1854 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2014 / Notices 

that, effective March 12, 2009, it 

changed its legal name to NextEra 

Energy Power Marketing, LLC. 

Accordingly, on March 26, 2009, DOE 

issued Order No. EA–348–A, in which 

it amended the original order by 

changing the name of the authorized 

exporter to NEPM. All other terms and 

conditions of Order No. EA–348 

remained unchanged. 

On December 20, 2013, NEPM filed an 

application with DOE for renewal of the 

export authority contained in Order No. 

EA–348–A for an additional five-year 

term. Specifically, NEPM states that it 

seeks renewal, as a power marketer, to 

export electricity through existing 

Canadian border facilities. 

NEPM states that it does not own, 

operate, or control any physical assets 

such as electric generating or 

transmission facilities, and it does not 

have a franchised service area. The 

electric energy that NEPM proposes to 

export to Canada would be surplus 

energy purchased from electric utilities 

and other suppliers within the United 

States. 

The existing international 

transmission facilities to be utilized by 

NEPM have previously been authorized 

by Presidential permits issued pursuant 

to Executive Order 10485, as amended, 

and are appropriate for open access 

transmission by third parties. 

Procedural Matters: Any person 

desiring to be heard in this proceeding 

should file a comment or protest to the 

application at the address provided 

above. Protests should be filed in 

accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) 

Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 

CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to 

become a party to these proceedings 

should file a motion to intervene at the 

above address in accordance with FERC 

Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies 

of such comments, protests, or motions 

to intervene should be sent to the 

address provided above on or before the 

date listed above. 

Comments on the NEPM application 

to export electric energy to Canada 

should be clearly marked with OE 

Docket No. EA–348–B. An additional 

copy is to be provided directly to both 

Marty Jo Rogers, Senior Counsel, 

NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC, 

601 Travis Street, Suite 1910, Houston, 

TX 77002, and Gunnar Birgisson, Senior 

Attorney, NextEra Energy, 801 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. A final decision will be made 

on this application after the 

environmental impacts have been 

evaluated pursuant to DOE’s National 

Environmental Policy Act Implementing 

Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after 

a determination is made by DOE that the 

proposed action will not have an 

adverse impact on the sufficiency of 

supply or reliability of the U.S. electric 

power supply system. 

Copies of this application will be 

made available, upon request, for public 

inspection and copying at the address 

provided above, by accessing the 

program Web site at http://energy.gov/

node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy 

at Angela.Troy@hq.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 6, 

2014. 

Brian Mills, 

Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00316 Filed 1–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision and Floodplain 

Statement of Findings for the Lake 

Charles Carbon Capture and 

Sequestration Project 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) announces its decision to 

provide cost-shared funding to Leucadia 

Energy, LLC (Leucadia) for its Lake 

Charles Carbon Capture and 

Sequestration project (Lake Charles CCS 

project) under DOE’s Industrial Carbon 

Capture Sequestration (ICCS) Program. 

DOE prepared an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

DOE’s proposed action of providing 

financial assistance to the Lake Charles 

CCS project. The EIS evaluated the 

impacts associated with construction 

and operation of the proposed project 

and Leucadia’s Gasification Plant, 

which is a connected action. DOE’s 

proposed action is to provide financial 

assistance through a cooperative 

agreement with Leucadia to capture 

carbon dioxide (CO2) from the 

Gasification Plant and transport the CO2

via pipelines to the West Hastings oil 

field, for use in existing, commercial 

enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The West 

Hastings research monitoring, 

verification, and accounting (MVA) 

program will provide an accurate 

accounting of approximately 1 million 

tons of stored CO2. 

ADDRESSES: The EIS and this Record of 

Decision (ROD) are available on DOE’s 

Web sites (www.energy.gov/nepa/or 

www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/

nepa/index.html). Copies of these 

documents may also be obtained by 

contacting Ms. Pierina Fayish, M/S 922– 

342C, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Energy Technology Laboratory, 

P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236; 

telephone: 412–386–5428; or email: 

pierina.fayish@netl.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

obtain additional information about the 

project or the EIS, contact Ms. Pierina 

Fayish at the address provided above. 

For general information on DOE’s NEPA 

process, contact Ms. Carol M. 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., Washington 

DC 20585; telephone: 202–586–4600; or 

toll free at 1–800–472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

prepared this ROD pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.), and in compliance 

with the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations 

for NEPA (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] 1500 through 1508), 

DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures 

(10 CFR Part 1021) and DOE’s 

Compliance with Floodplain and 

Wetland Environmental Review 

regulations (10 CFR Part 1022). This 

ROD is based on DOE’s EIS for the Lake 

Charles CCS Project (DOE/EIS–0464, 

November 2013) and other program 

considerations. 

Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

The purpose and need for DOE action 

is to advance the ICCS program by 

providing financial assistance to 

projects that have the best chance of 

achieving the program’s objectives as 

established by Congress: Demonstrating 

the next generation of technologies that 

will capture CO2 from industrial sources 

and either sequester or beneficially use 

it. The proposed project was selected 

under the ICCS program as one of a 

portfolio of projects that DOE 

determined were the most appropriate 

ones to achieve programmatic objectives 

and meet legislative requirements. 

This proposed project would help the 

ICCS Program meet its congressionally 

mandated mission of large-scale testing 

of CO2 sequestration systems. The 

project would demonstrate the use of 

advanced technologies to capture CO2

from an industrial source and sequester 

it as part of an EOR operation. The 

project would also provide information 

on the cost and feasibility of deploying 

sequestration technologies. A successful 

demonstration of the Rectisol®-based 

carbon-capture technology with 

beneficial use of the CO2 at an existing 

oil field would also generate technical, 

environmental, and financial data 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2014 / Notices 1855 

regarding the design, construction, and 

operation of a CO2 capture facility, 

pipeline, and CO2 monitoring at the oil 

field. These data would be used to 

evaluate whether these technologies 

could be effectively implemented at a 

commercial scale. 

DOE’s Proposed Action 

DOE’s proposed action is to provide 

$261.4 million in cost-shared funding 

through a cooperative agreement with 

Leucadia for its proposed project. DOE 

has already provided $13.9 million to 

Leucadia for preliminary design and 

related activities. The estimated total 

cost of the Lake Charles CCS project is 

$435.6 million. 

