF04 9 000 Corpus Christi, TX 1 Bcf/ d Closed loop:

Water heat exchanger ( waste water from the chemical plant)

7 Port Arthur LNG Receiving Terminal Project ( Sempra)

Docket No. PF04 11 000 Port Arthur, TX 1.5 Bcf/ d Closed loop:

Gas fired heater 8 Cameron LNG, LLC ( Sempra Energy)

CP02 374 000 CP02 376 000 CP02 377 000 CP02 378 000 $ 700 million facility cost Hackberry, LA 1.5 Bcf/ d Closed loop 9 Weaver's Cove LNG CP04 36 000 $ 250 million facility cost Fall River, MA 0.4 Bcf/ d Closed loop: Gas fired heater 10 BP Crown Landing LNG PF04 2 000 PF04 5 000 $ 500 million facility cost Logan Township, NJ 1.2 Bcf/ d Closed loop: Gas fired heater No. Project Name/ Operator/ FERC Docket No. Location Sendout Capacity Vaporizer Design Page 9 of 29 11 Long Beach LNG ( Sound Energy Solutions)

CP04 58 000 $ 400 million facility cost Long Beach, CA 0.7 Bcf/ d Closed loop: Gas fired heater 12 Keyspan & BG LNG CP04 223 000 CP04 293 000 Providence, RI 0.5 Bcf/ d Closed loop: Gas fired heater 13 Somerset LNG Somerset, MA 14 Cheniere Mobile Mobile, AL ( Pinto Island) 1.0 Bcfd Closed loop 15 Cherry Point Energy LLC  online in 2008 Columbia River, OR 0.5 Bcf/ d 16 Somerset LNG Somerset, MA 17 Waterbury LNG  online in 2007 Waterbury, CT 1.2 Bcf/ d 18 Cheniere LNG Brownsville, TX 2 Bcf/ d Note: The FERC docket for each onshore LNG import terminal can be accessed using the docket number and the following website:

http:// elibrary. ferc. gov/ idmws/ docket_ search. asp. 15The Federal OCS starts approximately 10 miles from the Florida and Texas shores.

16U. S. Coast Guard, 2004. Deepwater Ports Standards Division Website, http:// www. uscg. mil/ hq/ gm/ mso/ mso5. htm. Page 10 of 29 2.2 New Offshore LNG Import Terminals EPA identified eleven company announcements of proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals with one company proposing a pilot study ( see Table 3). A large majority of the these facilities are planned for the Federal Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico ( GOM). The Federal OCS generally starts three miles from shore and extends out to the outer territorial boundary ( about 200 miles). 15 The U. S. Coast Guard is responsible for developing and maintaining regulations and standards for deepwater ports. Current projects include regulations for deepwater ports ( 33 CFR Subchapter NN), specifically updating existing rules and adding provisions for natural gas. The passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 ( MTSA), which added natural gas to the Deepwater Port Act, heightened interest within the energy industry to develop deepwater ports.

The U. S. Coast Guard has primary authority over construction and siting of offshore LNG facilities, and oversees preparation of environmental impact statements that examine the potential impact of the new facilities, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 ( DWPA), as amended ( 33 USC 1501 et seq). As specified by the DWPA, the environmental review and analysis must be completed within 356 days of the published Notice of Intent. Coast Guard oversight of the offshore facilities continues as long as the facilities are operational, as the agency has responsibility for the safety and security of LNG facilities and vessels in U. S. coastal waters. ( DOE 2004) Eight deepwater port license applications have been received since the MTSA was signed into law. 16 EPA was able to use information in these deepwater port license applications to characterize the wastewater discharges for some of these proposed offshore LNG import terminals. Page 11 of 29 Table 3: Proposed U. S. Offshore LNG Import Terminals No. Company ( Facility Name) Offshore Location EPA NPDES Permit Information USCG Deepwater Port Licensing Information ( Docket No.)

1 Excelerate ( GOM Energy Bridge) West Cameron 603  GOM 100 miles offshore LA Yes Yes ( 14294)

2 ChevronTexaco ( Port Pelican) Vermillion 140  GOM 37 nautical miles from LA Yes Yes ( 14134)

3 Shell ( Gulf Landing) West Cameron 213  GOM 38 nautical miles from LA Yes Yes ( 16860)

4 BHP Billiton ( Cabrillo Port) Offshore Oxnard, CA 13.9 miles from CA No Yes ( 16877)

5 ConocoPhillips ( Compass Port) Mobile Block 910 88o12' West, 30o5' North No Yes ( 17659)

6 Freeport McMoRan ( Main Pass Energy Hub) Main Pass 299  GOM 16 miles from LA No Yes ( 17696)

7 Crystal Energy ( Clearwater Port) Offshore Ventura, CA 11 miles from CA No Yes ( TBD)

8 ExxonMobil ( Pearl Crossing) West Cameron 220  GOM 41 miles offshore LA No Yes ( 18474)

9 ChevronTexaco ( Port Penguin) Offshore CA Exact Location: TBD No No No. Company ( Facility Name) Offshore Location EPA NPDES Permit Information USCG Deepwater Port Licensing Information ( Docket No.)

Page 12 of 29 10 El Paso Global Offshore Belmar, NJ Exact Location: TBD No No 11 Excelerate Energy ( Northeast Gateway) Offshore Boston, MA Exact Location: TBD No No 12 Conversion Gas Imports Vermillion 179  GOM No No Note: " EPA NPDES Permit Information" indicates whether the company has applied for an NPDES permit application. " USCG Deepwater Port Licensing Information" indicates whether the company has applied for a deepwater port license. The USCG docket for each Deepwater Port license application can be accessed using the docket number and the following website:

http:// dms. dot. gov/ search/ searchFormSimple. cfm. 17El Paso Energy Bridge GOM LLC Application for Deepwater Port License, http:// dmses. dot. gov/ docimages/ pdf84/ 219001_ web. pdf, December 20, 2002.

18U. S. EPA, 2003. El Paso Energy Bridge Gulf of Mexico, LLC Draft NPDES Permit No. GM0000003, Fact Sheet, http:// www. epa. gov/ region6/ 6wq/ npdes/ genpermt/ gm3factsheet. pdf. Page 13 of 29 Excelerate  GOM Energy Bridge Excelerate is proposing to construct, own, and operate an LNG import terminal 100 miles offshore in the GOM. The Excelerate GOM Energy Bridge deepwater port will consist of a submerged turret loading ( STL) system that is comprised of a submerged turret buoy; chains, lines and anchors; a flexible riser; and a subsea manifold. Gas will be delivered to the deepwater port by conventional LNG vessels which incorporate shipboard re gasification capabilities. 17 The vessels that will be used to deliver natural gas to the Excelerate GOM Energy Bridge deepwater port will have a capacity to hold 138,000 m3 of LNG and, unlike all other LNG vessels currently in operation, will re gasify the LNG on board at the point of delivery so that imports will consist of gas in its vaporous state, rather than in a liquefied state. The a water depth at this deepwater port is 280 feet. 18 This import terminal will vaporize and deliver natural gas on average approximately 0.55 Bcfd of LNG. A fully loaded LNG vessel will be able to discharge its cargo in about six to eight days, depending on operating conditions. The approximate cost of the STL subsea system is $ 50.7 million with a projected completion date of December 2004.

The draft Environmental Assessment for the Excelerate ( formerly El Paso Energy Bridge Gulf of Mexico, LLC) LNG import terminal notes that the total seawater demand for the vessel is 133 million gallons per day ( MGD). The sea water intake serves the following purposes: ( 1) total demand dedicated to the regasification system ( 76.1 MGD); ( 2) vessel's main condenser cooling system ( 46.9 MGD); and ( 3) vessel's other cooling systems ( 10 MGD).

Each specially configured LNG vessel will integrate complete offshore re gasification capabilities into its shipboard system. The re gasification system can operate in open loop mode, closed loop mode, or together in a combination mode. In the open loop mode, the LNG vessel will intake seawater from the surrounding area to heat the LNG. The warm seawater will pass through the shell and tube vaporizer indirectly heating the LNG. Then the LNG vessel will discharge this water through its keel.

