[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55443-55445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22056]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the
Cameron LNG, LLC Export Application
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision in
Cameron LNG, LLC, DOE/FE Docket No. 11-162-LNG, to issue DOE/FE Order
No. 3391-A, its Final Opinion and Order Granting Long-Term Multi-
Contract Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel From
the Cameron LNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana to Non-Free Trade
Agreement Countries (Order No. 3391-A). Order No. 3391-A is issued
under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. DOE participated as a
cooperating agency with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
in preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzing the
potential environmental impacts of a proposed liquefaction project
(Liquefaction Project) and a proposed pipeline project (Pipeline
Project) and alternatives that, if constructed, will be used to support
the export authorization sought from DOE's Office of Fossil Energy
(FE).
ADDRESSES: The EIS and this Record of Decision (ROD) are available on
DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at http://energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents. Order No. 3391-A is available on DOE/
FE's Web site at http://energy.gov/fe/downloads/listing-doefe-authorizations-issued-2014. Copies of these documents may be requested
by writing John Anderson, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of
Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, Office of Fossil Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about
the project, the EIS, or the ROD, contact Mr. John Anderson as
indicated above under ADDRESSES or Mr. Edward LeDuc, U.S. Department of
Energy (GC-51), Office of the Assistant General Counsel for
Environment, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE prepared this ROD and Floodplain
Statement of Findings pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
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] parts 1500
through 1508), DOE's implementing procedures for NEPA (10 CFR part
1021), and DOE's ``Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental
Review Requirements'' (10 CFR part 1022).
Background
Cameron is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
Delaware, with its executive offices located in San Diego, California.
Cameron owns the existing Cameron LNG Terminal and has an existing
interconnection with Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LCC (Cameron
Interstate). Cameron Interstate, an affiliate of Cameron, is an
interstate pipeline regulated by FERC. Cameron Interstate's facilities
consist primarily of a 36.2 mile pipeline connecting the Cameron
Terminal with five other interstate pipelines. The Terminal initially
was used for the sole purpose of receiving and storing foreign-sourced
LNG, re-gasifying such LNG, and sending it out for delivery to domestic
markets. In January 2011, FERC authorized Cameron to operate the
Cameron Terminal for the additional purpose of exporting previously
imported (i.e., foreign sourced) LNG on behalf of its customers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cameron LNG, LLC, 134 FERC ] 61,049 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Description
Cameron proposes to site, construct, and operate the Liquefaction
Project, including liquefaction and export facilities, on a 502 acre
site that is partially within the existing Terminal fence line in
Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The Liquefaction Project includes three
liquefaction systems and a 160,000 cubic meter LNG storage tank, and
would allow Cameron to liquefy domestic natural gas supplies for the
export of approximately 12 million metric tons per year (mtpy) of LNG.
Cameron Interstate proposes to site, construct, operate, and
maintain the Pipeline Project, consisting of a new natural gas pipeline
in Cameron, Calcasieu and Beauregard Parishes, Louisiana. The Pipeline
Project includes the construction of 21 miles of 42-inch diameter
pipeline and a compressor station, and would add bi-directional flow
capability to Cameron Interstate's existing pipeline to enable the
transport of natural gas to the Cameron Terminal for export. The
pipeline right-of-way would be within or abutting existing rights-of-
way, and about 15.5 miles of the pipeline would be collocated with
Cameron Interstate's existing pipeline right-of-way.
Cameron's Application
Cameron filed its application with DOE in Docket No. 11-162-LNG on
December 21, 2011, seeking authorization to export up to 12 mtpy of
domestically produced LNG (the equivalent of 620 billion cubic feet
(bcf) per year of natural gas) for a 20-year period to nations with
which the United States has not entered into a free trade agreement
providing for national treatment for trade in natural gas (non-FTA
nations).\2\ On February 11, 2014, DOE/FE issued Order No. 3391 to
Cameron, conditionally granting Cameron's application for long-term,
multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced LNG by
vessel to non-FTA nations. DOE/FE conditionally authorized Cameron to
export LNG in a volume equivalent to 620 bcf per year of natural gas,
or approximately 12 mtpy of LNG, for a term of 20 years. The
Conditional Order addressed the record evidence and DOE/FE's findings
on all non-environmental issues considered under NGA section 3(a),
including economic impacts, international impacts, and security of gas
supply. Because DOE/FE must also consider environmental issues, DOE/FE
conditioned the authorization on satisfactory completion of the
environmental review process under NEPA and DOE/FE's issuance of a
finding of no significant impact or a record of decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Cameron previously sought authorization to export the same
quantity of LNG to any country with which the United States has, or
in the future may enter into, a FTA requiring national treatment for
trade in natural gas (FTA countries). DOE/FE granted that FTA
authorization by order dated January 17, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55444]]
EIS Process
FERC was the lead federal agency and initiated the NEPA process by
publishing a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal
Register (FR) on August 6, 2012 (77 FR 48145); DOE was a cooperating
agency. FERC issued the draft EIS for the Liquefaction Project and
Pipeline Project on January 10, 2014 (79 FR 3197), and the final EIS on
April 30, 2014 (79 FR 26244). The final EIS recommended that FERC
approve Cameron's proposed projects subject to 76 environmental
conditions. Accordingly, on June 19, 2014, FERC issued an ``Order
Granting Authorization Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and
Issuing Certificates'' (FERC Order), which authorized Cameron to site,
construct, and operate the Liquefaction Project, and for Cameron
Interstate to construct the associated Pipeline Project, subject to the
76 environmental conditions contained in Appendix A of that order.\3\
In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, after an independent review of FERC's
final EIS, DOE adopted the EIS on August 7, 2014 (DOE/EIS-0488), and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of that
adoption in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014. (79 FR 48140)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Cameron LNG, LLC, 147 FERC ] 61,230 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of
Natural Gas From the United States (Addendum)
On June 4, 2014, DOE/FE published the Draft Addendum for public
comment (79 FR 32258). Although not required by NEPA, DOE/FE prepared
the Addendum in an effort to be responsive to the public and to provide
the best information available on a subject that had been raised by
commenters. The Addendum is a review of existing literature and was
intended to provide information only on the resource areas potentially
impacted by unconventional gas production.
The 45-day comment period on the Draft Addendum closed on July 21,
2014. DOE/FE received 40,745 comments in 18 separate submissions, and
considered those comments in issuing the Addendum on August 15, 2014.
DOE provided a summary of the comments received and responses to
substantive comments in Appendix B of the Addendum. DOE/FE has
incorporated the Draft Addendum, comments, and final Addendum into the
record in its Cameron proceeding.
Alternatives
The EIS assessed alternatives that could achieve the project
objectives. The range of alternatives analyzed included the No-Action
Alternative, alternative energy sources, system alternatives,
alternative Terminal Expansion sites, alternative Terminal Expansion
configurations and designs, alternative Pipeline Expansion above ground
facility sites, and alternative compressor station designs.
Alternatives were evaluated and compared to the proposed project to
determine if the alternatives were environmentally preferable.
The EIS evaluated system alternatives for the Terminal Expansion,
including five operating LNG import terminals in the Gulf of Mexico
area, and seven proposed or planned liquefaction and export projects
along the Gulf Coast. All of the system alternatives were eliminated
from further consideration for reasons that include comparatively
greater construction, production volume limitations, in-service dates
scheduled significantly beyond Cameron's commitments to its customers,
and environmental impacts that were considered comparable to or greater
than those of the proposed project.
The EIS evaluated two alternative sites for the Terminal Expansion.
Construction of the Terminal Expansion at each of the alternative sites
would have comparatively greater impacts on open water, marshes,
aquatic resources, wetlands and wildlife.
For the Terminal Expansion, the EIS considered the use of on-site
power generation as a design alternative to the proposed use of
purchased power. During operation, emissions and noise levels of the
turbine generators under this alternative would be greater than those
of purchased power in the vicinity of the Terminal Expansion site.
However, based on the available data, it was not possible to determine
the overall difference in the levels of the key air emissions of the
two design options.