Project Description and Location 

The Lake Charles CCS project would 

result in the construction and operation 

of a Rectisol®-based facility to capture at 

least 75 percent of the CO2 from the 

treated stream which would otherwise 

be released to the atmosphere from the 

Gasification Plant. The CCS project 

includes: 

(1) CO2 Capture and Compression— 

Two Lurgi Rectisol® Acid Gas Removal 

(AGR) units and two compressors would 

pressurize the CO2 to 2,250 pounds per 

square inch gauge (psig) for transport 

and geologic sequestration. The project 

would be designed to capture 

approximately 89 percent of the CO2

produced from the Gasification Plant. 

Over the 30-year expected life, 

approximately 4.6 million tons of CO2

per year would be captured, on average. 

(2) CO2 Pipeline—A new pipeline, 

approximately 16 inches in diameter, 

would carry the captured CO2

approximately 11.9 miles and connect 

to the existing Green Pipeline, which 

extends across Louisiana into Texas. 

(3) Research Monitoring Program— 

Denbury Onshore, LLC (Denbury) and 

the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology 

(BEG) would jointly implement the 

West Hastings research monitoring, 

verification, and accounting (MVA) 

program aimed at providing an accurate 

accounting of approximately 1 million 

tons of stored CO2, and a high level of 

confidence that the CO2 injected in the 

oilfield during existing EOR operations 

will remain permanently sequestered. 

The West Hastings research MVA 

activities would supplement Denbury’s 

ongoing commercial monitoring 

activities and regulatory requirements 

performed for commercial CO2 EOR and 

would provide additional information 

regarding the underground movement 

and confinement of CO2. 

In the context of NEPA, connected 

actions are actions dependent on the 

proposed action, as set forth in 40 CFR 

1508.25. The Lake Charles CCS project 

cannot operate without the Gasification 

Plant, thus construction and operation 

of the Gasification Plant is a connected 

action and evaluated in the EIS. The 

Gasification Plant would convert 

petroleum coke into syngas, which 

would be further processed to produce 

methanol, hydrogen gas, and sulfuric 

acid, as well as CO2. The Gasification 

Plant would provide raw syngas 

containing CO2 to the Lake Charles CCS 

project, where the CO2 would be 

separated from the syngas. The 

Gasification Plant and Lake Charles CCS 

capture and compression facilities 

would be located on an approximately 

70-acre parcel of land leased from the 

Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal 

District (Port of Lake Charles), on the 

west bank of the Calcasieu River 

adjacent to Bulk Terminal No. 1, in 

southern Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. 

The Gasification Plant would require 

new utility linears and pipelines for 

delivery of materials and transport of 

products as described in the EIS. 

Site preparation activities for the 

Gasification Plant, including clearing 

and grading, began in January 2010. Site 

preparation work to add approximately 

12 feet of fill to raise the site elevations 

above the local 100-year and 500-year 

base flood elevations also began in 

November 2010. These activities were 

authorized under permits issued by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

(Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal 

District Consent No. DACW29–9–08 

[May 30, 2008] and MVN–1998–03311– 

WY [August 18, 2008]). Construction of 

the Gasification Plant is expected to 

begin in the first quarter of 2014 and 

take approximately 36 months to 

complete. Peak construction is expected 

in month 18 and will involve 

approximately 2,500 workers, of which 

900 would be at the Gasification Plant 

site. 

For the purposes of the EIS, DOE 

assumed that the CO2 capture system 

would continue to operate for 30 years. 

Petroleum coke from local refineries is 

already stored at the Port of Lake 

Charles and shipped to buyers overseas. 

The approximately 0.5 million tons per 

year of petroleum coke needed for the 

Gasification Plant will come from the 

port. Another approximately 2.1 million 

tons per year would come from other 

ports in the Gulf of Mexico region. 

During operation of the Gasification 

Plant, process-related chemicals would 

be transported to and from the facility 

by truck, rail, barge or ship. 

The Lake Charles CCS Project does 

not include the commercial operation of 

the Green Pipeline or the existing EOR 

operations at the West Hastings oil field. 

These activities are not connected 

actions as defined by 40 CFR 1508.25. 

Alternatives 

Congress directed DOE to pursue the 

ICCS program by providing federal 

financial assistance to projects owned 

and controlled by non-federal sponsors. 

This statutory requirement places DOE 

in a much more limited role than if it 

were the owner and operator of these 

projects. Here, the purpose and need for 

DOE action is defined by the ICCS 

program (and its enabling legislation, 

Public Laws 110–140 and 111–5). As 

such, the reasonable alternatives 

available to DOE prior to the selection 

of this project under the ICCS program 

were the other projects that met the 

eligibility requirements of a competitive 

solicitation. Other applications (and 

their potential environmental, safety, 

and health impacts) were considered 

during the selection process. Pursuant 

to 10 CFR 1021.216, a publicly-available 

synopsis of the environmental review 

and critique developed for the selection 

process was included in the EIS. 

After DOE selects a project for an 

award, the range of reasonable 

alternatives becomes the project as 

proposed by the applicant, any 

alternatives still under consideration by 

the applicant, and the no action 

alternative. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, DOE 

would not provide cost-shared funding 

for the proposed Lake Charles CCS 

project. In the absence of DOE costshared funding, Leucadia could 

reasonably pursue several options. 

Leucadia could build both the 

Gasification Plant and the CCS project 

with funding from other sources and 

these facilities would include the same 

features, attributes, and impacts of the 

proposed project and connected action. 

Alternatively, Leucadia could choose 

not to build all or parts of the 

Gasification Plant and CCS project. For 

the purpose of making a meaningful 

comparison between the impacts of DOE 

providing and withholding financial 

assistance, DOE assumed that all or part 

of the Gasification Plant and CCS 

project would not be completed without 

DOE funding. Therefore, the following 

alternatives were identified and 

analyzed in the EIS: 

1. Neither the Gasification Plant nor 

the Lake Charles CCS project would be 

built; or 

2. The Gasification Plant would be 

built, but the captured CO2 would be 

vented to the atmosphere rather than 

sequestered in an ongoing EOR 

operation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

1856 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2014 / Notices 

The ongoing commercial CO2 EOR 

operations and the West Hastings 

research MVA program would continue 

under each of these no action 

alternatives. Under these alternatives, 

the opportunity to capture an average of 

4.6 million tons of anthropogenic CO2

per year over the 30 year life of the 

Gasification Plant for use in EOR would 

not be realized. These alternatives 

would not contribute to DOE’s goal of 

advancing the next generation of 

technologies that capture CO2 from 

industrial sources for sequestration or 

beneficial reuse. While the no action 

alternatives would not satisfy the 

purpose and need for DOE action, these 

alternatives were analyzed to allow for 

comparisons to the impacts of the 

proposed project as required by 40 CFR 

15012.14. The no action alternatives 

reflect the baseline conditions and serve 

as benchmarks against which the 

impacts of the proposed action can be 

evaluated. 