In the closed loop mode, steam from the LNG vessel propulsion boilers will heat water circulated in a closed loop through the shell and tube vaporizer and a steam heater. After the cycle, the water will be re circulated through the system. There is no seawater intake or discharge for the re gasification process in the closed loop mode. The closed loop mode allows for LNG regasification when surrounding seawater temperatures are too cold for the more efficient open loop mode. In the open loop mode, the system can re gasify up to 0.69 Bcfd. However, due to operating constraints related to downstream pipelines, the system for the Excelerate LNG import terminal will re gasify a maximum of 0.55 Bcfd in the open loop mode. Closed loop steam operations can re gasify up to 0.45 Bcfd. 19U. S. EPA, 2003. Port Pelican LLC Draft NPDES Permit No. GM0000001, Fact Sheet, http:// www. epa. gov/ earth1r6/ 6wq/ npdes/ genpermt/ draftgm0000001. pdf.

20Port Pelican LLC Application for Deepwater Port License, http:// dmses. dot. gov/ docimages/ pdf84/ 210833_ web. pdf, December 27, 2002.

21Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Port Pelican LLC Deepwater Port License Application, http:// dmses. dot. gov/ docimages/ pdf86/ 244607_ web. pdf, Page 14 of 29 Excelerate is proposing to operate the specially configured LNG vessels in open loop mode exclusively. ( USCG, 2003) The open loop mode would draw seawater from the surrounding area at approximately 23.0 ft below the water surface. Intake structures on the LNG vessels are sized to provide approximately 133 MGD seawater for both standard ship operations ( 57 MGD) and the warming water for the LNG vaporizers ( 76 MGD).

All of the seawater entering the sea chest intakes either for ship operations or for the regasification process will pass through a copper cathode antifouling system. The copper anodes release a small amount of copper into the ships seawater system at the intake to prevent biota in the seawater from establishing within the seawater flow path. This will also control non native species. The copper concentration in all of the seawater discharge will be approximately 0.002 mg/ L ( 2 ppb).

ChevronTexaco  Port Pelican Port Pelican LLC, a subsidiary of ChevronTexaco, is proposing to construct, own, and operate an LNG import terminal 37 nautical miles offshore. 19 The water depth at the offshore LNG import terminal will be approximately 79 to 86 feet. The Port Pelican import terminal will consist of two concrete gravity based structure ( GBS) units fixed to the seabed, which will include integral LNG storage tanks, support deck mounted LNG receiving and vaporization equipment and utilities, berthing accommodations for LNG carriers, facilities for delivery of natural gas to a pipeline transportation system, and personnel accommodations. 20 The Port Pelican import terminal will be constructed in two phases. Phase I includes the installation of two GBS structures with internal storage tanks and facilities for LNG offloading, send out and vaporization to deliver a peak 1.0 Bcfd of natural gas to pipeline. Phase II will increase the capacity to 2.0 Bcfd of natural gas to pipeline. The approximate cost for this project is approximately $ 800 million for both phases. Phase I is expect to be complete by 2006 with Phase II completed by 2008. The following information comes from the Port Pelican LLC application for deepwater port license and draft Environmental Impact Statement. 21 Sea water will flow through intake screens to eliminate debris and marine life before being pumped to the vaporizers through strainers. To control biofouling, sodium hypochlorite will be injected into the pump suction to achieve a free chlorine concentration of 0.2 ppm. In addition, each pump will be shocked for 20 minutes three times per day at a level of 2.0 ppm free chlorine. Page 15 of 29 Two parallel vaporization trains ( average capacity of 0.8 Bcfd and peak capacity of 1.0 Bcfd each) will be provided, one in Phase I and a second in Phase II, to vaporize LNG and deliver natural gas at a pressure of up to 1,440 psig. Each 1.0 Bcfd train consists of six 0.2 Bcfd, each with an LNG sendout pump, an Open Rack Vaporizer ( ORV), and a seawater lift pump. Five of the six trains will be operating during peak sendout rate ( 1.0 Bcfd each), and one will be used as a spare. The LNG flow rate will be approximately 178 tons/ hour to deliver 0.2 Bcfd of gas.

The LNG sendout pumps will discharge LNG into the ORVs where it is warmed and flashed by seawater heat exchange at a peak vaporizing capacity of 0.2 Bcfd. ORV technology uses seawater flowing over a series of panel coils to warm the LNG that is flowing countercurrent within the panels ( Figure 4). Sea water flows through intake screens to eliminate debris and marine life, and is then pumped to ORVs through strainers.

Figure 4: Open Rack Vaporizer ( from Port Pelican LLC Deepwater Port License Application) 22Gulf Landing LLC Application for Deepwater Port License, http:// dmses. dot. gov/ docimages/ pdf88/ 265164_ web. pdf, January 14, 2004.

23U. S. EPA, 2003. Gulf Landing LLC Draft NPDES Permit No. GM0000004, Fact Sheet, http:// www. epa. gov/ earth1r6/ 6wq/ npdes/ gmpn/ gm4fact. pdf. Page 16 of 29 Seawater lift pumps bring treated seawater to the top of ORVs. From there it cascades over the ORV panel coils and creates a falling film of water which exchanges heat with the upward flowing high pressure LNG from the sendout pumps. This process will warm the LNG to approximately 35 º F and in the process vaporize it; and it will cool the water by approximately 20 ° F. The cooled water is collected in a concrete basin and discharged to the GOM after it passes once through the system.

The maximum seawater intake rate is 12,250 gallons per minute ( GPM) per pump with an intake velocity of 0.5 feet per second ( fps) per pump. Seawater then flows from the bottom of the ORVs into a trench routed to the seawater outfall. At peak capacity, the seawater lift pumps will circulate 88.2 MGD of water through the ORVs during Phase I ( five out of six trains in use), and at the completion of the Phase II expansion, water circulated would be 176.4 MGD ( 10 out of 12 trains in use). During normal operations, four trains will circulate 70.5 MGD of seawater during Phase I, and eight trains will circulate 141 MGD of seawater during Phase II through the ORVs.

Shell  Gulf Landing The Shell Gulf Landing LNG terminal facility ( Gulf Landing LLC) will receive LNG from marine vessels, store the gas, then re gasify the LNG and deliver it to pipelines for distribution and sales to the United States. The facility throughput is planned at 7.7 million tonnes per annum of LNG. This will be provided by approximately 135 carriers per year, dependent upon the size of the carriers used. Each LNG carrier will unload its cargo into the terminal storage tanks. This process takes approximately 24 hours from arrival to departure. The facility will vaporize and deliver natural gas at a rate of approximately 1.0 Bcfd on a continuous basis. The approximate cost is $ 700 million. Installation of the terminal is schedule for the 4th quarter of 2008 with the first deliveries of LNG schedule for January 2009.22 Gulf Landing LLC has proposed discharges from six outfalls: ( 1) thermal water for open rack vaporizer ( ORV) at 136 MGD; ( 2) deck drainage wastewater at 0.0058 MGD; ( 3) uncontaminated deck water at 0.0209 MGD; ( 4) desalinization rejected water at 0.0254 MGD; ( 5) treated sanitary & domestic wastewater at 0.0075 MGD; and ( 6) firewater bypass at 0.5035 MGD. 23 Outfall 001 discharges seawater that is passed through the ORV process system. Seawater from the intake structure is screened and treated with sodium hypochlorite at the intake pumps to control marine growth in the system. The treated seawater is then distributed to the ORV system. The ORV serves as the warming energy to gasify the LNG. The water is cooled during this heat exchange to about 18oF from the ambient intake seawater temperature. 24Cabrillo Port Application for Deepwater Port License, http:// dmses. dot. gov/ docimages/ p77/ 265927. doc, January 21, 2004. Page 17 of 29 The seawater is treated with sodium hypochlorite, at a continuos rate of approximately 2.0 mg/ l. Periodically, each pump will be shocked with 5.0 mg/ l for one hour during every 8 hours of pump run time. At capacity, the facility will have four pumps.