For the Pipeline Expansion, the EIS evaluated three existing
pipeline systems as system alternatives. None of the systems were
determined to be environmentally preferable, as each would require
significant expansion of the existing facilities and would likely
result in environmental impacts similar to or greater than those of the
Pipeline Expansion. The EIS did not identify any site-specific
environmental concerns that would necessitate consideration of
alternative pipeline routes, because the proposed route largely
overlaps or is parallel to existing rights-of-way.
The EIS evaluated four alternative sites for the Holbrook
Compressor Station and determined that these alternative sites were not
environmentally preferable to the proposed site. The EIS also evaluated
four design options for the compressor station. The use of purchased
power would result in increased impacts due to installation of an
additional 3.5-mile-long electrical distribution line, would not
provide the flexibility and quality of service Cameron Interstate
requires, would increase the cost of operation, and does not appear to
offer an emissions advantage over the proposed on-site power
generation. The use of larger turbine engines would decrease the
flexibility and reliability of service because the turbines would not
have variable speed control, and larger turbines would require more
than 35 percent more fuel, resulting in a substantial increase in
annual fuel expense. Best available control technology analysis
indicated selective catalytic reduction and use of an oxidation
catalyst were not feasible pollution control options due to economic,
environmental, and energy impacts. As a result, the EIS determined that
there was not a significant advantage to any of the design alternatives
considered for the Holbrook Compressor Station.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
When compared against the other action alternatives assessed in the
EIS, as discussed above, the Cameron project is the environmentally
preferred alternative. While the No-Action Alternative would avoid the
environmental impacts identified in the EIS, adoption of this
alternative would not meet the project objectives.
Decision
DOE has decided to issue Order No. 3391-A authorizing Cameron to
export domestically produced LNG by vessel from the Cameron LNG
Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, up to the equivalent of 620 bcf/
yr of natural gas for a term of 20 years to commence on the earlier of
the date of first export or seven years from the date that the Order is
issued (September 10, 2014).
Concurrently with this Record of Decision, DOE is issuing Order No.
3391-A in which it finds that a grant of the requested authorization
has not been shown to be inconsistent with the public interest, and
that the Application should be granted subject to compliance with the
terms and conditions set forth in the Order, including the 76
environmental conditions recommended in the EIS and adopted in
[[Page 55445]]
the FERC Order at Appendix A. Additionally, this authorization is
conditioned on Cameron's compliance with any other preventative and
mitigative measures imposed by other Federal or state agencies.
Basis of Decision
DOE's decision is based upon the analysis of potential
environmental impacts presented in the EIS, and DOE's determination in
Order No. 3391-A that the opponents of Cameron's application have
failed to overcome the statutory presumption that the proposed export
authorization is consistent with the public interest. Although not
required by NEPA, DOE also considered the Addendum, which summarizes
available information on potential upstream impacts associated with
unconventional natural gas activities, such as hydraulic fracturing.
Mitigation
As a condition of its decision to issue Order No. 3391-A
authorizing Cameron to export LNG, DOE is imposing requirements that
will avoid or minimize the environmental impacts of the project. These
conditions include the 76 environmental conditions recommended in the
EIS and adopted in the FERC Order at Appendix A. Mitigation measures
beyond those included in DOE's Order that are enforceable by other
Federal and state agencies are additional conditions of Order No. 3391-
A. With these conditions, DOE has determined that all practicable means
to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the Cameron project have
been adopted.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
DOE prepared this Floodplain Statement of Findings in accordance
with DOE's regulations entitled ``Compliance with Floodplain and
Wetland Environmental Review Requirements'' (10 CFR Part 1022). The
required floodplain and wetland assessment was conducted during
development and preparation of the EIS (see Table 3.6.1-1 and Section
4.1.4.1 of the EIS). DOE determined that the placement of some project
components within floodplains would be unavoidable. However, the
current design for the project minimizes floodplain impacts to the
extent practicable.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 10, 2014.
Christopher A. Smith,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 2014-22056 Filed 9-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P