Leucadia has begun preparing the site 

for construction of the Gasification Plant 

without DOE funding for other purposes 

not related to the Lake Charles CCS 

project. The construction of the 

Gasification Plant will receive no DOE 

funding. 

NEPA Process 

DOE published a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) for this proposed action in the 

Federal Register (FR) on April 29, 2011 

(FR Doc. 2011–10448). DOE held public 

scoping meetings on May 16, 2011, in 

Pearland, Texas, and May 17, 2011, in 

Westlake, Louisiana. The public scoping 

period ended on May 29, 2011, after a 

30-day comment period. 

DOE prepared a draft EIS identifying 

and analyzing the potential impacts of 

the proposed action and no action 

alternatives. Although DOE funds 

would only go to the CCS project, DOE 

determined that the Gasification Plant is 

a connected action in accordance with 

40 CFR 1508.25(a), and its impacts are 

analyzed in the EIS, as well as DOE’s no 

action alternatives. DOE announced the 

availability of the draft EIS in a Notice 

of Availability (NOA) published in the 

Federal Register (FR) by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

on May 10, 2013 (78 FR 28205). DOE 

published a separate NOA to announce 

its plans for two public hearings, held 

in Westlake, Calcasieu Parish, 

Louisiana, on June 4, 2013, and in 

Pearland, Brazoria County, Texas on 

June 5, 2013. 

DOE received oral comments on the 

draft EIS at the public hearings and 

listened to questions and concerns 

during informal sessions before the 

hearings. During the 45-day public 

comment period, which ended June 25, 

2013, DOE received comment letters 

from several organizations and agencies. 

Comments included concerns about: (1) 

The economic benefit of the project and 

the use of federal funds; (2) the amount 

of CO2 that would be emitted and 

captured, and the monitoring of the CO2

throughout the process; (3) the amount 

and types of wastes generated; (4) the 

process for selecting projects for DOE 

funding; (5) the impacts on the ozone 

non-attainment status of Calcasieu 

Parish; (6) mitigation measures for 

construction-related emissions; (7) the 

loss of forests and impacts on 

threatened and endangered species; (8) 

adequacy of the environmental justice 

analysis; (9) impacts to water resources 

and wetlands; and (10) safety of 

chemical use and storage. 

DOE considered these comments in 

preparing the final EIS. DOE distributed 

the final EIS on November 14, 2013, and 

EPA published a NOA in the FR on 

November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70041). DOE 

received no comments on the final EIS. 

Decision 

DOE has decided to provide Leucadia 

with $261.4 million in cost-shared 

funding for its proposed project through 

a cooperative agreement under DOE’s 

ICCS program. 

Basis of DOE’s Decision 

DOE based its decision on the 

importance of achieving the objectives 

of the ICCS program and a careful 

review of the potential environmental 

impacts presented in the EIS. The 

proposed project would help DOE meet 

its congressionally mandated mission of 

supporting demonstration of the next 

generation of technologies that capture 

CO2 from industrial sources for 

sequestration or beneficial use. The 

proposed action would also generate 

technical, environmental, and financial 

data regarding the design, construction, 

and operation of a CO2 capture facility, 

pipeline, and monitoring facilities. The 

data would contribute to DOE’s 

evaluation of the effective and economic 

implementation of these technologies at 

a commercial scale. 

This decision incorporates all 

practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm. DOE plans to 

verify the environmental impacts 

predicted in the EIS and the 

implementation of appropriate 

avoidance and mitigation measures. 

Mitigation 

DOE’s decision incorporates measures 

to avoid and minimize adverse 

environmental impacts during the 

design, construction and operation of 

the project. DOE requires that recipients 

of financial assistance comply with all 

applicable federal, state, and local 

environmental laws, orders, and 

regulations. During project planning, 

Leucadia incorporated various 

minimization measures and anticipated 

permit requirements into its project. The 

analyses completed for the EIS assumed 

that such measures would be 

implemented. These measures are 

identified in Chapter 4 of the EIS and 

hereby incorporated into this ROD as 

conditions for DOE’s financial 

assistance under the cooperative 

agreement between DOE and Leucadia. 

Additional mitigation measures or 

measures specific to certain impacts or 

comments received are further 

discussed below in the section entitled 

Potential Environmental Impacts and 

Mitigation Measures. 

Mitigation measures beyond those 

typically specified in permit conditions 

will be addressed in a Mitigation Action 

Plan (MAP). DOE will prepare the MAP, 

consistent with 10 CFR 1021.331, to 

establish how the mitigation measures 

will be planned, implemented, and 

monitored. The MAP is an adaptive 

management tool; therefore mitigation 

conditions in it would be removed if 

equivalent conditions are otherwise 

established by permit, license, or law. 

Compliance with permit, license or 

regulatory requirements is not 

considered mitigation subject to DOE 

control and therefore are not included 

in a MAP. 

DOE will ensure that requirements in 

the MAP are met through management 

of its cooperative agreement with 

Leucadia, which requires that Leucadia 

fulfill the monitoring and mitigation 

measures specified in this ROD. DOE 

will make copies of the MAP available 

for inspection online and in appropriate 

locations for a reasonable time. Copies 

of the MAP and any annual reports 

required under it will also be available 

upon written request. 

Potential Environmental Impacts and 

Mitigation Measures 

In making its decision, DOE 

considered the environmental impacts 

of Leucadia’s proposed project, DOE’s 

proposed action, and the no action 

alternative on potentially affected 

environmental resource areas. These 

included: Climate and air quality, 

including greenhouse gas emissions; 

geology and soils; surface water, 

wetlands, and floodplains; groundwater; 

biological resources; cultural resources; 

land use; socioeconomics and 

environmental justice; traffic and 

transportation; noise; waste 

management; materials; and human 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2014 / Notices 1857 

health and safety. The EIS also 

considered the impacts of the project in 

combination with those from other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. The following sections 

summarize the potential impacts to the 

resource areas with mitigation 

requirements. Detailed information for 

all resource areas is in the EIS. 