BHP Billiton  Cabrillo Port The BHP Billiton proposes to construct, own, and operate an LNG import terminal, Cabrillo Port, approximately 13.9 miles off the coast of Ventura County in Southern California, in 2,900 feet of water. The permanently moored import facility ( floating storage & re gasification unit) will include three storage tanks, eight vaporizers, and an underwater, 21.1 mile pipeline that would connect to an existing onshore pipeline. Maximum water depth at the location of the planned mooring is about 2,900 feet. The floating storage and re gasification facility will vaporize and deliver natural gas at a maximum rate of approximately 1.5 billion cubic foot a day, with an anticipated average rate of 0.6 to 0.9 Bcfd. The BHP Billiton LNG import terminal is designed to accommodate LNG carriers ranging in capacity from 100,000 m3 to 220,000 m3. LNG carriers typically will be offloaded at a rate of 80,000 gallons per minute of LNG through the liquid loading arms and stored in the LNG storage tanks at a temperature of approximately minus 260 ° F. This LNG import terminal is projected to have 320,000 m3 in storage capacity at the receiving facility. The approximate cost of this project is $ 550 million with a projected completion date of 2008. The following information comes from the Cabrillo Port application for deepwater port license. 24 The BHP Billiton LNG import terminal is designed to no use sea water for the regasification process. This facility is proposing to use submerged combustion vaporizers using LNG as the fuel. The LNG is pumped, as liquid, up to the 1,500 psig natural gas send out pressure and maintained at that pressure through the vaporization process. The vaporization portion of the process re gasifies the LNG. The process will consist of eight submerged combustion vaporizers ( SCVs). Each will have a maximum capacity of 198 short tons per hour of LNG vaporized. The SCVs will superheat the resultant natural gas to a temperature of about 41 ° F at a pressure of about 1,500 psig. The combustion vaporization process is thermally stabilized by submersion in a water bath. No compression of the natural gas is required.

BHP Billiton evaluated several options including the intermediate fluid vaporizers ( IFV) and open rack vaporizers ( ORV). IFV and ORV use seawater as a heat source while SCV uses natural gas combustion. For the BHP Billiton LNG import terminal the IFV and ORV alternatives would require about 50 MGD of seawater. In these alternatives, seawater would flow through the vaporizers and then would be returned to the ocean at a lower than ambient temperature. BHP Billiton identified that the primary benefit of IFV and ORV relative to the proposed SCV is lower air emissions. SCV burns natural gas equivalent to 2% of the LNG throughput to generate heat. Other industry estimates suggest that this energy penalty is closer to 1.5%. ( Hall, 2004) The combustion process relies on natural gas from LNG, so it is a cleaner fuel. With SCV the exhaust Page 18 of 29 gases also flow directly through a water bath, which acts as a quench and abatement system. The SCV air emissions will include oxides of nitrogen ( NOx), and carbon dioxide. IFV and ORV would introduce some air emissions, which are of an order of magnitude less than SCV's because of the incremental electricity necessary to operate the large seawater pumps.

BHP Billiton identified concerns over the potential intake of 50 MGD of seawater associated with the IFV and ORV alternatives. Specifically, BHP Billiton identified concerns over entrainment and impingement of marine species, thermal plumes, turbidity, treated water discharge and noise. Impingement could occur when fish and other aquatic life are trapped against the water intake screens. These screens prevent marine organisms and debris from entering and interfering with the re gasification process. Entrainment occurs when aquatic organisms, including eggs and larvae, are drawn into the water intakes, through the facility, and then pumped back out.

Thermal plumes could result from the constant discharge of large quantities of relatively cold, and therefore relatively dense, water. BHP Billiton identified that the proposed mooring location is of sufficient depth that a thermal plume would not be likely to impact the sea floor. Turbidity would be a result of a thermal plume disturbing sea floor sediments. Additionally, the IFV and ORV alternatives would likely use sodium hypochlorite or another oxidizer to control the growth of marine organisms in the IFV and ORV equipment. BHP Billiton identified that discharge of the residual sodium hypochlorite in IFV and ORV water could impact marine organisms, and would require a NPDES permit. Noise would be generated by the large seawater pumps required for the seawater intake alternatives.

In general, BHP Billiton identified that the use of IFV and ORV would be difficult to permit and operate because of water discharge rules and restrictions and impacts to marine biota. The use of SCV would produce air emissions that could be minimized by emission control technology. BHP Billiton selected SCV for the proposed re gasification process.

ConocoPhillips  Compass Port Compass Port LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company, proposes to construct, own, and operate an LNG import terminal 33 miles from the southern city limit of Mobile, Alabama and 11 miles south of Dauphin Island, Alabama, in a water depth of approximately 70 feet. The facility will vaporize and deliver natural gas at a rate of approximately 1 billion cubic foot a day on a continuous basis. The maximum unloading period for a ship is designed to be 20 hours at this LNG import terminal. To achieve this rate, the unloading system will be designed to deliver 255,000 cubic meters of LNG from a ship to the storage tanks within 12 to 14 hours. The expected completion date is 2009.

As shown in Figure 5, Compass Port LLC import terminal will incorporate: ( 1) docking facilities for conventional LNG carriers; ( 2) unloading facilities for the unloading of LNG cargo; ( 3) two full containment tanks for the storage of LNG; ( 4) re gasification facilities to convert 25Compass Port Application for Deepwater Port License, http:// dmses. dot. gov/ docimages/ pdf89/ 284087_ web. pdf, March 29, 2004. Page 19 of 29 LNG into natural gas; ( 5) an offshore natural gas pipeline; and ( 6) related facilities to support the operation of Compass Port. 25 Construction and installation of the proposed port will take approximately 42 months to complete, beginning in 2005, providing for approximately 12 months for pre construction activities. The following information comes from the Compass Port LLC application for deepwater port license.

Figure 5: Compass Port LLC Proposed LNG Import Terminal The Compass Port LLC import terminal will consist of two concrete gravity based structures fixed to the seabed that contain the integral LNG storage tanks, the LNG regasification facilities, and other operational equipment including mooring platforms, a docking platform that contains LNG unloading equipment, and a flare platform. There also will be a separate platform for support facilities such as personnel quarters, and other auxiliary structures.

The Compass Port LLC import terminal will utilize a total of six water intake structures and ORV for the re gasification process. Each intake structure will consist of a hollow steel caisson that will extend from a manifold on the cellar deck of the re gasification platform to beneath the water surface. Each steel caisson will be fixed to the re gasification platform jacket structure by a series of welded supports. A submersible pump will be located in each intake structure and will have a maximum design pumping capacity of 30.4 MGD. In normal operation only four pumps are working and in cold weather conditions five pumps are working for a total design intake flow of 152.2 MGD. The sixth pump is a kept and maintained as a spare. 26Deepwater Port License Application for the Main Pass Energy Project, http:// dmses. dot. gov/ docimages/ pdf89/ 284544_ web. pdf, February 2004. Page 20 of 29 To minimize biological fouling, seawater will be treated with sodium hypochlorite applied at a continuous rate of approximately 0.2 mg/ l. Periodically, each pump will be shocked with 2.0 mg/ l of hypochlorite for 20 minutes during every 8 hours of pump run time. The facility will not shock any more than one unit at a time.

Freeport McMoRan  Main Pass Energy Hub The Main Pass Energy Hub ( MPEH) is proposed to deliver an average of 1.0 Bcfd of LNG. The water depth at the LNG import terminal is approximately 210 feet. The project involves the reuse of four existing platforms and three smaller bridge supports along with the interconnecting bridges formerly used in sulphur mining operations at Main Pass 299. This LNG import terminal will use salt caverns its design and ORVs to re gasify LNG at a design capacity of 1.6 Bcfd. 26 The vaporized natural gas heated to 40 ° F. The approximate cost of this project is $ 500 million with a projected completion date of 2006. The following description of the MPEH is from the deepwater port license application for the Main Pass Energy Project.

At peak vaporization rate, all the ORVs will be in operation. Nine operating ORVs are required to meet the 1.6 Bcfd design vaporization capacity with the gas conditioning plant in operation. ORVs utilize seawater as the heating medium for vaporization of LNG. The heat transfer surface will be vertical, panel shaped tubes of aluminum zinc alloy for seawater resistance, and an aluminum base/ tube assembly. LNG will flow upward inside finned heat transfer tubes, with seawater flowing downward along the outside of the tubes.

Six seawater lift pumps will be provided, each with a design capacity of 33.4 MGD ( total of approximately 200 MGD) and a differential head of 120 psi. Normally, five pumps will be in operation and one will be an installed spare. During winter operations when seawater temperatures are lower, the sixth seawater lift pump may be operated to obtain adequate heat transfer. Seawater will be pumped to the top of the ORVs where it will be distributed in overhead troughs to create a water film falling as a sheet in contact with the vertical tube surface. The seawater temperature will be reduced by approximately 22 ° F through the ORV and will be collected in a basin for discharge back to the sea.

Waters used in the vaporization of the LNG will be discharged through three outfall pipes at least 120 feet ( 37 meters) below MSL. Each outfall pipe will have two 45 degree deflectors at the terminus in order to promote mixing with the surrounding waters. Sodium hypochlorite will be injected continuously into the suction of the operating seawater lift pumps for bio fouling control at a rate to attain a residual chlorine level of 0.5 to 1.0 ppm. The system will be designed to inject up to 2.0 ppm continuously and up to 5.0 ppm on a " shock" basis into each of the operating pumps and operating ORV inlet branch headers for 20 minutes every 24 hours; these latter shock injections will be staggered so that no more than one point is shock dosed at any one time. Operations will monitor the residual chlorine levels and adjust the dosing rate as needed. 27Larson, Eric, 2004. Presentation by Eric Larson, California Department of Fish and Game, " Navigational Safety & Environmental Issues", http:// www. energy. ca. gov/ lng/ documents/ 2004 02 24_ DFG_ LARSON. PDF, February 24, 2004.

28Crystal Energy LLC, 2004. Press Release, " Crystal Energy Secures Agreement for Domestic Energy Supply to Meet Urgent Natural Gas Demand," http:// www. crystalenergyllc. com/ pdf/ media/ AGPA. pdf, January 28, 2004.

29See http:// www. crystalenergyllc. com/ faq_ operation. php 30Crystal Energy LLC, 2004. Press Release, " Crystal Energy Moves Forward to Bring Needed Natural Gas to California," http:// www. crystalenergyllc. com/ pdf/ media/ CrystalFilingPressRelease_ FINAL. pdf, February 11, 2004. Page 21 of 29 At peak capacity, the seawater lift pumps will circulate approximately 200 MGD of water through the ORVs. ORV maintenance will consist of occasional cleaning, the frequency of which will depend on the cleanliness of the seawater. Daily observation will ensure that ice does not build up on the panels.

Crystal Energy  Clearwater Port Crystal Energy LLC signed a long term lease agreement to retrofit an existing offshore oil and gas facility ( Platform Grace), located 11 miles offshore of Ventura County in federal waters, as an LNG import terminal. The water depth at Platform Grace is 318 feet. 27 The proposed project is estimated to deliver more than 200 billion cubic feet of natural gas from Alaska annually to California. 28 Crystal Energy LLC estimates that approximately two to four ships per month will offload at this LNG import terminal. Each ship will carry approximately 2.75 billion cubic feet of LNG, which will take approximately four days to offload. The peak LNG transmission capacity for the project is projected to be 1.275 Bcfd with an average LNG transmission capacity of 0.8 Bcfd. This LNG import terminal will not store any of the offloaded LNG at the receiving facility ( Platform Grace). The approximate costs of this project is $ 160 million with a projected completion date of 2006.

Use of this platform as a liquefied natural gas receiving and processing facility will require the installation of a cool down tank, four liquefied natural gas pumps, four liquefied natural gas vaporizers, and reinstalling and upgrading the platform's power production capability. 29 Crystal Energy LLC recently filed its deepwater port application with the U. S. Coast Guard, however, the docket for this application has not been established. Initial indications are that this facility will use SCVs to re gasify the LNG and not discharge any wastewaters associated with its vaporization process. This project also identifies that it would supply local jurisdictions with " up to 40 million gallons of clean water annually that are a byproduct of the re gasification process." 30 31Federal Register. 69 FR 43619. July 21, 2004.

32Deepwater Port License Application for Pearl Crossing LNG Project, Environmental Report, http:// dmses. dot. gov/ docimages/ pdf89/ 288088_ web. pdf, May 2004. Page 22 of 29 Construction costs for the Crystal Clearwater Port project, which is anticipated to begin operation in 2007, are estimated at $ 300 million. The estimated life of the facility is approximately 50 to 100 years. This is based upon the original structural design of the platform for offshore oil and gas drilling and production operations.

ExxonMobil ( Pearl Crossing)

The application plan calls for the proposed deepwater port to be located in the Gulf of Mexico, approximately 41 miles south of the Louisiana coast in West Cameron Block 220. It will be located in a water depth of approximately 62 feet. 31 The proposed Pearl Crossing LNG Terminal is a concrete Gravity Based Structure ( GBS). The terminal proposes to install two integral liquefied natural gas storage tanks and serve as the platform for vessels to offload and regasify LNG. The proposed GBS is a double walled concrete structure, rectilinear in shape, that would measure approximately 590 feet long by 295 feet wide. The structure would rest on the seabed with a total terminal footprint ( GBS plus jacket structures) area of approximately 12 acres. The terminal would include LNG storage tanks, equipment for receiving and vaporization of LNG, electric power generation, water purification, nitrogen generation, sewage treatment and accommodations for up to 60 persons. The total net working capacity of the two integral LNG storage tanks would be 250,000 m3.

Pearl Crossing would have the ability to accommodate two LNG carriers alongside that will have capacities ranging from 125,000 to 250,000 m3 per vessel. This would allow one incoming LNG carrier to be secured to prepare to offload cargo, while another LNG carrier is completing an offloading cycle. Offloading rates are expected to equal 14,000 m3 per hour of LNG. Peak send out for this project is projected to average over 2.0 Bcfd with a peak capacity of 2.8 Bcfd.

The re gasification process would be accomplished through thirteen electric pumps that will each supply 19 MGD of seawater for the ORV. Assuming a inlet to outlet water temperature decrease of 20oF, a volume of 247 MGD of surface water is required for peak vaporization. 32 Seawater would be treated with hypochlorite produced by an electrolytic chlorination unit prior to entering the seawater pump intake lines.

ChevronTexaco  Port Penguin This is an off shore Gravity Based Structure ( GBS) project similar to the Chevron/ Texaco project proposed for Baja California, Mexico. This project is to have an LNG throughput of 0.5 33See http:// www. energy. ca. gov/ lng/ projects. html.

34See http:// www. conversiongas. com/ html/ news. html. Page 23 of 29 Bcfd. ChevronTexaco has discussed the project publicly but has not proposed a specific site. The location of this project has yet to be determined but will most likely be in southern California. 33 El Paso Global ( Belmar, NJ Offshore)

EPA was unable to gather information on this facility.

Excelerate Energy ( Northeast Gateway)

This facility is proposed to be sited offshore of Boston, MA. The average vaporization rate is projected to be 0.8 Bcfd ( see Figure 2). EPA was unable to gather additional information on this proposed facility.

Conversion Gas Imports Conversion Gas Imports ( CGI) is conducting a study using salt caverns instead of manmade storage tanks to temporarily store LNG. The CGI proposed terminal is designed to receive LNG directly from the tanker, pump the liquid stream to cavern injection pressures, warm it to salt compatible temperatures, and inject the warmed dense phase natural gas into salt caverns for storage. There are no vaporizer send out limitations associated with cavern storage. The caverns can receive flow from a ship and redeliver to a pipeline grid at rates greater than 3 Bcfd. LNG vessels are offloaded at rates comparable to the unloading rates at conventional liquid tank based terminals.

CGI chose a Gulf of Mexico location in 30 meters of water, 75 kilometers off Louisiana on Vermilion block 179, for the upcoming study because it is close to existing pipelines and on top of a salt formation starting 300 meters below the seabed. 34 CGI's proposed re gasification system uses a simple pipe in pipe co axial flow arrangement ( LNG in inner pipe and seawater between the inner pipe and outer pipe) running a calculated distance ( 2,500 feet) along the ocean floor from the offshore underground salt caverns to shore. No gasified LNG is used in the warming process. It is unclear what quantity of seawater is used for this re gasification system. 35Port Pelican LLC Application for Deepwater Port License, Environmental Report, Page 2 25, http:// dmses. dot. gov/ docimages/ pdf84/ 210835_ web. pdf, December 27, 2002. Page 24 of 29 3.0 Estimates of Pollutant Discharges for Existing and Proposed LNG Import Terminals 3.1 Existing LNG Import Terminals As discussed in Section 1.0, none of the five existing onshore U. S. LNG import terminals discharge wastewaters associated with their vaporization operations. Irregular water discharges occur at these facilities but only as they relate to their firewater systems. Consequently, with respect to the vaporization operations at these facilities, EPA estimated that minimal or no pollutants are generated or discharged.

3.2 Proposed Onshore LNG Import Terminals As discussed in Section 2.1, none of the proposed onshore U. S. LNG import terminals are projecting to discharge wastewaters associated with their vaporization operations. Consequently, with respect to the vaporization operations at these facilities, EPA estimated that minimal or no pollutants will be generated or discharged.

3.3 Proposed Offshore LNG Import Terminals As discussed in Section 2.2, EPA was able to identify that six of the proposed offshore U. S. LNG import terminals are designed to use surface water and anti biofouling chemicals for their vaporization operations. Table 4 provides estimates of the wastewater and pollutant discharges associated with these facilities. EPA was also able to identify that two proposed offshore U. S. LNG import terminals are designed not to use surface water for their vaporization operations. Consequently, with respect to the vaporization operations at these two facilities, EPA estimated that minimal or no pollutants will be generated or discharged.

The main pollutant source for the water intake vaporization designs is associated with the anti biofouling chemicals added to the surface water. There are two chemicals proposed for biofouling control, copper and sodium hypochlorite. Copper and chlorine can be toxic to fish and marine phytoplankton. Sodium hypochlorite will rapidly dissociate in water to form hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite. Upon mixing with seawater, the hypochlorite will rapidly react with bromide in seawater producing hypobromide. Hypobromide will react with humic material to form brominated complex organic material and to a smaller extent with ammonia to form bromamines. When the discharged chlorine mixes with the receiving seawater, the reaction of chlorine will immediately start. 35 Page 25 of 29 Table 4: Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Proposed Offshore LNG Import Terminals Company ( Facility Name) Estimated Discharge ( MGD) Anti Biofouling Chemical Average Anti

Biofouling Chemical Conc. ( mg/ L) " Shock" Anti Biofouling Chemical Conc. ( mg/ L)

and Duration ( min./ day) Annual Discharge of Anti Biofouling Chemicals ( Pounds/ yr)

Excelerate ( GOM Energy Bridge) 133 Copper 0.002 0 810 ChevronTexaco ( Port Pelican) 141 Sodium Hypochlorite 0.2 ( free chlorine) 2 mg/ L 60 min. per day 118,099 Shell ( Gulf Landing) 136 Sodium Hypochlorite 2 ( free chlorine) 5 mg/ L 180 min. per day 983,775 BHP Billiton ( Cabrillo Port) N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A ConocoPhillips ( Compass Port) 152.2 Sodium Hypochlorite 0.2 ( free chlorine) 2 mg/ L 60 min. per day 127,480 Freeport McMoRan ( Main Pass Energy Hub) 200 Sodium Hypochlorite 0.5 to 1.0 ( free chlorine) 2 to 5 mg/ L 20 min. per day 317,265 to 642,990 Crystal Energy ( Clearwater Port) N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A ExxonMobil ( Pearl Crossing)* 247 Sodium Hypochlorite 0.2 ( free chlorine) 2 mg/ L 60 min. per day 206,882 * Note: Average anti biofouling chemical concentrations for this facility were estimated from the Shell ( Port Pelican) facility.

N/ A: Not applicable as this the vaporization system for this facility does not generate wastewater. Page 26 of 29 4.0 Pollution Prevention and Treatment Technology Options Available to Reduce or Eliminate Pollutant Discharges As highlighted in this memorandum, the re gasification process of LNG is an endothermic process and requires a heat source. The LNG would be pumped through some heating system, where it would absorb heat and vaporize, or re gasify, into natural gas. Different pollution prevention or treatment technology options are available for onshore verses offshore LNG import terminals. Offshore LNG import terminals may have significant space limitations which could significantly increase the costs and economic impacts and affect the technical feasibility of implementing technology options available for onshore facilities. Moreover, one technology option for onshore facilities, closed loop re cycle with waste heat from another industrial facility, is not available for offshore facilities due to their remoteness.

4.1 Onshore LNG Import Terminals Onshore LNG import terminals are better able to design their operations in order to not require wastewater discharges. All existing onshore LNG import terminals use LNG vaporization systems with no wastewater discharges and current information indicates that all new onshore LNG import terminals are proposing to use LNG vaporization systems with no wastewater discharges.

4.1.1 Existing Onshore LNG Import Terminals As previous mentioned, EPA identified that none of the four existing continental U. S. LNG import terminals use surface water for their vaporization operations, only as an emergency backup source to their firewater systems. For example, at the Dominion Cove Point, MD, facility all water used on site is withdrawn from groundwater wells and is heated in the vaporizers and used to warm the LNG and convert back to a gaseous state.

The remaining existing U. S. onshore LNG import terminal, the EcoElectrica facility in Puerto Rico, does use surface water for makeup and discharges blowdown for the power plant cooling tower, but does not discharge wastewaters for the LNG processing. The EcoElectrica LNG import terminal is a closed loop facility that is integrated with a 500 megawatt electric power generator. This integration has benefitted the LNG import capabilities and boosted the electric power generator output by 10% ( Hall, 2004).

The fact that all five existing onshore LNG import terminals use LNG vaporization systems with no wastewater discharges demonstrates that zero discharge technologies are available for this industrial sector.

4.1.2 New Onshore LNG Import Terminals As detailed in Table 2, current information shows that all new onshore LNG import terminals are proposing to use LNG vaporization systems with no wastewater discharges ( e. g., 36Export Import Bank of the United States, 2004. Environmental Guidelines  Table 10 Liquefied Natural Gas ( LNG) Liquefaction Plants And Regasification Facilities, http:// www. exim. gov/ products/ policies/ environment/ envtbl10. html, Revised : July 2, 2004.

37Walker, Bobbi, 2004. Letter from Bobbi Walker, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, to Rolland Schmitten, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, June 9, 2004. Page 27 of 29 integration with other industrial facilities, heating towers, gas fired heaters). Operating LNG import terminals in a closed loop manner ( i. e., no surface water withdrawals) is also consistent with recent recommendations by the Export Import Bank of the United States and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to reduce effluent discharges and minimize impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms and the associated damages to recreational and commercial fisheries and essential fish habitat. 36,37 Some new facilities are also proposing to use waste heat from nearby industrial facilities for their re gasification ( e. g., Ingleside Energy Center LNG Import Terminal, Corpus Christi, TX).

The integration of an LNG import terminal with a nearby or on site industrial operation is a ` win win' solution as it provides a resource ( cold water from LNG import terminal) to a nearby or on site industrial facility. This integration can lead to the following benefits for the nearby or on site industrial facility: ( 1) increase operational efficiency, reduce operating costs, and ( 2) reduce or eliminate thermal and chemical pollution and potential entrainment or impingement impacts from heat exchanger surface water intakes. One estimate suggests that an electric power generator using cold water from an LNG import terminal can boost its efficiency by 1 to 2%, resulting in cost savings ( Hall, 2004). Finally, this integration reduces or eliminates the potential entrainment or impingement impacts associated with the LNG re gasification process. Finally, this integration reduces or eliminates the potential entrainment or impingement impacts as well as the thermal and chemical pollution associated with the water intake LNG re gasification processes.

The fact that all proposed onshore LNG import terminals are designed to use LNG vaporization systems with no wastewater discharges demonstrates that zero discharge technologies are available for this industrial sector.

4.2 New Offshore LNG Import Terminals As detailed in this memorandum, the wastewater generation and pollutant discharges associated with this industrial sector are primarily related to the selected vaporization design. There are various re gasification technologies proposed for offshore LNG import terminals include: ( 1) open rack vaporizers ( ORV); ( 2) submerged combustion vaporizers ( SCV); ( 3) shell and tube vaporizors ( STV); ( 4) closed loop heat exchangers; and ( 5) intermediate fluid vaporizers ( IFV). Additionally, the CGI re gasification process detailed above may find use in future LNG import terminals. The follow discussion provides a summary of the considerations when selecting a vaporization design and the potential for discharging wastewater and pollutants.

Open Rack Vaporizer ( ORV) Technology Page 28 of 29 It appears likely that six proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals will use Open Rack Vaporizer ( ORV) technology for re gasification of LNG ( i. e., Port Pelican, Gulf Landing, Compass Port, Main Pass Energy Hub, Pearl Crossing, Port Penguin). As describe above, this regasification technology uses large quantities of seawater ( e. g., 130 to 250 MGD) flowing over a series of panel coils to warm the LNG that is flowing countercurrent within the panels. Sea water flows through intake screens and is then pumped to ORVs through strainers. Sodium hypochlorite is injected into intake pumps as an anti biofouling agent. Potential pollution prevention options for facilities that use ORV might include better monitoring and evaluation of biofouling to reduce the amount of chemicals used in biofouling control and dechlorination ( e. g., use of dechlorinating agents such as sodium metabisulfite).

Submerged Combustion Vaporizer ( SCV) Technology It appears likely that two proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals will use Submerged Combustion Vaporizer ( SCV) technology for re gasification of LNG ( i. e., Cabrillo Port, Crystal Energy). As describe above, this re gasification technology uses submerged combustion vaporizers using LNG as the fuel. The SCVs will superheat the resultant natural gas to a temperature of about 41 ° F. The combustion vaporization process is thermally stabilized by submersion in a water bath. No compression of the natural gas is required.

As previously mentioned, the chief environmental benefit of this re gasification technology is that it eliminates the issues associated with water intakes ( i. e., impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms) and discharges ( i. e., thermal and chemical pollution). Additionally, offshore LNG import terminals could use a combination of SCV and vaporization systems that use water ( e. g., ORVs) to reduce wastewater discharges. The combination of SCV and ORV systems also provides a benefit of redundant vaporization systems in case of equipment failure.

Overall the SCV system has lower capital costs than ORV systems and quick start up but has higher operating costs ( especially at gas prices higher than $ 1.9/ MMBtu). SCV burns natural gas equivalent to 1.5 to 2% of the LNG throughput to generate heat. However, EPA considers this technology option as potentially viable for all LNG import terminals as two of the proposed offshore LNG import terminals are projecting to use SCV systems ( i. e., Cabrillo Port, Crystal Energy).

The combustion process relies on natural gas from LNG, so it is a cleaner fuel. With SCV the exhaust gases also flow directly through a water bath, which acts as a quench and abatement system. The SCV air emissions will include oxides of nitrogen ( NOx), and carbon dioxide. The chief environmental benefit of this re gasification technology is that it eliminates the issues associated with water intakes ( i. e., impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms) and discharges ( i. e., thermal and chemical pollution).

Shell and Tube Vaporizors Page 29 of 29 It appears likely that one proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals will use shell and tube vaporizor ( STV) technology for re gasification of LNG ( i. e., GOM Energy Bridge). This regasification technology uses seawater from seachests to provide the necessary heat. The warming seawater will pass through the shell and tube vaporizer and indirectly heat the LNG. As describe above, this re gasification technology can use large quantities of seawater ( e. g., approximately 76 MGD). Sodium hypochlorite is injected into intake pumps as an anti biofouling agent. Potential pollution prevention options for facilities that use STV might include better monitoring and evaluation of biofouling to reduce the amount of chemicals used in biofouling control and dechlorination ( e. g., use of dechlorinating agents such as sodium metabisulfite).

Closed loop Heat Exchangers It appears likely that one proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals has the potential to the use closed loop heat exchangers for re gasification of LNG ( i. e., GOM Energy Bridge). In the closed loop mode, steam from the LNG vessel propulsion boilers will heat water circulated in a closed loop through the shell and tube vaporizer and a steam heater. After the cycle, the water will be re circulated through the system. There is no seawater intake or discharge for the regasification process in the closed loop mode. The closed loop mode allows for LNG regasification when surrounding seawater temperatures are too cold for the more efficient open loop mode. The chief environmental benefit of this re gasification technology is that it eliminates the issues associated with water intakes ( i. e., impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms) and discharges ( i. e., thermal and chemical pollution). The main disadvantage of this re gasification system verses the shell and tube vaporizors ( open loop) re gasification system is that decreased rate of LNG vaporization.

Intermediate Fluid Vaporizer ( IFV) Technology It appears likely that no proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals will use Intermediate Fluid Vaporizer ( IFV) technology for re gasification of LNG. This re gasification technology uses glycol/ water mix to exchange heat with the LNG via a shell and tube exchanger. The cold glycol mix is circulated continuously in a closed loop. A plate and frame or other type heat exchanger heats the glycol mix using seawater as the heating medium. The equipment necessary for this system includes common heat exchangers and pumps. Pumps are required for the seawater and for the circulated glycol mix. The quantity of circulated seawater is identical to that required for the ORV, given environmental limits between the inlet and return water temperature. The LNG is vaporized from the heat gained by the glycol and the glycol acquires heat from the seawater. The design must maintain LNG and glycol carefully to avoid freezing on the glycol side of the vaporizer. Sodium hypochlorite is injected into intake pumps as an anti biofouling agent. Potential pollution prevention options for facilities that use IFV might include better monitoring and evaluation of biofouling to reduce the amount of chemicals used in biofouling control and dechlorination ( e. g., use of dechlorinating agents such as sodium metabisulfite).


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57687-57691]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20493]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: September 22, 2022, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.
    * Note--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's website at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search using
the eLibrary link.

                      1093rd--Meeting, Open Meeting
                    [September 22, 2022, 10:00 a.m.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Item No.               Docket No.               Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             ADMINISTRATIVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1......................  AD22-1-000.........  Agency Administrative
                                                 Matters.
A-2......................  AD22-2-000.........  Customer Matters,
                                                 Reliability, Security
                                                 and Market Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ELECTRIC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1......................  RM22-19-000........  Incentives for Advanced
                                                 Cybersecurity
                                                 Investment.
                           RM21-3-000.........  Cybersecurity
                                                 Incentives.
E-2......................  RM16-17-001........  Data Collection for
                                                 Analytics and
                                                 Surveillance and Market-
                                                 Based Rate Purposes.
                           ER16-775-000.......  3 Phases Renewables Inc.
                           ER11-2649-000......  3C Solar LLC.
                           ER10-269-000.......  3Degrees Group, Inc.
                           ER20-1477-000......  3PR Trading, Inc.
                           ER13-2260-000......  ABC Energy, LLC.
                           ER17-1151-000......  ADG Group Inc.
                           ER06-743-000.......  Air Liquide.
                           ER12-2600-000......  American Illuminating
                                                 Company, LLC.
                           ER03-769-000.......  American PowerNet
                                                 Management, LP.
                           ER13-415-000.......  Anahau Energy, LLC.
                           ER04-226-000.......  APN Starfirst, LP.
                           ER07-1287-001......  Apple Group.
                           ER17-1594-002......  Archer Energy, LLC.
                           ER17-923-001.......  Ashley Energy LLC.
                           ER09-1689-000......  Backyard Farms Energy
                                                 LLC.
                           ER15-2693-002......  Baltimore Power Company
                                                 LLC.
                           ER12-2233-000......  Berry Petroleum Company,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER16-371-000.......  BioUrja Power, LLC.
                           ER13-48-000........  BITH Energy, Inc.
                           ER13-29-000........  BITH Solar 1, LLC.
                           ER15-1687-001......  Blue Cube Operations
                                                 LLC.
                           ER19-1826-001......  Bolt Energy, LLC.
                           ER18-1977-001......  Brantley Farm Solar,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER13-1403-000......  Bridgeport Fuel Cell,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER18-2217-000......  Buckleberry Solar, LLC.
                           ER15-2541-000......  Burgess Capital LLC.
                           ER20-711-000.......  Cambria Wind, LLC.
                           ER14-407-001.......  Capacity Markets
                                                 Partners, LLC.
                           ER97-4273-000......  Cargill Power Markets,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER19-288-000.......  Carson Hybrid Energy
                                                 Storage LLC.
                           ER97-2872-000......  Central Hudson Gas &
                                                 Electric Corporation.
                           ER10-636-000.......  Centre Lane Trading Ltd.
                           ER98-3774-000......  Choctaw Generation
                                                 Limited Partnership.
                           ER13-357-001.......  Cirrus Wind 1, LLC.
                           ER20-2654-000......  Clear Power LLC.
                           ER17-808-001.......  Clearview Electric, Inc.
                           ER11-3336-000......  Command Power Corp.
                           ER12-1472-000......  Conch Energy Trading,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER14-1858-000......  Consolidated Power Co.,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER08-371-000.......  Cooperative Energy
                                                 Incorporated (An
                                                 Electric Membership
                                                 Corporation).
                           ER09-560-000.......  Covanta Maine, LLC.
                           ER15-631-000.......  Crawfordsville Energy,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER16-722-000.......  Current Power & Gas Inc.
                           ER21-251-001.......  Degrees3 Transportation
                                                 Solutions, LLC.
                           ER09-1645-000......  Devonshire Energy LLC.
                           ER21-2535-000......  Dichotomy Power Maine,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER15-1810-000......  Dillon Power, LLC.
                           ER11-2021-001......  Domtar A.W. LLC.
                           ER11-2020-000......  Domtar Paper Company,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER17-2475-000......  Durgin and Crowell
                                                 Lumber Company, Inc.
                           ER13-797-000.......  EBRFUEL, LLC.
                           ER95-428-000.......  El Paso Marketing
                                                 Company, L.L.C.
                           ER13-1646-001......  Electron Hydro, LLC.
                           ER10-2891-000......  Elektrisola, Inc.
                           ER17-21-000........  Elevation Energy Group,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER99-3411-000......  Energy Cooperative of
                                                 New York, Inc.
                           ER08-425-000.......  Energy Exchange Direct,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER11-2730-000......  Energy Exchange
                                                 International, LLC.
                           ER18-155-000.......  EnPowered.
                           ER91-569-000.......  Entergy Arkansas, Inc.,
                                                 Entergy Mississippi,
                                                 Inc., and Entergy New
                                                 Orleans, Inc.
                                                EONY Generation Limited.

                           ER00-136-000.......  ExxonMobil Baton Rouge
                                                 Complex.
                           ER06-771-000.......  ExxonMobil Beaumont
                                                 Complex.
                           ER06-772-000.......  ExxonMobil LaBarge Shute
                                                 Creek Treating
                                                 Facility.
                           ER06-773-000.......  Falcon Energy, LLC.
                                                FC Energy Services
                                                 Company, LLC.
                           ER09-1075-000......  FOREST INVESTMENT GROUP,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER07-1247-002......  Fox Creek Farm Solar,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER05-1079-000......  Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.
                           ER18-2194-001......  Full Circle Renewables,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER11-3615-000......  Garland Power Company.
                           ER11-4536-000......  Gateway Energy
                                                 Marketing.
                           ER10-2954-000......  GBC Metals LLC.
                           ER11-4718-001......  Gichi Noodin Wind Farm,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER11-2825-000......  Global Energy, LLC.
                           ER20-2087-000......  Griffiss Utility
                                                 Services Corporation.
                           ER12-346-000.......  GUSC Energy Inc.
                           ER11-4672-000......  Hammond Belgrade Energy,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER12-2203-001......  Harvard Dedicated Energy
                                                 Limited.
                           ER10-2890-000......  Hawkeye Energy
                                                 Greenport, LLC.
                           ER05-658-000.......  Helvetia Solar, LLC.
                           ER03-833-000.......  High Liner Foods
                                                 Incorporated.
                           ER12-2405-001......  High Lonesome Mesa, LLC.
                           ER12-795-001.......  Hill Energy Resource &
                                                 Services, LLC.
                           ER09-712-000.......  Holcim (US) Inc.
                           ER12-1613-001......  Homer City Generation,
                                                 L.P.
                           ER11-3053-001......  Hoopeston Wind, LLC.
                           ER13-55-000........  ICC Energy Corporation.
                           ER14-2956-004......  IEP Power Marketing LLC.
                           ER11-4489-000......  Industrial Assets, Inc.
                           ER06-1007-000......  Innovative Solar 54,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER18-1289-000......  Innovative Solar 67,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER19-117-001.......  Jether Energy Research,
                                                 LTD.
                           ER19-118-001.......  Keni Energy LLC.
                           ER16-89-000........  KEPCO Solar of Alamosa
                                                 LLC.
                           ER17-1578-000......  Kingfisher Wind, LLC.
                           ER11-4050-000......  Kiyoshi Technologies,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER15-1308-000......  Kleantricity, Inc.
                           ER15-1609-000......  KODA Energy, LLC.
                           ER12-1524-000......  Lazarus Energy Holdings,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER09-107-000.......  LE Energy, LLC.
                           ER08-848-000.......  Light Power & Gas LLC.
                           ER16-1788-002......  Lockport Energy
                                                 Associates, L.P.
                           ER21-1768-000......  Long Island Solar Farm,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER07-1249-002......  Longreach Energy, LLC.
                           ER11-3589-000......  Major Lending, LLC.
                           ER15-2470-000......  Manifold Energy Inc.
                           ER05-744-000.......  Mansfield Power and Gas,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER18-1549-000......  Maple Analytics, LLC.
                           ER13-2255-000......  Marengo Battery Storage,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER10-2541-000......  Massie Power LLC.
                           ER19-610-000.......  Mega Energy Holdings
                                                 LLC.
                           ER08-23-001........
                           ER13-1298-001......  Mitsui & Co. Energy
                                                 Marketing and Services
                                                 (USA), Inc.
                                                MMP SCO, L L C.
                           ER19-2425-001......  Mobile Energy LLC.
                                                Monterey Consulting
                                                 Associates, Inc.
                           ER16-1254-002......  Moore Energy, LLC.
                           ER01-480-000.......  Myotis Power Marketing
                                                 LLC.
                           ER11-4603-000......  National Gas & Electric,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER15-612-000.......  Nevada Gold Energy LLC.
                           ER13-1249-002......  New England Wire
                                                 Technologies, Corp.
                           ER15-2704-000......  New Hope Power
                                                 Partnership.
                           ER06-1055-000......  New York Industrial
                                                 Energy Buyers, LLC.
                           ER10-2754-000......  NFI Solar, LLC.
                           ER06-1286-000......  North Branch Resources,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER05-1225-000......  Novo BioPower, LLC.
                           ER10-904-000.......  NTE Southeast Electric
                                                 Company, LLC.
                           ER03-293-000.......  Nylon Corporation of
                                                 America.
                           ER13-1665-000......  One Nation Energy
                                                 Solutions, LLC.
                           ER19-302-001.......  PACE RENEWABLE ENERGY 1
                                                 LLC.
                           ER18-3-000.........  PGPV, LLC.

                           ER03-821-000.......  Phibro Americas LLC.
                           ER19-178-001.......  Piedmont Energy Fund,
                                                 LP.
                           ER12-1603-001......  Planet Energy (Maryland)
                                                 Corp.
                           ER18-296-000.......  Planet Energy (New York)
                                                 Corp.
                           ER13-1135-001......  Planet Energy
                                                 (Pennsylvania) Corp.
                           ER11-2168-000......  Planet Energy (USA)
                                                 Corp.
                           ER11-2179-000......  Power Choice, Inc.
                           ER11-2167-000......  Precept Power LLC.
                           ER11-2166-000......  Premier Empire Energy,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER10-812-000.......  Quantum Power Corp.
                           ER19-1405-000......  Raider Dog LLC.
                           ER13-2230-001......  RDAF Energy Solutions,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER17-204-001.......  Renaissance Power,
                                                 L.L.C.
                           ER08-631-000.......  Renewable Power Direct,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER16-895-002.......  Renewable Power
                                                 Strategies, LLC.
                           ER01-3109-000......  ResCom Energy LLC.
                           ER14-1135-000......  Reuel Energy LLC.
                           ER12-1751-000......  Rigby Energy Resources,
                                                 LP.
                           ER09-1739-000......  RJUMR ENERGY PARTNERS
                                                 CORP.
                           ER17-1577-000......  RLD Resources, LLC.
                           ER14-166-000.......  Roseburg Forest
                                                 Products.
                           ER14-2013-000......  Sage Solar I LLC.
                           ER12-1244-001......  Sage Solar II LLC.
                           ER01-2830-000......  Sage Solar III LLC.
                           ER19-1240-000......  Saint Anselm College.
                           ER19-1241-000......  Samchully Power &
                                                 Utilities 1 LLC.
                           ER19-1242-000......  Santanna Natural Gas
                                                 Corporation.
                           ER10-2750-000......  SBR Energy, LLC.
                           ER15-359-001.......  Seguro Energy Partners,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER11-4453-000......  Shipyard Energy, LLC.
                           ER11-3187-001......  Silver Bear Power, LLC.
                           ER18-1548-000......  Smith Creek Hydro, LLC.
                           ER10-2951-000......  Southard Energy
                                                 Partners, LLC.
                           ER13-733-000.......  Southern California
                                                 Telephone Company.
                           ER16-904-001.......  Southern Energy Solution
                                                 Group, LLC.
                           ER13-698-000.......  Spruance Genco, LLC.
                           ER11-3186-000......  Stand Energy
                                                 Corporation.
                           ER12-1775-000......  Sunbury Energy, LLC.
                           ER06-634-000.......  Sustainable Star.
                           ER95-362-000.......  Texzon Utilities, Ltd.
                           ER13-113-002.......  The Energy Group of
                                                 America, Inc.
                           ER11-2354-000......  The Highlands Energy
                                                 Group.
                           ER03-1150-000......  The Legacy Energy Group,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER16-1202-001......  Thicksten Grimm Burgum,
                                                 Inc.
                           ER06-464-000.......  Thordin ApS.
                           ER99-3571-000......  Titan Gas and Power.
                           ER11-4604-000......  Town of Hanover.
                           ER20-2618-000......  Trane Grid Services LLC.
                           ER14-1767-000......  Tropicana Manufacturing
                                                 Company Inc.
                           ER14-2597-001......  TrueLight Commodities,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER13-1107-000......  TrueLight Energy, LLC.
                           ER11-2962-001......  UBS AG.
                           ER11-3724-000......  US Borax, Inc.
                           ER11-3723-000......  V3 Commodities Group,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER02-973-000.......  Viridity Energy, Inc.
                           ER15-1630-001......  Vista Energy Marketing,
                                                 L.P.
                           ER16-1610-001......  Volunteer Energy
                                                 Services, Inc.
                           ER11-4706-001......  Western Aeon Energy
                                                 Trading LLC.
                           ER16-2307-001......  Western Reserve Energy
                                                 Services, LLC.
                           ER04-937-000.......  White Pine Electric
                                                 Power L.L.C.
                           ER21-908-000.......  Windy Flats Partners,
                                                 LLC.
                           ER11-3263-000......  Wolverine Holdings, L.P.
                           ER04-262-000.......  Woodland Pulp LLC.
                           ER09-750-000.......  Woomera Energy, LLC.
                           ER06-1273-000......  Z&Y Energy Trading LLC.
                           ER10-2345-000......  Zone One Energy, LLC.
                           ER18-624-000.......
                           ER18-2031-000......
                           ER15-820-001.......
E-3......................  EL21-7-000.........  Cricket Valley Energy
                                                 Center, LLC and Empire
                                                 Generating Company, LLC
                                                 v. New York Independent
                                                 System Operator, Inc.

E-4......................  ER22-2044-000......  Just Energy Limited.
                           ER22-2044-001......
E-5......................  Omitted............
E-6......................  ER22-2380-000......  Virginia Electric and
                                                 Power Company.
E-7......................  NJ22-11-000........  Orlando Utilities
                                                 Commission.
E-8......................  ER19-1428-005......  ISO New England Inc.
E-9......................  ER21-1816-001......  KES Kingsburg, L.P.
E-10.....................  ER20-681-005.......  Tri-State Generation and
                                                 Transmission
                                                 Association, Inc.
                           ER20-681-006.......
                           EL22-28-000........
E-11.....................  ER21-57-002........  Shell Energy North
                                                 America (US), L.P.
E-12.....................  ER21-42-001........  Tenaska Power Services
                                                 Co.
E-13.....................  ER21-46-001........  Mercuria Energy America,
                                                 LLC.
E-14.....................  ER18-2358-001......  Southwest Power Pool,
                                                 Inc.
                           ER19-1357-000......  GridLiance High Plains
                                                 LLC.
                           ER20-1313-000
                            (consolidated).
E-15.....................  ER22-1353-000......  GridLiance High Plains
                                                 LLC.
E-16.....................  ER21-1438-000......  GridLiance High Plains
                                                 LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   GAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1......................  RP22-1118-000......  MountainWest Overthrust
                                                 Pipeline, LLC.
G-2......................  RP22-1121-000......  Stagecoach Pipeline &
                                                 Storage Company LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  HYDRO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1......................  P-3777-013.........  The Town of Rollinsford,
                                                 New Hampshire.
H-2......................  P-619-174..........  Pacific Gas and Electric
                                                 Company and City of
                                                 Santa Clara.
H-3......................  P-2530-057.........  Brookfield White Pine
                                                 Hydro LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              CERTIFICATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1......................  CP20-527-001.......  Columbia Gulf
                                                 Transmission, LLC.
C-2......................  CP20-50-001........  Tennessee Gas Pipeline
                                                 Company, L.L.C.
                           CP20-51-001........  Southern Natural Gas
                                                 Company, L.L.C.
C-3......................  CP21-463-000.......  Texas Eastern
                                                 Transmission, LP.
C-4......................  CP22-479-000.......  ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd.
C-5......................  CP22-451-000.......  Owen Stanley Parker v.
                                                 Permain Highway
                                                 Pipeline LLC, et al.
C-6......................  RP22-678-000.......  Hummel Generation, LLC
                                                 v. UGI Sunbury, LLC.
C-7......................  CP21-44-000........  LA Storage, LLC.
C-8......................  CP22-474-000.......  West Texas Gas, Inc. and
                                                 West Texas Gas Utility,
                                                 LLC.
C-9......................  CP22-475-000.......  West Texas Gas, Inc. and
                                                 West Texas Gas Utility,
                                                 LLC.
C-10.....................  CP22-476-000.......  West Texas Gas, Inc. and
                                                 West Texas Gas Utility,
                                                 LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A free webcast of this event is available through http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/. Anyone with internet access who desires to
view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ or contact
Shirley Al-Jarani at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

    Issued: September 15, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20493 Filed 9-19-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P