[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1854-1861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00299]


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

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: 
[email protected].

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[supreg]-based carbon-capture technology with beneficial use of 
the CO2 at an existing oil field would also generate 
technical, environmental, and financial data

[[Page 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[supreg]-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[supreg] 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 cost-shared 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.

[[Page 1856]]

    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 1858]]

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 off-site 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

[[Page 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 long-term 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

[[Page 1860]]

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 
short-term, 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

[[Page 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[supreg]. 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