81 FR 87915 - Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Magnolia LNG, LLC Application To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Countries
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 234 (December 6, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 234 (December 6, 2016)
| Page Range | 87915-87917 | |
| FR Document | 2016-29206 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 87915-87917] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-29206] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Magnolia LNG, LLC Application To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non- Free Trade Agreement Countries AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Record of Decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision in Magnolia LNG, LLC (Magnolia LNG), DOE/FE Docket No. 13-132-LNG, to issue DOE/FE Order No. 3909, granting final long-term, multi contract authorization for Magnolia LNG to engage in the export of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the proposed Magnolia LNG facility located near Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, in a volume equivalent to 394.2 Bcf/yr (equal to 1.08 Bcf/day) of natural gas for a term of 25 years. Magnolia LNG is seeking to export LNG from the terminal to countries with which the United States has not entered into a free trade agreement (FTA) that requires national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries). Order No. 3909 is issued under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and 10 CFR part 590 of DOE's regulations. DOE participated as a cooperating agency with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) \1\ analyzing the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed LNG facility. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Projects, Docket Nos. CP14-347-000 and CP14-511-000, FERC/EIS--0260F (Nov. 2015). 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/downloads/eis-0498-final-environmental-impact-statement. Order No. 3909 is available on DOE/FE's Web site at: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/authorizations/2013_applications/Magnolia_LNG%2C_LLC_-_FE_Dkt._No._13-132-L.html. For additional information about the docket in these proceedings, contact Larine Moore, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about the EIS or the ROD, contact Mr. Kyle W. Moorman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5600, or Mr. Edward Le Duc, U.S. Department of Energy, 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 Magnolia LNG, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, proposes to construct liquefaction facilities in Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish Louisiana (Magnolia LNG Project). The Magnolia LNG Project will connect to the U.S. natural gas pipeline and transmission system through a proposed pipeline system modification and upgrade project (Lake Charles Expansion Project) to an interstate natural gas pipeline owned by Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC (KMLP). On October 15, 2013, Magnolia LNG filed the application (Application) with DOE/FE seeking authorization to export domestically produced LNG. Magnolia LNG proposes to export this LNG to non-FTA countries in a total volume equivalent to 394.2 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/yr) of natural gas. Magnolia LNG has also submitted two applications to DOE/FE for authorizations to export LNG to FTA countries, each in the amount of 197.1 Bcf/yr (0.54 Bcf/day) for a 25-year term, for a combined total authorized FTA export volume of 394.2 Bcf/yr (1.08 Bcf/day). DOE/FE subsequently granted these FTA applications.\2\ The authorized [[Page 87916]] FTA export volumes are not additive to the export volumes requested in this proceeding. Therefore, DOE's grant of the pending non-FTA export application in this proceeding will not provide Magnolia LNG with the authority to export more than 394.2 Bcf/yr of natural gas from the Magnolia LNG Project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Magnolia LNG, LLC, Order Granting Long-Term Multi-Contract Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel from the Proposed Magnolia LNG Terminal in Lake Charles, Louisiana to Free Trade Agreement Nations, DOE/FE Order No. 3245, February 26, 2013 (FE Docket No 12-183-LNG); Magnolia LNG, LLC, Order Granting Long- Term Multi-Contract Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel from the Proposed Magnolia LNG Terminal in Lake Charles, Louisiana to Free Trade Agreement Nations, DOE/FE Order No. 3406, March 5, 2014 (FE Docket No 13-131-LNG). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to its Application to DOE/FE for export authority, on April 30, 2014, Magnolia LNG submitted an applications to FERC under sections 3 of the NGA for the siting, construction, and operation of the Magnolia LNG Project and, on June 30, 2014, KMLP submitted an application under section 7 of the NGA for approval of the Lake Charles Expansion Project. FERC issued an order granting Magnolia LNG its requested Section 3 authorization and KMLP its requested certificate of public convenience and necessity under Section 7 (c) on April 15, 2016 (the ``FERC Order'').\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Order Granting Authorization Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and Issuing Certificates, FERC Docket Nos. CP14-347-000 and CP14-511-000, 155 FERC ] 61,033 (issued April 15, 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Description The Magnolia LNG Project will include a new liquefaction facility consisting of four liquefaction trains, two LNG storage tanks with a capacity of approximately 160,000 cubic meters each, a LNG vessel loading berth, and a LNG truck loading area. The Lake Charles Expansion Project will require varying lengths/diameters of new pipeline/pipeline facilities in Acadia, Calcasieu and Evangeline Parishes, Louisiana, to supply natural gas to the liquefaction facility from existing gas transmission pipelines. This pipeline project includes the construction of approximately 6,400 feet of 36-inch-diameter and 700 feet of 24- inch-diameter header pipelines in existing KMLP right-of-way along with one new compressor station. EIS Process FERC was the lead federal agency and initiated the NEPA process by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the Magnolia LNG Project in FERC Docket No. PF13-9 on June 18, 2013, and for the Lake Charles Expansion Project in CP14-511 on August 11, 2014. FERC conducted a single environmental review process, that addressed both of these projects and DOE was a cooperating agency. FERC issued the draft EIS for the Liquefaction and Expansion Projects on July 17, 2015 and published in the Federal Register a notice of availability (NOA) for the draft EIS on July 24, 2015 (80 FR 44093). FERC issued the final EIS on November 13, 2015 and published a NOA for the final EIS on November 19, 2015 (80 FR 72431). The final EIS addresses comments received on the draft EIS. Among other resource areas, the final EIS addresses groundwater, water resources, socioeconomics, air quality and noise, reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. The final EIS recommended that FERC subject any approval of the Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Projects to 114 conditions to reduce the environmental impacts that would otherwise result from the construction and operation of the project. Accordingly, FERC issued an Order authorizing the Projects on April 15, 2016, subject to 115 environmental conditions contained in Appendix H of that Order.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\Within its Order, FERC included an additional condition to the 114 conditions listed in the EIE related to commissioning volumes to its environmental mitigation measures. See Appendix H of the FERC Order for more details. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, after an independent review of FERC's final EIS, DOE/FE adopted FERC's final EIS (DOE/EIS-0498). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of the adoption on September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67348). 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 to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas from the United States (Draft Addendum) for public comment (79 FR 32258). The purpose of this review was to provide additional information to the public concerning the potential environmental impacts of unconventional natural gas exploration and production activities, including hydraulic fracturing. 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 in this and other LNG export proceedings. 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 Final 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 this proceeding. Alternatives The EIS assessed alternatives that could achieve the Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Projects' objectives. The range of alternatives analyzed included the No-Action alternative, system alternatives, site alternatives, and process alternatives. Alternatives were evaluated and compared to the Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Projects to determine if the alternatives were environmentally preferable. In analyzing the No-Action Alternative, the EIS reviewed the effects and actions that could result if the proposed Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Projects were not constructed. FERC determined that other LNG export projects could be developed in the Gulf Coast region or elsewhere in the U.S., resulting in both adverse and beneficial environmental impacts. LNG terminal developments and pipeline system expansion of similar scope and magnitude to the proposed projects would likely result in environmental impacts of comparable significance, especially those projects in similar regional settings. The EIS evaluated system alternatives which included an evaluation of the LNG terminal design as well as the pipeline system. For the LNG terminal, the EIS evaluated nine existing LNG terminals with approved, proposed, or planned status and 19 greenfield LNG terminals that are approved, proposed, or planned along the Gulf Coast of the U.S. In order to be a compatible alternative, it would have to meet Magnolia LNG's purpose and objective: To construct and operate a terminal to serve both domestic and export markets for LNG. The alternatives each lacked infrastructure to support LNG truck loading facilities and/or the proposed liquefaction volume capacity, and were therefore not further considered as viable alternatives. For the alternatives to the pipeline system, the EIS evaluated three major natural gas pipeline systems within three miles of the proposed site. Although the proposed pipeline expansion requires reconfiguration (e.g. new metering station and new interconnect pipeline), the three alternatives either do not meet the necessary capacity requirements or require the construction of longer pipeline connections. [[Page 87917]] The EIS evaluated four site alternatives. In order to meet the stated objectives of Magnolia LNG Project, the EIS considered following factors when identifying the site that would most likely pose some environmental advantage to the proposed terminal site: Waterfront access; property size; existing land use; site availability; natural gas pipelines and transmission lines; population center/residences; distance to an interstate highway; and wetlands. After evaluating each of the site alternatives, the EIS concluded that the proposed site would have less impact on wetlands, greater separation between population center/residences, and greater optimization of existing land use. For the process alternatives, the EIS considered several liquefaction technologies in addition to the proposed Optimized Single Mixed Refrigerant (OSMR) [supreg] Process by LNG Technology). Although the OSMR[supreg] Process uses anhydrous ammonia, which present several safety hazards, methods of mitigating the safety hazards are well understood and subject to additional federal regulation. The EIS determined that none of the alternatives would have a significant safety or environmental advantage over the OSMR[supreg] Process when considering additional mitigation measure outlined in LNG Facility Siting Requirements at section 4.12.5 of the EIS. Environmentally Preferred Alternative When compared against the other action alternatives assessed in the EIS, as discussed above, the proposed Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Projects are 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 Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Projects objectives. Decision DOE has decided to issue Order No. 3909 authorizing Magnolia LNG to export domestically produced LNG by vessel from the Magnolia LNG terminal located in Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana to non- FTA countries, in a volume up to the equivalent to 394.2 Bcf/yr of natural gas for a term of 25 years to commence on the earlier of the date of first export or seven years from the date that the Order is issued. Concurrently with this Record of Decision, DOE is issuing Order No. 3909 in which it finds that the requested authorization has not been shown to be inconsistent with the public interest, and the Application should be granted subject to compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Order, including the environmental conditions recommended in the EIS and adopted in the FERC Order at Appendix H. Additionally, this authorization is conditioned on Magnolia LNG's compliance with any other mitigation 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. 3909 that the opponents of Magnolia LNG's Application have failed to overcome the statutory presumption that the proposed export authorization is not inconsistent with the public interest. Although not required by NEPA, DOE/FE 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. 3909 authorizing Magnolia LNG to export LNG to non-FTA countries, DOE is imposing requirements that will avoid or minimize the environmental impacts of the project. These conditions include the environmental conditions recommended in the EIS and adopted in the FERC Order at Appendix H. Mitigation measures beyond those included in Order No. 3909 that are enforceable by other Federal and state agencies are additional conditions of Order No. 3909. With these conditions, DOE/FE has determined that all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Projects 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 assessment was conducted during development and preparation of the EIS (see Section 4.1.3.3 of the EIS). DOE determined that the majority of the LNG terminal site is outside the 500-year floodplain and the pipeline facilities are outside the 100- and 500- year floodplains. However, placement of some project components within floodplains would be unavoidable. Overall, the current design for the Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Projects minimizes floodplain impacts to the extent practicable. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 30, 2016. Christopher A. Smith, Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy. [FR Doc. 2016-29206 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2016 / Notices 87915
Mitigations Identified Through DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EIS or the ROD, contact Mr. Kyle W.
Consultation Moorman, U.S. Department of Energy,
Record of Decision and Floodplain Office of Regulation and International
Mitigation commitments resulting Statement of Findings for the Magnolia Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural
from consultations with the State LNG, LLC Application To Export Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E–
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free 042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Tribal Government (Appendix B of the Trade Agreement Countries Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–5600,
EIS) are listed below: AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, or Mr. Edward Le Duc, U.S. Department
1. Idaho State Historical Society Department of Energy. of Energy, Office of the Assistant
Compliance Archeologist concurred General Counsel for Environment, 1000
ACTION: Record of Decision.
with the recommendation of no adverse Independence Avenue SW.,
effect if ‘‘Recommendations for SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Washington, DC 20585.
Additional Project Measures’’ as Energy (DOE) announces its decision in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
identified in Section 8.3 of the 2013 Magnolia LNG, LLC (Magnolia LNG), prepared this ROD and Floodplain
Cultural Resources Investigations Report DOE/FE Docket No. 13–132–LNG, to Statement of Findings pursuant to the
issue DOE/FE Order No. 3909, granting National Environmental Policy Act of
are adopted. A subset of the
final long-term, multi contract 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.]
recommendations that meet the
authorization for Magnolia LNG to 4321, et seq.), and in compliance with
definition for mitigations are: engage in the export of domestically the Council on Environmental Quality
• Monitor sensitive archaeological produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) (CEQ) implementing regulations for
resources located in proximity to the from the proposed Magnolia LNG NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations
three defined direct areas of potential facility located near Lake Charles, [CFR] parts 1500 through 1508), DOE’s
effect for indirect impacts and Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, in a volume implementing procedures for NEPA (10
implement protective measures if equivalent to 394.2 Bcf/yr (equal to 1.08 CFR part 1021), and DOE’s ‘‘Compliance
warranted; Bcf/day) of natural gas for a term of 25 with Floodplain and Wetland
years. Magnolia LNG is seeking to Environmental Review Requirements’’
• Conduct cultural resource
export LNG from the terminal to (10 CFR part 1022).
sensitivity training for personnel to
countries with which the United States
discourage unauthorized artifact has not entered into a free trade Background
collection, off-road vehicle use, and agreement (FTA) that requires national Magnolia LNG, a Delaware limited
other activities that may impact cultural treatment for trade in natural gas, and liability company with its principal
resources; with which trade is not prohibited by place of business in Houston, Texas,
• Implement a Stop Work Procedure U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries). proposes to construct liquefaction
to guide the assessment and protection Order No. 3909 is issued under section facilities in Lake Charles, Calcasieu
of any unanticipated discoveries of 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and 10 Parish Louisiana (Magnolia LNG
cultural materials during construction CFR part 590 of DOE’s regulations. DOE Project). The Magnolia LNG Project will
and operations. participated as a cooperating agency connect to the U.S. natural gas pipeline
with the Federal Energy Regulatory and transmission system through a
2. Provide the Shoshone-Bannock Commission (FERC) in preparing an proposed pipeline system modification
Tribes Heritage Tribal Office the environmental impact statement (EIS) 1 and upgrade project (Lake Charles
opportunity to monitor key ground- analyzing the potential environmental Expansion Project) to an interstate
disturbing activities that occur at NRF impacts resulting from the proposed natural gas pipeline owned by Kinder
in support of the recapitalization LNG facility. Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC (KMLP).
activities. ADDRESSES: The EIS and this Record of On October 15, 2013, Magnolia LNG
Mitigations Where Credit Is Taken for Decision (ROD) are available on DOE’s filed the application (Application) with
Impact Reduction National Environmental Policy Act DOE/FE seeking authorization to export
(NEPA) Web site at: http://energy.gov/ domestically produced LNG. Magnolia
Best Management Practices (BMPs) nepa/downloads/eis-0498-final- LNG proposes to export this LNG to
identified in the EIS that are part of environmental-impact-statement. Order non-FTA countries in a total volume
adopted DOE, INL, or NRF plans, No. 3909 is available on DOE/FE’s Web equivalent to 394.2 billion cubic feet per
contractor stipulations, or listed in site at: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/ year (Bcf/yr) of natural gas.
standard operating procedures for the programs/gasregulation/authorizations/ Magnolia LNG has also submitted two
DOE, INL, or NRF are not considered a 2013_applications/Magnolia_LNG%2C_ applications to DOE/FE for
mitigation. Additional BMPs, where LLC_-_FE_Dkt._No._13-132-L.html. For authorizations to export LNG to FTA
additional information about the docket countries, each in the amount of 197.1
credit is taken for reducing an impact
in these proceedings, contact Larine Bcf/yr (0.54 Bcf/day) for a 25-year term,
are listed below:
Moore, U.S. Department of Energy, for a combined total authorized FTA
1. Use of high-performance generators Office of Regulation and International export volume of 394.2 Bcf/yr (1.08 Bcf/
(Tier-4). Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural day). DOE/FE subsequently granted
Issued in Washington, DC, on 15 November Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E– these FTA applications.2 The authorized
2016. 042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Washington, DC 20585. 2 Magnolia LNG, LLC, Order Granting Long-Term
James F. Caldwell, Jr., Multi-Contract Authorization to Export Liquefied
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. Natural Gas by Vessel from the Proposed Magnolia
obtain additional information about the LNG Terminal in Lake Charles, Louisiana to Free
[FR Doc. 2016–29203 Filed 12–5–16; 8:45 am]
Trade Agreement Nations, DOE/FE Order No. 3245,
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the February 26, 2013 (FE Docket No 12–183–LNG);
Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Magnolia LNG, LLC, Order Granting Long-Term
Projects, Docket Nos. CP14–347–000 and CP14– Multi-Contract Authorization to Export Liquefied
511–000, FERC/EIS—0260F (Nov. 2015). Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Dec 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM 06DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_88149/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2016 / Notices 87917
The EIS evaluated four site and the Application should be granted for the Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles
alternatives. In order to meet the stated subject to compliance with the terms Expansion Projects minimizes
objectives of Magnolia LNG Project, the and conditions set forth in the Order, floodplain impacts to the extent
EIS considered following factors when including the environmental conditions practicable.
identifying the site that would most recommended in the EIS and adopted in Issued in Washington, DC, on November
likely pose some environmental the FERC Order at Appendix H. 30, 2016.
advantage to the proposed terminal site: Additionally, this authorization is Christopher A. Smith,
Waterfront access; property size; conditioned on Magnolia LNG’s Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy.
existing land use; site availability; compliance with any other mitigation
[FR Doc. 2016–29206 Filed 12–5–16; 8:45 am]
natural gas pipelines and transmission measures imposed by other federal or
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
lines; population center/residences; state agencies.
distance to an interstate highway; and
Basis of Decision
wetlands. After evaluating each of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
site alternatives, the EIS concluded that DOE’s decision is based upon the
the proposed site would have less analysis of potential environmental Federal Energy Regulatory
impact on wetlands, greater separation impacts presented in the EIS, and DOE’s Commission
between population center/residences, determination in Order No. 3909 that
and greater optimization of existing land the opponents of Magnolia LNG’s [Project No. 1971–079]
use. Application have failed to overcome the
statutory presumption that the proposed Idaho Power Company; Notice of
For the process alternatives, the EIS
export authorization is not inconsistent Petition for Declaratory Order
considered several liquefaction
technologies in addition to the proposed with the public interest. Although not Take notice that on November 23,
Optimized Single Mixed Refrigerant required by NEPA, DOE/FE also 2016, Idaho Power Company (Idaho
(OSMR) ® Process by LNG Technology). considered the Addendum, which Power), licensee of the Hells Canyon
Although the OSMR® Process uses summarizes available information on Project No. 1971, filed a petition for a
anhydrous ammonia, which present potential upstream impacts associated declaratory order (petition) pursuant to
several safety hazards, methods of with unconventional natural gas Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy
mitigating the safety hazards are well activities, such as hydraulic fracturing. Regulatory Commission’s Rules of
understood and subject to additional Mitigation Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
federal regulation. The EIS determined 385.207(a)(2). Idaho Power requests that
that none of the alternatives would have As a condition of its decision to issue the Commission declare that, under the
a significant safety or environmental Order No. 3909 authorizing Magnolia Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
advantage over the OSMR® Process LNG to export LNG to non-FTA Constitution, Part I of the Federal Power
when considering additional mitigation countries, DOE is imposing Act (FPA) 1 preempts the fish passage
measure outlined in LNG Facility Siting requirements that will avoid or provisions contained in Oregon Revised
Requirements at section 4.12.5 of the minimize the environmental impacts of Statute 509.585 with respect to the Hells
EIS. the project. These conditions include Canyon Project, all as more fully
the environmental conditions explained in its petition.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative recommended in the EIS and adopted in Any person desiring to intervene or to
When compared against the other the FERC Order at Appendix H. protest this filing must file in
action alternatives assessed in the EIS, Mitigation measures beyond those accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of
as discussed above, the proposed included in Order No. 3909 that are the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles enforceable by other Federal and state Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214.
Expansion Projects are the agencies are additional conditions of Protests will be considered by the
environmentally preferred alternative. Order No. 3909. With these conditions, Commission in determining the
While the No-Action Alternative would DOE/FE has determined that all appropriate action to be taken, but will
avoid the environmental impacts practicable means to avoid or minimize not serve to make protestants parties to
identified in the EIS, adoption of this environmental harm from the Magnolia the proceeding. Any person wishing to
alternative would not meet the Magnolia LNG and Lake Charles Expansion become a party must file a notice of
LNG and Lake Charles Expansion Projects have been adopted. intervention or motion to intervene, as
Projects objectives. appropriate. Such notices, motions, or
Floodplain Statement of Findings
protests must be filed on or before the
Decision DOE prepared this Floodplain comment date. Anyone filing a motion
DOE has decided to issue Order No. Statement of Findings in accordance to intervene or protest must serve a copy
3909 authorizing Magnolia LNG to with DOE’s regulations, entitled of that document on the Petitioner.
export domestically produced LNG by ‘‘Compliance with Floodplain and The Commission encourages
vessel from the Magnolia LNG terminal Wetland Environmental Review electronic submission of protests and
located in Lake Charles, Calcasieu Requirements’’ (10 CFR part 1022). The interventions in lieu of paper using the
Parish, Louisiana to non-FTA countries, required floodplain assessment was ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov.
in a volume up to the equivalent to conducted during development and Persons unable to file electronically
394.2 Bcf/yr of natural gas for a term of preparation of the EIS (see Section should submit an original and 5 copies
25 years to commence on the earlier of 4.1.3.3 of the EIS). DOE determined that
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
of the protest or intervention to the
the date of first export or seven years the majority of the LNG terminal site is Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
from the date that the Order is issued. outside the 500-year floodplain and the 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
Concurrently with this Record of pipeline facilities are outside the 100- 20426.
Decision, DOE is issuing Order No. 3909 and 500-year floodplains. However, This filing is accessible on-line at
in which it finds that the requested placement of some project components http://www.ferc.gov, using the
authorization has not been shown to be within floodplains would be
inconsistent with the public interest, unavoidable. Overall, the current design 1 16 U.S.C. 791a–823d (2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Dec 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM 06DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_88149/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2016-12-06 02:18:56
Document Modified: 2016-12-06 02:18:56
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Record of Decision. | |
| Contact | To obtain additional information about the EIS or the ROD, contact Mr. Kyle W. Moorman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5600, or Mr. Edward Le Duc, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Environment, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 87915 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR