82 FR 20328 - Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Golden Pass Products LLC Application To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Countries

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 82 (May 1, 2017)

Page Range		20328-20331
FR Document		2017-08744

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy (FE) announces its decision in Golden Pass Products LLC (GPP), FE Docket No. 12-156-LNG, to issue DOE/FE Order No. 3978 (Order No. 3978), granting long-term, multi-contract authorization for GPP to engage in the export of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG). GPP seeks authorization to export the LNG by vessel from its proposed export project (GPP Export Project) to be constructed contiguous to and interconnected with the existing Golden Pass LNG Terminal (Terminal), a LNG import terminal owned and operated by Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC (GPLNG). GPP is seeking to export this LNG by vessel to any country with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring 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. 3978 is issued under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and 10 CFR part 590 of DOE's regulations.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20328-20331]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08744]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the
Golden Pass Products 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), Office of Fossil Energy
(FE) announces its decision in Golden Pass Products LLC (GPP), FE
Docket No. 12-156-LNG, to issue DOE/FE Order No. 3978 (Order No. 3978),
granting long-term, multi-contract authorization for GPP to engage in
the export of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG). GPP
seeks authorization to export the LNG by vessel from its proposed
export project (GPP Export Project) to be constructed contiguous to and
interconnected with the existing Golden Pass LNG Terminal (Terminal), a
LNG import terminal owned and operated by Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC
(GPLNG). GPP is seeking to export this LNG by vessel to any country
with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA)
requiring 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. 3978 is issued under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
and 10 CFR part 590 of DOE's regulations.

ADDRESSES: The EIS and this Record of Decision (ROD) are available on
DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0501-final-environmental-impact-statement. Order No. 3978 is available on DOE/FE's Web site at: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/authorizations/2012_applications/Golden_Pass_Products%2C_LLC_12-156-LNG.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

[[Page 20329]]

EIS or the ROD, contact 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 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

GPP, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place
of business in Houston, Texas, proposes to construct liquefaction and
export facilities (GPP Export Project) at the existing Golden Pass LNG
Terminal located near Sabine Pass, Texas. The GPP Export Project will
connect to the U.S. natural gas pipeline and transmission system
through the proposed expansion of an existing natural gas pipeline
(Pipeline Expansion Project) owned by GPP's affiliate, Golden Pass
Pipeline LLC (GPPL)).
On October 26, 2012, GPP filed an application (Application) with
DOE/FE seeking authorization to export domestically produced LNG in a
volume equivalent to 740 Bcf/yr of natural gas to non-FTA countries.
GPP stated this volume is equal to 15.6 million metric tons per annum
(mtpa) of LNG based on a conversion factor of 47.256 Bcf per million
metric tons. DOE/FE, however, uses a different conversion factor for
U.S.-produced LNG (51.75 Bcf per million metric tons), resulting in an
increased export volume.\1\ Accordingly, DOE/FE is authorizing GPP to
export LNG from the GPP Export Project at the Golden Pass LNG Terminal
in a volume equivalent to approximately 808 Bcf/yr of natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In the Application (1 n.3), GPP used a conversion factor of
47.256 Bcf per million metric tons of dry natural gas. DOE uses a
conversion factor of 51.75 Bcf per million metric tons of dry
natural gas to represent typical domestic natural gas quality, which
converts the requested export volume to 808 Bcf/yr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2012, DOE/FE granted GPP's separate authorization to export LNG
to FTA countries in a volume equivalent to 740 Bcf/yr of natural gas
(2.02 Bcf/d) for a 25-year term.\2\ The authorized FTA export volume is
not additive to the export volume authorized in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Golden Pass Products LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 3147, FE Docket
No 12-88-LNG, Order Granting Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization
To Export Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel from the Golden Pass LNG
Terminal to Free Trade Agreement Nations (Sept. 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, on July 7, 2014, GPP and GPPL filed their respective
applications with FERC under sections 3 and 7(c) of the NGA for the
siting, construction, and operation of the GPP Export Project and
Pipeline Expansion Project. On December 21, 2016, FERC issued an order
granting GPP its requested section 3 authorization and GPPL its
requested certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7(c).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Golden Pass Products LLC, Order Granting Authorizations
Under Sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 157 FERC ] 61,222
(Dec. 21, 2016) [hereinafter FERC Order].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project Description

The GPP Export Project will be constructed contiguous to and
interconnected with the existing Golden Pass LNG Terminal. GPP intends
to construct and operate the export facilities to maximize use of the
existing import terminal facilities, with the intent of preserving full
import capability of those existing facilities while also creating the
proposed new export capability. By locating the GPP Export Project on
this existing industrial footprint, GPP states that environmental and
community effects will be minimized.
The GPP Export Project primarily will consist of feed gas treatment
facilities; three liquefaction trains (each with a liquefaction
capacity of 5.2 mtpa of LNG, for a total liquefaction capacity of 15.6
mtpa); a flare system to support the liquefaction trains; a truck
loading and unloading facility; refrigerant and condensate storage;
safety and control systems; and a supply dock and alternate marine
delivery facilities at the Terminal.
GPPL's Pipeline Expansion Project will require new pipeline and
associated pipeline facilities in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and in
Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas, to supply natural gas to the
liquefaction facility from existing natural gas transmission pipelines.
This Pipeline Expansion Project primarily will include the construction
of 2.6 miles of a 24-inch-diameter pipeline loop on the existing GPPL
pipeline; three new compressor stations and associated above ground
facilities; and modifications to existing interconnections and metering
facilities with five natural gas pipeline systems.

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 GPP
Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project in FERC Docket No. PF13-
14-000 on September 19, 2013. FERC conducted a single environmental
review process that addressed both of these projects, and DOE
participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS.
FERC issued the draft EIS on March 25, 2016, and published in the
Federal Register a notice of availability (NOA) for the draft EIS on
April 1, 2016 (81 FR 18852). FERC issued the final EIS \4\ on July 29,
2016, and published a NOA for the final EIS on August 5, 2016 (81 FR
51880). The final EIS addresses comments received on the draft EIS. The
final EIS also addresses geology; soils; water resources; wetlands;
vegetation; wildlife and fisheries; special status species; land use,
recreation, and visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources;
air quality and noise; reliability and safety; cumulative impacts; and
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Golden Pass LNG
Export Project, Docket Nos. CP14-517-000 and CP14-518-000, FERC/EIS-
0264F (July 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final EIS recommended that FERC subject any approval of the GPP
Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project to 85 conditions to
reduce the environmental impacts that would otherwise result from the
Projects' construction and operation. Subsequently, the FERC Order
authorized GPP and GPPL to site, construct, and operate their
respective Projects subject to 83 environmental conditions (or
mitigation measures) contained in the Appendix of the Order. Although
FERC Staff had recommended 85 mitigation measures in the final EIS,
FERC determined that GPP had met two of the requirements, and therefore
omitted these two environmental mitigation measures from the Order. On
that basis, FERC adopted 83 environmental mitigation measures as
conditions to GPP's and GPPL's authorizations granted in the Order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ On February 1, 2017, FERC issued an errata to the FERC
Order, in which it corrected its reference to certain environmental
conditions in the text of the Order. Golden Pass Products, LLC, et
al., Errata Notice, 158 FERC ] 61,106 (Feb. 1, 2017).

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

[[Page 20330]]

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-0501). The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of the adoption
on January 27, 2017 (82 FR 8613).

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 32,258).
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 Draft
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 Addendum into the record
in this proceeding.

Alternatives

The EIS assessed alternatives that could achieve the GPP Export
Project's and Pipeline Expansion Project's objectives. The range of
alternatives analyzed included the No-Action alternative, system
alternatives, alternative terminal expansion sites, alternative supply
dock sites, alternative terminal configurations and power sources,
alternative pipeline routes, alternative pipeline expansion aboveground
facility sites, alternative sites for pipe storage and contractor
yards, and alternative compressor station design. Alternatives were
evaluated and compared to the GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion
Project 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 GPP Export
Project and Pipeline Expansion Project were not constructed. The EIS
determined that this alternative could result in the use or expansion
of other existing or proposed LNG export projects and associated
interstate natural gas pipeline systems, or in the construction of new
infrastructure to meet the objectives of the GPP Export Project and
Pipeline Expansion Project. Any expansion of the existing or
construction of the proposed systems/facilities would result in
specific environmental impacts that could be less than, similar to, or
greater than those associated with the GPP Export Project and Pipeline
Expansion Project depending on a variety of circumstances.
The EIS evaluated system alternatives that included an evaluation
of the terminal expansion as well as the pipeline system. For the LNG
export terminal, the EIS evaluated five existing LNG import terminals
with approved, proposed, or planned status and 18 stand-alone LNG
terminals that are approved, proposed, or planned along the Gulf Coast
of the U.S. In order to be a viable alternative, it would have to meet
the GPP Export Project's purpose and need of the terminal expansion, be
technically feasible, and offer a significant environmental advantage
over the proposed terminal expansion. Based on an evaluation of the
alternatives, the EIS determined that each of the potential
alternatives were not reasonable or lacked significant environmental
advantage over GPP Export Project's design.
To serve as a viable pipeline system alternative to the Pipeline
Expansion Project, the alternative would need to (1) transport all or
part of the volume of the natural gas required for liquefaction at the
terminal expansion; and (2) cause significantly less impact on the
environment than the proposed pipeline expansion. Additionally, the
natural gas provided by the system alternative must connect to the
existing GPPL pipeline or directly to the terminal expansion. The EIS
determined that no single pipeline in proximity to the existing Golden
Pass LNG Terminal could supply the required natural gas supply delivery
pressure. Any potential pipeline alternatives would require
construction of a new lateral extension to the terminal expansion or an
entirely new pipeline system to connect to supply. The impacts of
constructing the alternatives would result in substantially greater
impacts than those of the proposed pipeline expansion.
The EIS evaluated several terminal expansion site alternatives. The
EIS analyzed the feasibility of constructing the terminal expansion
based on the use of the existing infrastructure such as the LNG storage
tanks, LNG carrier berths, or other associated facilities. The EIS
considered that the construction and operation of alternative or new
facilities would substantially increase the environmental impacts of
the GPP Export Project compared to the proposed use of the existing
infrastructure.
For the supply dock site alternatives, the EIS considered the
following three sites in comparison to the proposed site: (1) Use of
the existing import terminal ship slip; (2) improvements and use of an
existing marine dock (Broussard Dock); and (3) improvements and use of
an existing tug berth. Each of the three alternatives required either
more construction in surrounding wetlands or required removing existing
equipment to allow for re-construction of necessary facilities. Based
on this analysis, the EIS concluded that the proposed supply dock was
the environmentally preferred alternative.
For the alternative terminal configurations and power sources, the
EIS was limited due to siting requirements in terminal configurations
and analyzed two power source alternatives. Due to the regulatory
siting requirements regarding thermal exclusion and vapor dispersion
zones, the EIS was unable to determine an alternative configuration
that still met these requirements. In terms of alternative power
sources to the proposed gas-fired steam turbines generators on the
liquefaction trains, the EIS considered the following: (1) Power
produced by onsite steam generation plant; and (2) electrical power
generated offsite. For both alternatives, higher carbon dioxide
emissions and decreases in energy efficiency made the proposed power
source the preferred option.
For the alternative pipeline routes, the EIS did not identify any
environmental concerns that would require the need to identify and
evaluate alternative pipeline routes to minimize environmental impacts.
The proposed route would limit the environmental impacts and is the
preferred alternative.
The EIS evaluated alternative sites for the proposed three
compressor stations and associated aboveground facilities for the
pipeline expansion. To assess alternative compressor station sites, the
EIS considered the following seven factors: (1) Compression
requirements; (2) distance from the nearest Noise Sensitive Areas; (3)
use of upland areas to minimize impacts on wetlands; (4)

[[Page 20331]]

impacts on cultural resources or eligible historic properties; (5)
presence of known contamination due to industrial activities; (6)
presence of natural visual screening; and (7) accessibility. For each
of the three proposed compressor stations and their proposed sites, the
EIS determined the alternative either offered no significant
environmental advantage or would have a more substantial impact on
wetlands compared to the proposed site.
Regarding the associated aboveground facilities for the pipeline
expansion, the proposed aboveground facilities were all within the
existing GPPL pipeline right-of-way. As a result, the EIS did not
identify any environmental concerns that indicated the need to evaluate
alternative sites.
For alternative sites for pipe storage and contractor yard, the EIS
considered one alternative to the proposed site. The alternative site
consisted of land with varying commercial/industrial and agricultural
uses. If the alternative site was selected, the agricultural use would
be displaced. The proposed site, in comparison, is already previously
distributed industrial-use land used for the construction of the
existing GPPL pipeline. As a result, the alternative site did not offer
a significant environmental advantage over the proposed site.
Finally, the EIS included an alternative compressor station design.
Instead of the proposed gas-fired compressors, the alternative design
evaluated the use of electric-powered compressors. When comparing the
two designs, the EIS focused on the issue of additional infrastructure
needed to power the electric-power compressor stations. Use of
electricity would require each station to install varying lengths of
distribution lines to the compressor stations and a substation and/or
switch station to meet power requirements. Additionally, the electrical
power could come from existing electrical generation plants with
varying fuel uses. However, overall emissions reductions resulting from
the use of electric-powered versus gas-powered compressor stations will
vary depending on the fuel used. As a result, the EIS concluded the
alternative did not offer a significant environmental advantage over
the proposed compressor station design.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

When compared against the other action alternatives assessed in the
EIS, as discussed above, the proposed GPP Export Project and Pipeline
Expansion Project are the environmentally preferred alternatives. While
the No-Action Alternative would avoid the environmental impacts
identified in the EIS, adoption of this alternative would not meet the
GPP Export Project and Pipeline Expansion Project objectives.

Decision

DOE has decided to issue Order No. 3978 authorizing GPP to export
domestically produced LNG by vessel from the GPP Export Project located
near Sabine Pass, Jefferson County, Texas to non-FTA countries, in a
volume up to the equivalent to 808 Bcf/yr of natural gas for a term of
20 years to commence on the earlier of the date of first commercial
export or seven years from the date that the Order is issued.
Concurrently with this Record of Decision, DOE is issuing Order No.
3978, in which it finds that 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 83 environmental
conditions recommended in the EIS and adopted in the FERC Order at
Appendix A. Additionally, this authorization is conditioned on GPP'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. 3978 that the opponents of GPP'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. 3978 authorizing
GPP to export LNG to non-FTA countries, DOE is imposing requirements
that will avoid or minimize the environmental impacts of the GPP Export
Project. These conditions include the 83 environmental conditions
recommended in the EIS and adopted in the FERC Order at Appendix A.
Mitigation measures beyond those included in Order No. 3978 that are
enforceable by other Federal and state agencies are additional
conditions of Order No. 3978. With these conditions, DOE/FE has
determined that all practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from the GPP Export 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 assessment was conducted during development and
preparation of the EIS (see Section 4.1.4.1 of the EIS). The EIS
determined that the proposed Golden Pass LNG export terminal site is
within the 100-year floodplain, as are some portions of the pipeline
expansion facilities and one compressor station. While the placement of
these facilities within floodplains would be unavoidable, DOE has
determined that the current design for the GPP Export Project minimizes
floodplain impacts to the extent practicable.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2017.
Douglas W. Hollett,
Assistant Secretary (Acting), Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 2017-08744 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

20330 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Notices

In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, In analyzing the No-Action The EIS evaluated several terminal
after an independent review of FERC’s Alternative, the EIS reviewed the effects expansion site alternatives. The EIS
final EIS, DOE/FE adopted FERC’s final and actions that could result if the analyzed the feasibility of constructing
EIS (DOE/EIS–0501). The U.S. proposed GPP Export Project and the terminal expansion based on the use
Environmental Protection Agency Pipeline Expansion Project were not of the existing infrastructure such as the
published a notice of the adoption on constructed. The EIS determined that LNG storage tanks, LNG carrier berths,
January 27, 2017 (82 FR 8613). this alternative could result in the use or other associated facilities. The EIS
or expansion of other existing or considered that the construction and
Addendum to Environmental Review proposed LNG export projects and operation of alternative or new facilities
Documents Concerning Exports of associated interstate natural gas pipeline would substantially increase the
Natural Gas From the United States systems, or in the construction of new environmental impacts of the GPP
(Addendum) infrastructure to meet the objectives of Export Project compared to the
On June 4, 2014, DOE/FE published the GPP Export Project and Pipeline proposed use of the existing
the Draft Addendum to Environmental Expansion Project. Any expansion of the infrastructure.
Review Documents Concerning Exports existing or construction of the proposed For the supply dock site alternatives,
of Natural Gas from the United States systems/facilities would result in the EIS considered the following three
(Draft Addendum) for public comment specific environmental impacts that sites in comparison to the proposed site:
(79 FR 32,258). The purpose of this could be less than, similar to, or greater (1) Use of the existing import terminal
review was to provide additional than those associated with the GPP ship slip; (2) improvements and use of
information to the public concerning the Export Project and Pipeline Expansion an existing marine dock (Broussard
potential environmental impacts of Project depending on a variety of Dock); and (3) improvements and use of
unconventional natural gas exploration circumstances. an existing tug berth. Each of the three
and production activities, including The EIS evaluated system alternatives alternatives required either more
hydraulic fracturing. Although not that included an evaluation of the construction in surrounding wetlands or
required by NEPA, DOE/FE prepared terminal expansion as well as the required removing existing equipment
the Draft Addendum in an effort to be pipeline system. For the LNG export to allow for re-construction of necessary
responsive to the public and to provide terminal, the EIS evaluated five existing facilities. Based on this analysis, the EIS
the best information available on a LNG import terminals with approved, concluded that the proposed supply
subject that had been raised by proposed, or planned status and 18 dock was the environmentally preferred
commenters in this and other LNG stand-alone LNG terminals that are alternative.
approved, proposed, or planned along For the alternative terminal
export proceedings.
the Gulf Coast of the U.S. In order to be configurations and power sources, the
The 45-day comment period on the a viable alternative, it would have to EIS was limited due to siting
Draft Addendum closed on July 21, meet the GPP Export Project’s purpose requirements in terminal configurations
2014. DOE/FE received 40,745 and need of the terminal expansion, be and analyzed two power source
comments in 18 separate submissions, technically feasible, and offer a alternatives. Due to the regulatory siting
and considered those comments in significant environmental advantage requirements regarding thermal
issuing the final Addendum on August over the proposed terminal expansion. exclusion and vapor dispersion zones,
15, 2014. DOE provided a summary of Based on an evaluation of the the EIS was unable to determine an
the comments received and responses to alternatives, the EIS determined that alternative configuration that still met
substantive comments in Appendix B of each of the potential alternatives were these requirements. In terms of
the Addendum. DOE/FE has not reasonable or lacked significant alternative power sources to the
incorporated the Draft Addendum, environmental advantage over GPP proposed gas-fired steam turbines
comments, and Addendum into the Export Project’s design. generators on the liquefaction trains, the
record in this proceeding. To serve as a viable pipeline system EIS considered the following: (1) Power
Alternatives alternative to the Pipeline Expansion produced by onsite steam generation
Project, the alternative would need to plant; and (2) electrical power generated
The EIS assessed alternatives that (1) transport all or part of the volume of offsite. For both alternatives, higher
could achieve the GPP Export Project’s the natural gas required for liquefaction carbon dioxide emissions and decreases
and Pipeline Expansion Project’s at the terminal expansion; and (2) cause in energy efficiency made the proposed
objectives. The range of alternatives significantly less impact on the power source the preferred option.
analyzed included the No-Action environment than the proposed pipeline For the alternative pipeline routes, the
alternative, system alternatives, expansion. Additionally, the natural gas EIS did not identify any environmental
alternative terminal expansion sites, provided by the system alternative must concerns that would require the need to
alternative supply dock sites, alternative connect to the existing GPPL pipeline or identify and evaluate alternative
terminal configurations and power directly to the terminal expansion. The pipeline routes to minimize
sources, alternative pipeline routes, EIS determined that no single pipeline environmental impacts. The proposed
alternative pipeline expansion in proximity to the existing Golden Pass route would limit the environmental
aboveground facility sites, alternative LNG Terminal could supply the impacts and is the preferred alternative.
sites for pipe storage and contractor required natural gas supply delivery The EIS evaluated alternative sites for
yards, and alternative compressor pressure. Any potential pipeline the proposed three compressor stations
alternatives would require construction and associated aboveground facilities
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

station design. Alternatives were
evaluated and compared to the GPP of a new lateral extension to the for the pipeline expansion. To assess
Export Project and Pipeline Expansion terminal expansion or an entirely new alternative compressor station sites, the
Project to determine if the alternatives pipeline system to connect to supply. EIS considered the following seven
were environmentally preferable. The impacts of constructing the factors: (1) Compression requirements;
alternatives would result in (2) distance from the nearest Noise
the Order. Golden Pass Products, LLC, et al., Errata substantially greater impacts than those Sensitive Areas; (3) use of upland areas
Notice, 158 FERC ¶ 61,106 (Feb. 1, 2017). of the proposed pipeline expansion. to minimize impacts on wetlands; (4)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:35 Apr 28, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01MYN1.SGM 01MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Notices 20331

impacts on cultural resources or eligible EIS, adoption of this alternative would environmental harm from the GPP
historic properties; (5) presence of not meet the GPP Export Project and Export Project have been adopted.
known contamination due to industrial Pipeline Expansion Project objectives.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
activities; (6) presence of natural visual
Decision DOE prepared this Floodplain
screening; and (7) accessibility. For each
of the three proposed compressor DOE has decided to issue Order No. Statement of Findings in accordance
stations and their proposed sites, the 3978 authorizing GPP to export with DOE’s regulations, entitled
EIS determined the alternative either domestically produced LNG by vessel ‘‘Compliance with Floodplain and
offered no significant environmental from the GPP Export Project located Wetland Environmental Review
advantage or would have a more near Sabine Pass, Jefferson County, Requirements’’ (10 CFR part 1022). The
substantial impact on wetlands Texas to non-FTA countries, in a required floodplain assessment was
compared to the proposed site. volume up to the equivalent to 808 Bcf/ conducted during development and
Regarding the associated aboveground yr of natural gas for a term of 20 years preparation of the EIS (see Section
facilities for the pipeline expansion, the to commence on the earlier of the date 4.1.4.1 of the EIS). The EIS determined
proposed aboveground facilities were all of first commercial export or seven years that the proposed Golden Pass LNG
within the existing GPPL pipeline right- from the date that the Order is issued. export terminal site is within the 100-
of-way. As a result, the EIS did not Concurrently with this Record of year floodplain, as are some portions of
identify any environmental concerns Decision, DOE is issuing Order No. the pipeline expansion facilities and
that indicated the need to evaluate 3978, in which it finds that the one compressor station. While the
alternative sites. requested authorization has not been placement of these facilities within
For alternative sites for pipe storage floodplains would be unavoidable, DOE
shown to be inconsistent with the
and contractor yard, the EIS considered has determined that the current design
public interest, and that the Application
one alternative to the proposed site. The for the GPP Export Project minimizes
should be granted subject to compliance
alternative site consisted of land with floodplain impacts to the extent
with the terms and conditions set forth
varying commercial/industrial and practicable.
in the Order, including the 83
agricultural uses. If the alternative site
was selected, the agricultural use would environmental conditions Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25,
be displaced. The proposed site, in recommended in the EIS and adopted in 2017.
comparison, is already previously the FERC Order at Appendix A. Douglas W. Hollett,
distributed industrial-use land used for Additionally, this authorization is Assistant Secretary (Acting), Office of Fossil
the construction of the existing GPPL conditioned on GPP’s compliance with Energy.
pipeline. As a result, the alternative site any other mitigation measures imposed [FR Doc. 2017–08744 Filed 4–28–17; 8:45 am]
did not offer a significant environmental by other federal or state agencies. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
advantage over the proposed site. Basis of Decision
Finally, the EIS included an
alternative compressor station design. DOE’s decision is based upon the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Instead of the proposed gas-fired analysis of potential environmental
compressors, the alternative design impacts presented in the EIS, and DOE’s Certification Notice—247; Notice of
evaluated the use of electric-powered determination in Order No. 3978 that Filing of Self-Certification of Coal
compressors. When comparing the two the opponents of GPP’s Application Capability Under the Powerplant and
designs, the EIS focused on the issue of have failed to overcome the statutory Industrial Fuel Use Act
additional infrastructure needed to presumption that the proposed export
AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery
power the electric-power compressor authorization is not inconsistent with
and Energy Reliability, DOE.
stations. Use of electricity would require the public interest. Although not
required by NEPA, DOE/FE also ACTION: Notice of filing.
each station to install varying lengths of
distribution lines to the compressor considered the Addendum, which
SUMMARY: On March 31, 2017, PSEG
stations and a substation and/or switch summarizes available information on
Power, LLC, as owner and operator of a
station to meet power requirements. potential upstream impacts associated
new baseload electric generating
Additionally, the electrical power could with unconventional natural gas
powerplant, submitted a coal capability
come from existing electrical generation activities, such as hydraulic fracturing.
self-certification to the Department of
plants with varying fuel uses. However, Mitigation Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the
overall emissions reductions resulting Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act
from the use of electric-powered versus As a condition of its decision to issue
of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE
gas-powered compressor stations will Order No. 3978 authorizing GPP to
regulations. The FUA and regulations
vary depending on the fuel used. As a export LNG to non-FTA countries, DOE
thereunder require DOE to publish a
result, the EIS concluded the alternative is imposing requirements that will avoid
notice of filing of self-certification in the
did not offer a significant environmental or minimize the environmental impacts
Federal Register.
advantage over the proposed of the GPP Export Project. These
conditions include the 83 ADDRESSES: Copies of coal capability
compressor station design.
environmental conditions self-certification filings are available for
Environmentally Preferred Alternative recommended in the EIS and adopted in public inspection, upon request, in the
When compared against the other the FERC Order at Appendix A. Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

action alternatives assessed in the EIS, Mitigation measures beyond those Reliability, Mail Code OE–20, Room
as discussed above, the proposed GPP included in Order No. 3978 that are 8G–024, Forrestal Building, 1000
Export Project and Pipeline Expansion enforceable by other Federal and state Independence Avenue SW.,
Project are the environmentally agencies are additional conditions of Washington, DC 20585.
preferred alternatives. While the No- Order No. 3978. With these conditions, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Action Alternative would avoid the DOE/FE has determined that all Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586–
environmental impacts identified in the practicable means to avoid or minimize 5260.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:35 Apr 28, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01MYN1.SGM 01MYN1

Document Created: 2017-04-29 03:16:33
Document Modified: 2017-04-29 03:16:33

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 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 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		82 FR 20328