Air Quality 

Construction of the Gasification Plant 

and the CCS project’s CO2 capture and 

compression facilities would result in 

short-term, localized increased fugitive 

dust and vehicle and construction 

equipment emissions. In response to 

EPA’s comments on the draft EIS, 

Leucadia will implement additional best 

management practices (BMPs) and 

mitigation measures. To control fugitive 

dust, Leucadia must avoid open storage 

of dry material, install wind fencing as 

needed, use water trucks to stabilize 

surfaces, prevent spillage when hauling 

material and operating equipment, to 

the extent possible, and limit the speed 

of vehicles on site to 15 miles per hour 

(mph) and earth-moving equipment to 

10 mph. To control mobile and 

stationary source emissions, Leucadia 

must use remote parking with bus 

transport to the worksite, maintain and 

tune engines per manufacturer’s 

specifications to perform at EPA 

certification levels, prevent tampering 

with engines, and use new equipment 

where practicable. Leucadia also must 

limit idling of heavy equipment; EPA 

recommends limiting idling to less than 

5 minutes. 

In assessing potential impacts during 

operations, DOE evaluated the Lake 

Charles CCS project and the Gasification 

Plant as a single facility, because 

together they make a single source for 

purposes of air emissions. Leucadia 

completed air dispersion modeling in 

support of the initial permit application 

for criteria pollutants and toxic air 

pollutants. For all criteria pollutants, 

maximum modeled concentrations in 

ambient air due to the proposed facility 

emissions would not violate federal or 

Louisiana standards. 

A General Conformity analysis is not 

required for the operations phase as the 

Gasification Plant, which includes the 

Lake Charles CCS project CO2 capture 

and compression facilities, requires a 

permit under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration program. 

Under the General Conformity rule, 

DOE evaluated the impact of 

construction emissions because 

Calcasieu Parish has a maintenance plan 

effective through 2014 for the 8-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality ozone 

standard. Total NOX emissions would 

increase 1.9 percent and total VOC 

emissions would increase 0.5 percent 

above the projected 2014 emission 

values in Calcasieu Parish. These 

increases in emissions from 

construction would not obstruct 

Calcasieu Parish’s efforts to maintain 

attainment with the ozone standard. 

Construction and operation of the CO2

pipeline, and operation of the West 

Hastings research MVA program would 

result in short-term, localized increased 

fugitive dust and vehicle emissions. 

Denbury has indicated that it will 

implement BMPs including suppression 

techniques to minimize dust and 

operate and maintain vehicles in 

accordance with manufacturers’ 

recommendations. 

Climate 

Construction of the Gasification Plant 

and Lake Charles CCS project would 

generate up to approximately 31,300 

tons per year (tpy) of CO2 emissions 

over the construction period. Operation 

of the Gasification Plant would result in 

approximately 5.8 million tpy of new 

CO2 emissions. According to the terms 

of the cooperative agreement, Leucadia 

must design and construct the Lake 

Charles CCS project with the goal of 

capturing at least 75 percent of the CO2

from the treated stream, comprising at 

least 10 percent of CO2 by volume, 

which would otherwise be emitted to 

the atmosphere. However, the proposed 

project is designed to capture 

approximately 89 percent of the CO2

produced, or approximately 4.6 million 

tpy, when averaged over 30 years. 

Additionally, DOE compared the life 

cycle analysis (LCA) for the proposed 

project and connected action against the 

greenhouse gas (GHG) LCA for 

conventional production methods of the 

same quantities of methanol (steam 

reformation of natural gas), hydrogen 

(pressure swing absorption), and 

sulfuric acid (combustion of elemental 

sulfur and catalysis reactions) that 

would be produced by Leucadia with 

these facilities. The CCS project 

captures CO2 and prevents long-distance 

exportation of petroleum coke, making 

the Gasification Plant life cycle GHG 

emissions 56 percent lower than 

conventional production methods 

generating the same quantities of 

methanol. 

Geology and Soils 

Construction and operation of the 

Gasification Plant and Lake Charles CCS 

capture and compression facilities 

would result in negligible impacts to 

geologic resources. The risk of seismic 

events is minimal because the area is 

within the lowest seismic hazard 

category (Seismic Zone 0). Potential 

minor impacts to soils during 

construction of the project pipelines 

would include disturbance of soils and 

the potential for increased soil erosion 

from both wind and water. Construction 

of the CO2 pipeline would temporarily 

affect approximately 107 acres of prime 

farmland. Construction of the water 

supply and hydrogen pipelines would 

temporarily affect approximately 111 

acres of prime farmland. As the 

pipelines would be located below the 

surface, impacts on prime farmland 

would be minor and temporary. 

Leucadia must restore surface 

conditions to their original state and use 

following construction of the water 

supply and hydrogen pipelines. 

Potential soil impacts in all construction 

areas would be avoided or mitigated as 

described in a project-specific storm 

water pollution prevention plan 

(SWPPP). Operational activities would 

have negligible impacts on soil, 

primarily due to disturbance of soils 

from vehicle traffic and minor spills or 

leaks from vehicles used during 

inspection and maintenance activities. 

The West Hastings research MVA 

program would occur in a seismically 

stable area (Seismic Zone 0). None of 

the proposed MVA activities would 

produce vibrations or forces that would 

result in seismic destabilization, and no 

geologic hazards exist that would 

impact the project or that would become 

more hazardous or be aggravated as a 

result of those activities. Potential 

impacts on geologic resources could 

result from seismic events or subsidence 

related to CO2 injection; CO2 migration 

through a permeable zone in the 

confining unit or through improperly 

plugged and abandoned wells or 

unknown wells; or CO2 migration 

through an existing injection, 

production, or monitoring well. 

Denbury has indicated that a well 

integrity testing program would be 

conducted and any deficiencies would 

be corrected prior to use of such wells. 

CO2 migration from the target geologic 

units is unlikely, and ongoing 

monitoring and modeling would 

provide an accurate accounting of the 

approximately 1 million tons per year of 

CO2 stored through the commercial EOR 

process. Therefore, DOE expects adverse 

impacts on geologic resources at the 

West Hastings oil field from the West 

Hastings research MVA program to be 

unlikely and negligible to minor due to 

the nature of the site and the activities 

being conducted. Furthermore, the 

research MVA program could have the 

positive impact of helping to ensure the 

long-term economic and financial 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

1858 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2014 / Notices 

viability of CO2 capture by confirming 

storage of CO2 injected during 

commercial EOR operations. 

Surface Water, Wetlands, and 

Floodplains 

The quantity of water needed for 

construction and operation of the 

Gasification Plant and Lake Charles CCS 

capture and compression facilities 

would have negligible impacts on water 

availability and local water use. 

Approximately 26.2 acres of wetlands 

were permanently impacted during the 

site preparation for the Gasification 

Plant and were addressed through offsite mitigation banking. Construction 

does not conflict with applicable flood 

management plans or ordinances and 

would not increase the potential for 

flooding. Potential surface water and 

wetland impacts from the construction 

of the water supply and hydrogen 

pipelines would occur during crossing 

of Bayou d’Inde, the Sabine River Canal, 

and two additional water bodies. 

Construction of the water supply and 

hydrogen pipelines could potentially 

impact 7.1 acres of wetlands, but the 

final wetland delineation and 

permitting will be conducted by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

If a water body, wetland, or floodplain 

is crossed by the water supply and 

hydrogen pipelines and determined to 

be a jurisdictional water of the United 

States and the construction impacts on 

wetlands exceed applicable thresholds, 

Leucadia must obtain the necessary 

USACE permits. If compensatory 

wetland mitigation becomes necessary 

under any USACE permit, Leucadia 

must implement additional mitigation 

as required and described in the 

permit(s). Leucadia must use horizontal 

directional drilling (HDD) where 

appropriate to minimize the 

environmental impacts of crossing 

surface waters. 

Activities during the operations 

period would not result in additional 

structures in the floodplain, filling of 

wetlands, or alteration of infiltration 

rates that would increase volumes 

downstream. 

During construction of the CO2

pipeline potential impacts to surface 

water quality include increased 

sediment load, alteration of flow rates 

and accidental spills of chemicals or 

lubricants. Denbury has proposed HDD 

to minimize the environmental impacts 

of crossing surface waters. In addition, 

USACE permits must be obtained to 

cross waters of the United States, 

including associated wetlands. 

Approximately 550,100 gallons of water 

for hydrostatic testing would be 

obtained from local water bodies or 

purchased from municipal supplies. No 

changes in the availability of surface 

water for current or future uses are 

anticipated as a result of pipeline 

construction. Construction of the CO2

pipeline could permanently impact 

14.98 acres and temporarily impact 

13.23 acres of 100-year floodplain. Due 

to the narrow width of the permanent 

right-of-way (ROW), no alteration of 

infiltration rates are expected and there 

would be no substantial decrease in the 

volume of surface water flowing 

downstream. Normal operation of the 

CO2 pipeline would not affect surface 

waters. No impacts on wetlands or 

floodplains are anticipated from 

operation of the CO2 pipeline. 

The West Hastings Research MVA 

program would not involve the removal 

or injection of any materials that would 

result in changes in surface water 

availability or runoff or result in 

significant effluent releases. 

Recompletion of proposed wells would 

be outside wetland areas, and Denbury 

has proposed BMPs to prevent runoff 

from entering wetlands outside of 

construction areas. MVA activities 

would not increase the potential for 

floods, alter a floodway or floodplain, or 

otherwise impede or redirect flows. 

Biological Resources 

Construction and operations activities 

at the Gasification Plant and Lake 

Charles CCS Capture and Compression 

facilities are expected to have negligible 

to moderate impacts on biological 

resources, which include wildlife, 

habitat, plant life, threatened and 

endangered species, and migratory 

birds. The loss of 70 acres within the 

1,740 acres of forested habitat represents 

4 percent of the total area. Clearing and 

filling of the equipment laydown area 

could remove up to 40 acres of potential 

adjacent forested emergent wetland 

habitat. A loss of 40 acres of forest in the 

equipment laydown and methanol/

sulfuric acid storage area represents a 

14.5 percent loss within the local 275- 

acre forested wetland area and 2.3 

percent loss within the 1,740-acre 

forested area of the Bayou ecosystem, 

which is a part of the Calcasieu estuary. 

The Port of Lake Charles consulted with 

the Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries (LDWF) and Louisiana 

Natural Heritage Program, regarding 

construction of the equipment laydown 

area. The Louisiana Natural Heritage 

Program indicated that no impacts on 

rare, threatened, or endangered species 

or critical habitats are anticipated. 

Approximately 76 percent of the water 

supply pipeline route and 99 percent of 

the hydrogen pipeline route follow 

existing ROWs. The water supply 

pipeline and hydrogen pipeline corridor 

would impact 18.47 and 62.74 acres, 

respectively, of forest habitat potentially 

used by the red cockaded woodpecker. 

The USFWS’s Louisiana Ecological 

Services concurred that the proposed 

project is not likely to adversely affect 

resources under the jurisdiction of 

Endangered Species Act. Prior to 

construction of the pipelines, Leucadia 

must contact LDWF to request another 

database review to identify any new 

occurrences of nesting areas for 

migratory birds or colonial water birds. 

Leucadia must perform site-specific 

surveys within 2 weeks of project 

startup, in accordance with LDWF 

requirements, to determine whether 

migratory birds or colonial water bird 

nesting areas are present and the extent 

of any colonies. Leucadia must further 

consult with LDWF if active nesting 

colonies are found within 400 meters of 

the project site. Operations activities are 

expected to have negligible impacts to 

biological resources. 

The CO2 pipeline would be located 

along or within existing utility ROWs to 

the extent practicable and construction 

would result in minor impacts to 

biological resources. Pipeline 

construction would affect 10.21 acres of 

forest, 17.65 acres of scrub-shrub, and 

2.1 acres of herbaceous grassland 

habitats. Denbury has indicated that it 

will obtain necessary federal and state 

permits, and associated site-specific 

surveys and mitigation, if necessary, 

prior to construction. The LDWF 

recommended that surveys of suitable 

nesting areas be conducted no more 

than two weeks before construction 

begins to determine whether breeding 

colonies are present. In addition, the 

USFWS recommended informing on-site 

personnel of the need to identify 

colonial wading birds and their nests, 

and to avoid affecting them during the 

breeding season. Operations activities 

are expected to have negligible impacts 

to biological resources. 

Negligible impacts on aquatic ecology, 

terrestrial vegetation, or wildlife, 

including threatened and endangered 

species, are expected as a result of the 

West Hastings research MVA activities. 

Affected habitats at these locations have 

been disturbed by past and ongoing 

industrial and oil production activities. 

Operations activities are expected to 

have negligible impacts to biological 

resources. 

Cultural Resources 

Construction of the Gasification Plant 

and Lake Charles CCS Capture and 

Compression facilities would disturb a 

portion of one cultural resource site 

located within the areas of potential 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2014 / Notices 1859 

effects (APEs). The Louisiana Site 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 

concurred with the determination that 

the site was not eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) and that no further 

investigations were necessary. 

Operation of the plant and facilities 

would have no impacts on cultural 

resources or historic properties. DOE 

initiated consultation with 13 federally 

recognized Native American tribes in 

Louisiana, Texas, and other states in 

accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended. The Choctaw Nation 

of Oklahoma was the only tribe to 

respond to the consultation letter for the 

proposed action. It concurred with the 

finding of no historic properties affected 

at this time and agreed that the project 

should move ahead as planned. 

Leucadia must include a provision in its 

construction plans for its contractors 

that require them to immediately notify 

LCCE if identifiable tribal artifacts or 

remains are found during construction. 

If notified of any such discoveries, 

Leucadia must inform the SHPO and the 

Choctaw Nation to ensure the artifacts 

or remains are handled appropriately. 

Construction of the CCS CO2 pipeline 

would destroy one archaeological site. 

However, the SHPO reviewed the 

results of the Phase I cultural resources 

survey within the APE and concluded 

that the site was not eligible for the 

NRHP. Construction of the CO2 pipeline 

also has the potential to result in direct, 

permanent, negative impacts on the 

Hardey Family Cemetery. Denbury 

proposes to avoid the direct impacts by 

directionally drilling beneath the 

cemetery to avoid physical disturbance. 

Cemetery owners have indicated no 

objection to construction of the 

proposed pipeline if there are no surface 

operations and the HDD method is 

employed to a depth of at least 25 feet 

below the surface of the cemetery. 

Construction and operation of the CO2

pipeline would have minor impacts on 

cultural resources. Operation of the 

West Hastings research MVA program 

would have no impacts on cultural 

resources because none were identified 

within the MVA area. 

Leucadia, in coordination with DOE, 

must continue consultation with the 

SHPO for areas not previously surveyed 

for cultural resources. This may occur if 

the currently proposed pipeline route 

needs to be altered or for other 

unforeseen areas of ground disturbance 

not analyzed in the EIS. Leucadia must 

complete any additional surveys prior to 

construction in such areas. 

Land Use 

Construction and operation of the 

Gasification Plant and CO2 Capture and 

Compression facilities would not 

conflict with current and future land 

use plans and/or zoning ordinances of 

Calcasieu Parish. Impacts on residences 

would be negligible due to the distance 

between residential areas and the 

construction site. Construction of the 

raw water pipeline would impact a total 

of 122 acres of land, including 24 acres 

of permanent ROW and 98 acres of 

temporary ROW. Construction of the 

hydrogen pipeline would impact a total 

of 77 acres of land, including 51 acres 

of permanent ROW and approximately 

26 acres of temporary ROW. To reduce 

impacts on surrounding land and 

properties, approximately 76 percent of 

the water supply pipeline route and 99 

percent of the hydrogen pipeline route 

would follow existing ROWs. 

Temporary visual impacts would result 

due to construction and ground 

disturbance. Impacts on cropland would 

be temporary, and active cropland 

would revert to preconstruction use for 

the full width of the ROWs. 

Construction would not impact special 

land uses such as recreation areas, 

public lands, historic sites, and 

protected water bodies. Leucadia must 

use BMPs including dust suppression 

techniques to control the dust generated 

by construction. Leucadia must 

revegetate the pipeline ROWs and 

adjacent properties to pre-construction 

conditions and vegetate and maintain 

new ROW areas. Operation of the 

Gasification Plant and Lake Charles CCS 

CO2 Capture and Compression facilities 

would be compatible with the 

surrounding industrial properties and 

would have no or negligible impacts on 

surrounding land uses. Occasional 

maintenance of the water supply and 

hydrogen pipelines may require access 

to buried portions of the lines. Leucadia 

would coordinate with property owners 

to minimize potential disturbances. The 

ROWs and adjacent properties would be 

restored to pre-construction conditions 

and maintained. 

Construction of the CCS CO2 pipeline 

would cause short term impacts on 

50.62 acres of temporary ROW and long 

term impacts to 56.34 acres of 

permanent ROW. Construction activities 

would include use of a 12.4 acre site for 

a warehouse yard and a 6.9-acre site at 

the pipe storage yard. Construction of 

the CO2 pipeline would result in the 

permanent conversion of 8.27 acres of 

forested land, including 2.98 acres of 

forested wetland. Small areas of other 

vegetation (i.e., scrub/shrub, pasture, 

and grassland) within the construction 

ROW could be permanently impacted. 

Following construction, approximately 

50.62 acres of land within the temporary 

ROW would be restored to previous 

conditions and uses. Active cropland 

would be allowed to revert to 

preconstruction use in the full width of 

the ROW. No special land uses such as 

recreation areas, public lands, historical 

sites, or protected water bodies would 

be impacted by construction activities. 

Denbury would avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts on land use by locating 

the proposed CO2 pipeline within or 

adjacent to existing utility ROWs with 

compatible land uses to the extent 

practicable. Denbury has indicated that 

it would use BMPs to supplement 

applicable regulatory requirements in 

order to minimize impacts on land use 

during construction. Operation of the 

CO2 pipeline would require that 

landowners not construct or place any 

structures within the permanent ROW. 

Occasional maintenance may require 

access to buried portions of the 

pipeline. Denbury would use BMPs 

during maintenance to avoid or 

minimize impacts on adjacent land uses 

and residences. Operation of the 

pipeline would have temporary and 

negligible impacts on surrounding land 

uses during maintenance. The West 

Hastings Research MVA activities are 

consistent with the existing commercial 

EOR operations and would have 

negligible impacts on land uses in the 

immediate and surrounding areas. 

Traffic and Transportation 

A temporary increase in traffic during 

construction of the Gasification Plant 

and Lake Charles CCS Capture and 

Compression facilities is expected from 

approximately 900 workers accessing 

the off-site construction parking area 

and approximately 150 off-site 

construction vehicles entering the LCCE 

Gasification site daily during peak 

construction. No major short or longterm impacts to interstate, multi-lane 

highway or two lane highway 

transportation resources are expected to 

occur, although certain segments of 

local roadways currently are in 

degraded conditions. Based on the 

estimated existing and projected future 

level of service (LOS) of Ruth Street, the 

use of this street during peak 

construction would degrade its LOS. For 

the offsite construction parking area, 

Leucadia must operate shuttle buses to 

reduce traffic congestion on local 

roadways and may be required to obtain 

a temporary construction access permit 

from the Louisiana Department of 

Transportation and Development 

(DOTD). To the extent practicable, 

Leucadia must schedule heavy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

1860 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2014 / Notices 

equipment deliveries during off peak 

hours, start work shifts at non-peak 

hours, stagger arrival times at the off-site 

construction parking area, request that 

personnel use roadways with LOS of A, 

B, or C, and coordinate traffic 

congestion with Louisiana DOT District 

7. Construction of the water supply and 

hydrogen pipelines may cause shortterm, minor traffic delays from large, 

slow-moving heavy equipment and 

delivery trucks. Leucadia must ensure 

adequate notice to landowners and 

drivers to maintain access to public 

roads. 

During operations, additional traffic 

from 187 personnel and approximately 

127 material deliveries would be 

negligible compared to the current 

traffic. The estimated total ship traffic 

for the Gasification Plant is 12 trips per 

year or approximately 1.2 percent of the 

current vessel traffic at the Port of Lake 

Charles. 

A temporary minor increase in traffic 

during construction of the CO2 pipeline 

is expected from an average of 

approximately 100 personnel and 10 

trucks accessing the route daily. 

Denbury has indicated that it would 

minimize impacts through various 

measures that ensure adequate notice to 

landowners and drivers to maintain 

access to public roads. Periodic 

maintenance of the ROW would include 

slow-moving mowers and occasional 

maintenance vehicles. Impacts on local 

traffic related to 14 new personnel hired 

by Denbury to perform the MVA 

activities, as well as personnel that 

would conduct temporary site visits, 

would be negligible. 

Noise 

Sound levels for general construction 

of the Gasification Plant and Lake 

Charles CCS Capture and Compression 

facilities at the closest noise-sensitive, 

residential receptor are expected to be 

58 average-weighted decibels [dBA], 

which exceeds the 55 dBA EPA 

guideline. However, a noise study 

indicated that the current background 

noise level at the nearest receptor (60 

dBA) also exceeds the EPA guideline. 

As a temporary daytime occurrence, 

construction noise of this magnitude 

would likely be imperceptible, and 

impacts would be negligible. Increased 

truck traffic during daytime hours 

would cause a temporary increase in 

noise at a limited number of residences 

and the impacts are expected to be 

negligible. Residences within 500 to 

1,000 feet of construction of the water 

supply and hydrogen pipelines would 

experience a short-term increase in 

ambient noise and vibrations from 

construction activity. Receptors near 

HDD locations could experience 

elevated temporary ambient noise levels 

as high as 78 dBA. Noise minimization 

measures would be used to reduce 

levels by approximately 10 dBA. 

Leucadia must minimize noise levels by 

limiting construction activities to 

daylight hours, as practicable, requiring 

contractors to minimize construction 

noise and maintain equipment in good 

working order, and utilizing temporary 

sound barriers. If necessary, Leucadia 

must obtain a variance from Calcasieu 

Parish for operating HDD equipment 

during evening and weekend hours. 

Typical sound levels for the equipment 

to be used during operation of the LCCE 

Gasification plant and CO2 capture and 

compression facilities can exceed 120 

dBA. Leucadia must implement 

engineering design and noise 

minimization measures to limit the 

levels such that the combination of 

noise from the plant and existing 

ambient noise would not exceed 58 dBA 

at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor 

during operation. 

During the CCS CO2 pipeline 

construction, noise levels may exceed 

the EPA guideline of 55 dBA at some 

residences. HDD activities may need to 

be conducted in the evening or 

weekends within 165 feet of a residence 

or noise sensitive area, which is 

prohibited by Calcasieu and Cameron 

Parishes without a variance. Noise 

minimization measures would be 

implemented to achieve up to a 10 dBA 

reduction. As a temporary daytime 

occurrence, noise from construction of 

the CO2 pipeline would have short-term, 

minor impacts on noise receptors. The 

impacts from traffic noise during 

construction would be negligible 

because a majority of the pipeline route 

traverses rural areas. No noise above 

ambient levels would be generated by 

operation of the CO2 pipeline. Noise 

impacts from equipment and vehicles 

used during inspection and 

maintenance activities would be 

negligible. 

Noise produced by equipment during 

conversion and reworking of wells for 

the West Hastings Research MVA 

Program is not expected to exceed the 

EPA guideline more than 1,000 feet 

from the equipment. Construction noise 

of this magnitude would likely be 

imperceptible, given the industrial 

setting, and the on-going commercial 

EOR operations. Therefore, the potential 

noise from the research MVA well 

reworking would result in negligible 

impacts. Traffic noise may increase for 

additional periodic sampling and 

monitoring activities, but the increase 

would not be distinguishable from 

ambient noise levels and would be 

negligible. 

Waste Management 

Approximately 2,640 cubic yards of 

nonhazardous waste and small 

quantities of hazardous waste would be 

generated annually during the 3-year 

construction period of the Gasification 

Plant and Lake Charles CCS Capture and 

Compression facilities, or less than 

0.0002 percent of the available landfill 

capacity in Calcasieu Parish. Leucadia 

must require construction contractors to 

develop a Waste Management Plan that 

includes specifications for handling, 

containment, and disposal of all wastes 

generated during construction of the 

Gasification Plant and CCS Capture and 

Compression facilities. Approximately 

65,000 tons (75,000 cubic yards) of 

nonhazardous waste generated annually 

during operation represents 0.6 percent 

of the total landfill capacity in Calcasieu 

Parish. Approximately 1,500 cubic 

yards of potentially hazardous waste 

would be generated annually during 

operation, or less than 0.03 percent of 

the capacity of the hazardous waste 

landfills in Calcasieu Parish. Leucadia 

must implement a program to reduce, 

reuse, and recycle waste materials to the 

extent practicable. 

Portions of the CCS CO2 pipeline 

would be constructed using HDD and a 

bentonite slurry that would be recycled, 

spread in upland areas as a soil 

supplement, if permitted, or removed 

and disposed of at a local permitted 

solid waste landfill. Construction and 

operation would not create hazardous 

wastes in quantities that would require 

a RCRA permit. Disposal of 

nonhazardous and potentially 

hazardous wastes generated by 

construction and operation of the 

proposed CO2 pipeline would have a 

negligible impact on the capacity or 

management of hazardous or solid waste 

services and landfills in the area. 

The West Hastings research MVA 

activities would involve drilling 

equipment to plug back, recondition, 

and re-complete existing wells. 

Research MVA activities could generate 

waste streams, including drilling mud 

and produced water during well 

construction. Produced water and light 

sediment would be pumped into trucks 

and hauled off-site by a licensed 

contractor for disposal. Excess drilling 

mud would be collected and stabilized 

in steel tanks and transported off-site to 

a designated local solid waste landfill. 

No hazardous waste would be generated 

as a result of the research MVA 

activities. Impacts related to the 

disposal of drill cuttings and treatment 

of the produced water generated during 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2014 / Notices 1861 

the reworking of existing wells would 

not require the use of unique waste 

disposal or treatment technologies and 

would result in negligible impacts on 

the capacity and management of 

landfills and disposal facilities in the 

area. 

Potential Environmental Impacts of the 

No Action Alternative 

Under no action sub-alternative 1, 

Leucadia would build neither the 

Gasification Plant nor the Lake Charles 

CCS project. The resources necessary for 

construction would be available for 

construction of other industrial projects 

in this area or elsewhere. The Port of 

Lake Charles would continue to ship pet 

coke worldwide for use as fuel in power 

plants. The use of pet coke in 

conventional power plants would likely 

emit more air emissions than its use in 

the Gasification Plant because of the 

stringent emission requirements 

imposed on the plant compared to 

conventional power plants. 

Environmental conditions would not 

change. The impacts to the community 

from noise, traffic, air emissions, and 

disruption of land use, jobs, and 

economic development would not 

occur. The impacts on the environment 

from air emissions, disruption of 

wildlife, use of surface water, discharge 

of wastewater, and loss of wetlands 

would not occur. Denbury would 

continue to inject CO2 obtained from 

geologic sources in its ongoing EOR 

operations. The Lake Charles CCS 

project would not fund a research MVA 

program at the West Hastings oil field. 

Sub-alternative 1 of the no action 

alternative would not contribute to the 

demonstration of the next generation of 

technologies to capture CO2 from 

industrial sources. 

Under no action sub-alternative 2, 

Leucadia would build the Gasification 

Plant and vent the CO2 to the 

atmosphere. The impacts from the 

construction and operation of the 

Gasification Plant would still occur. 

Leucadia would still capture the CO2

from the syngas using Rectisol®. 

Leucadia would route the CO2 stream to 

discharge to the atmosphere under the 

current air permit issued by LDEQ. 

Approximately 5.2 million tons of CO2

would be emitted per year from the 

carbon capture technology that would 

otherwise be captured. Emissions 

produced by the construction of the 

pipeline, and indirect emissions 

associated with electricity use by the 

CO2 capture and compression facility, 

would not occur. No impacts related to 

construction of the CO2 pipeline would 

occur. Denbury would continue to inject 

CO2 obtained from geologic sources in 

its ongoing EOR operations. The Lake 

Charles CCS project would not fund a 

research MVA program at the West 

Hastings oil field. If the CCS project is 

not built, the opportunity to capture an 

average of 4.6 million tons of 

anthropogenic CO2 per year over the 30 

year life of the Gasification Plant for use 

in EOR would be lost. Sub-alternative 2 

would not contribute to DOE’s goal of 

demonstrating the next generation of 

technologies that capture CO2 emissions 

from industrial sources. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

From a local perspective, no action 

sub-alternative 1 is the environmentally 

preferable alternative because it would 

result in no changes to existing 

environmental conditions. However, 

from a national perspective, DOE’s 

proposed action is the environmentally 

preferred alternative. Successful 

operation of the proposed project could 

facilitate the deployment of advanced 

technology integrated with an industrial 

source to capture CO2 that would 

otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere. 

Floodplain Statement of Findings 

DOE prepared this floodplain 

statement of findings in accordance 

with its regulations entitled 

‘‘Compliance With Floodplain and 

Wetland Environmental Review 

Requirements’’ (10 CFR 1022). DOE 

completed the required floodplain 

assessment in coordination with 

development and preparation of the EIS, 

and incorporated the results and 

discussion in Sections 3.4, 4.4, and 

Appendix E of the final EIS. 

Based on the FEMA Flood Insurance 

Map and Rita Recovery Maps, the 

Gasification Plant and the CO2 Capture 

and Compression facilities site’s 

Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) 

is 10 feet above mean sea level (MSL). 

The Gasification Plant and Capture and 

Compression site would be filled to an 

elevation that is above the ABFE. The 

120-acre area, which would include 40 

acres for equipment laydown during 

construction and methanol/sulfuric acid 

storage during operation, is within the 

100-year floodplain of the Calcasieu 

River. DOE assumes that the site would 

continue to be filled above the base 

flood elevation set by FEMA. Given the 

relative size of the 70-acre site and the 

40-acre site compared to the designated 

floodway of 8 miles along the Calcasieu 

ship channel and 3,976 acres drainage 

area, the fill would not result in a 

measurable increase in the upstream 

base flood elevation as determined by 

FEMA, nor have a measurable effect on 

the performance of the designated 

floodway. The proposed water and 

hydrogen pipelines associated with 

Gasification Plant would be installed 

below ground within the 100-year 

floodplain of Bayou d’Inde and 

Calcasieu River. 

The proposed CCS CO2 pipeline route 

is located in proximity to the 

floodplains of Bayou d’Inde, the 

Houston River, and the Calcasieu River, 

and much of the proposed route is 

located within 100-year floodplains of 

the Calcasieu River and its tributaries. 

The proposed pipeline would be 

installed below ground, therefore no 

alteration of infiltration rates and no 

substantial decrease in the volume of 

surface water that flows downstream 

would result. 

Approximately one-third of the West 

Hastings research MVA area, including 

two proposed well locations, is within 

the 100-year floodplain of Chigger 

Creek. However, research MVA 

activities would not increase the 

potential for floods, alter a floodway or 

floodplain, or otherwise impede or 

redirect flows such that human health, 

the environment, or personal property 

could be affected. Activities would be 

conducted on existing wells and no new 

construction would occur. 

As a result of location requirements, 

i.e., being adjacent to navigable waters 

and existing rail, road, and pipeline 

infrastructure, the proposed project and 

connected action were found to have no 

practicable siting alternatives. Based 

upon DOE’s review and the project 

proponents’ coordination with the local 

floodplain administrator and local 

USACE District, and adoption of 

minimization measures, DOE’s 

proposed action would not result in 

potential harm to or within floodplains. 

Issued in Pittsburgh, PA on this 28 day of 

December 2013. 

Scott M. Klara, 

Acting Director, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00299 Filed 1–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9012–9] 

Environmental Impact Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements filed 12/30/2013 through 

01/03/2014 pursuant to 40 CFR 

1506.9. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES