Record of Decision and Wetland/Floodplain Statement of Findings for the W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2, 30901-30910 [2013-12280]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30901-30910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12280]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision and Wetland/Floodplain Statement of Findings 
for the W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 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 NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) for the W.A. 
Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration Project 
(Parish PCCS Project) under DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) 
Program. DOE prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) to 
evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with DOE's 
proposed action of providing financial assistance for the Parish PCCS 
Project. The EIS also evaluated the impacts associated with 
construction and operation of the proposed Parish PCCS Project, as 
submitted by NRG. DOE's proposed action is to provide limited financial 
assistance through a cooperative agreement with NRG for a new post-
combustion carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and compression 
system that would be added to Unit 8 of the existing W.A. Parish power 
plant, with the captured CO2 piped to the West Ranch oil 
field for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR).

ADDRESSES: The EIS and this Record of Decision (ROD) are available on 
DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at https://energy.gov/nepa/ and on the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory 
(NETL) Web site at https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/nepa/. Copies of these documents may also be obtained by 
contacting Mr. Lusk, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, 
National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, 
Morgantown, WV 26507-0880; telephone, 304-285-4145; or email: 
Mark.Lusk@netl.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about 
the project or the EIS, contact Mr. Mark W. Lusk 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 leave a toll free 
message 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] parts 1500 through 1508) and 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 W.A. Parish Post-
Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration Project (DOE/EIS-
0473, February 2013) and other program considerations.

Background and Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    Public Law 107-63, enacted in November 2001, first provided funding 
for the CCPI program, a federal program to accelerate the commercial 
readiness of advanced technologies in existing and new coal-based power 
plants. The program encompasses a broad spectrum of commercial-scale 
demonstrations that target today's most pressing environmental 
challenges, including reducing mercury and greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions. When integrated with other DOE initiatives, the program will 
help the nation successfully commercialize advanced power systems to 
produce electricity at greater efficiencies, release almost no

[[Page 30902]]

emissions, create fuels, and employ CO2 management 
capabilities.
    The purpose of DOE's proposed action under the CCPI program is to 
meet program goals by providing cost-shared funding for this proposed 
project to demonstrate the feasibility of advanced coal-based 
technologies at a commercial scale that capture and geologically 
sequester CO2 emissions. The principal need addressed by 
DOE's proposed action is to satisfy the responsibility Congress imposed 
on DOE to demonstrate advanced coal-based technologies that can 
generate clean, reliable, and affordable electricity in the United 
States Successful commercial-scale demonstration of amine-based carbon 
capture technology at NRG's W.A. Parish Plant with beneficial use of 
the CO2 at an existing oil field would also generate 
technical, environmental, and financial data from the design, 
construction, and integrated operation of the CO2 capture 
facility, pipeline, EOR, and CO2 monitoring facilities at 
the oil field. These data would be used to evaluate whether the 
deployed technologies could be effectively and economically implemented 
at a commercial scale.

NEPA Process

    DOE formally initiated the NEPA process by publishing a Notice of 
Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register (FR) on November 
14, 2011, under Docket ID No. FR Doc. 2011-29333; (76 FR 70429). DOE 
conducted a scoping process that included two public scoping meetings 
and consultation with interested governmental agencies and 
stakeholders. DOE held public scoping meetings on November 30, 2011, in 
Needville, Texas, and December 1, 2011, in Edna, Texas. The public 
scoping period ended on December 15, 2011, after a 30-day opportunity 
to submit comments. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE 
both published a notice of availability (NOA) for the draft EIS on 
September 21, 2012. DOE's NOA (77 FR 58533) also announced its plans 
for two public hearings. Public hearings on the draft EIS were held in 
Thompsons, Texas, on October 10, 2012, and Edna, Texas, on October 11, 
2012.
    DOE received one verbal comment on the draft EIS at the two public 
hearings and listened to questions and concerns during informal 
sessions before the hearings. During the 45-day public comment period, 
which ended November 5, 2012, DOE received comment letters from the 
Department of Interior, EPA, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife 
Department. Comments included concerns about: (1) Use of coal as fuel 
for electricity generation; (2) use of nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2) emission credits to offset volatile organic carbon 
(VOC) emissions; (3) use of horizontal directional drilling to cross 
under waterways; (4) mitigation of wetland impacts; (5) impacts on 
state or global rare plant communities; (6) adequacy of the 
environmental justice analysis; (7) mitigation measures for 
construction-related emissions; (8) impacts on threatened and 
endangered species, including whooping cranes; (9) impacts to nesting 
bald eagles; (10) protection of freshwater mussel species; and (11) 
impacts on migratory birds. EPA rated the draft EIS as LO--``Lack of 
Objections''.
    DOE distributed the final EIS during the last week of February 
2013. The U.S. EPA published a NOA in the FR on March 8, 2013, (75 FR 
28612). In the final EIS, DOE updated project information, refined 
analyses, and responded to comments on the draft EIS. DOE received no 
comments on the final EIS.

Decision

    DOE has decided to provide NRG with $167 million in cost-shared 
funding for its proposed project through a cooperative agreement under 
DOE's CCPI program. The project and its potential environmental 
impacts, as analyzed in the EIS, and required mitigation measures are 
described below.

Basis of Decision

    DOE based its decision on the importance of achieving the 
objectives of the CCPI 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 to support advanced 
clean-coal technology projects. Post-combustion CO2 capture 
offers the greatest near-term potential for reducing power sector 
CO2 emissions because it can be used to retrofit existing 
coal-based power plants and can also be tuned for various levels of 
CO2 capture, which may accelerate market acceptance. A 
successful commercial-scale demonstration of amine-based carbon capture 
technology at NRG's W.A. Parish Plant with beneficial use of the 
CO2 at an existing oil field would also generate technical, 
environmental, and financial data from the design, construction, and 
operation of the CO2 capture facility, pipeline, and 
CO2 monitoring facilities at the oil field. The data would 
be used to help DOE evaluate whether the deployed technologies could be 
effectively and economically implemented 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 or 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, NRG 
incorporated various mitigation measures and anticipated permit 
requirements into its project, and the analyses completed for the EIS 
assumed that such measures would be implemented. These measures are 
identified in Chapter 4 of the EIS, described as needed in each 
resource section of Chapter 3, and incorporated into this ROD as 
conditions for DOE's financial assistance under the cooperative 
agreement between DOE and NRG. 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 will be 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 would therefore not be included in a MAP.
    DOE will ensure that commitments in the MAP are met through 
management of its cooperative agreement with NRG, which requires that 
NRG fulfill the monitoring and mitigation requirements specified in 
this ROD. DOE will make copies of the MAP available for inspection in 
the appropriate locations for a reasonable time. Copies of the MAP and 
any annual reports required by the MAP will also be available upon 
written request.

[[Page 30903]]

Project Description and Location

    The Parish PCCS Project would result in the construction and 
operation of a CO2 capture facility utilizing an advanced 
amine-based absorption technology to capture at least 90 percent 
(approximately 1.6 million tons) of CO2 annually from a flue 
gas slipstream taken from Unit 8 at the W.A. Parish Plant. This 
existing power plant is located on 4,880 acres in rural Fort Bend 
County within the incorporated area of the town of Thompsons, Texas. Up 
to 5,475 tons per day of captured CO2 would be dried, 
compressed, and transported via a newly constructed approximately 81-
mile long pipeline to the West Ranch oil field where it would be used 
in EOR operations. The four primary components of the project are:
    (1) CO2 Capture Facility--A post-combustion 
CO2 capture facility would be constructed and attached to 
Unit 8 at the existing W.A. Parish Plant in Fort Bend County, Texas. A 
new 80-MW natural gas-fired turbine, currently under construction at 
the plant site, would produce the auxiliary electricity and steam 
needed by the CO2 capture system.
    (2) CO2 Pipeline--Captured CO2 would be 
transported via a new, approximately 81-mile-long, 12-inch-diameter 
pipeline to the West Ranch oil field, located near Vanderbilt, Texas, 
in Jackson County. The pipeline route crosses mostly rural and 
sparsely-developed agricultural lands in Fort Bend, Wharton, and 
Jackson Counties. NRG plans to use existing mowed and maintained 
utility ROWs to the extent practicable to minimize environmental 
impacts and avoid sensitive resources. A joint venture between NRG and 
Hillcorp Energy Company (HEC), known as Texas Coastal Ventures LLC 
(TCV), would operate the pipeline.
    (3) EOR Operations--The proposed project would deliver up to 1.6 
million tons of CO2 per year to the West Ranch oil field for 
its use in EOR. The CO2 would be injected into the 98-A, 41-
A, Glasscock, and Greta sand units of the Frio Formation, approximately 
5,000 to 6,300 feet below ground surface (bgs). The portions of the oil 
field in which EOR operations would be conducted are currently owned or 
leased by TCV. HEC has been contracted to conduct the EOR operations. 
TCV plans to make additional investments outside of the DOE funded 
program to modernize and prepare the oil field to safely accept 
CO2 injection, but the activities are included in this 
project description because they are integrated into the project 
concept and considered connected actions.
    (4) CO2 Monitoring Program--TCV would implement a 
program to monitor the injection and migration of CO2 within 
the geologic formations at the EOR site based on a CO2 
Monitoring Plan developed in cooperation with the Texas Bureau of 
Economic Geology (BEG). The monitoring program would be established and 
operated in accordance with requirements of the CCPI program and 
Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) regulations for certification of 
CO2 storage related to EOR operations (i.e., as specified in 
16 TAC 5.305) and provisions of underground injection control permits 
for injection wells at the West Ranch oil field (i.e., existing permits 
for existing injection wells and new permits that would be required for 
newly installed injection wells).
    The W.A. Parish Plant occupies an industrial area located next to 
relatively undeveloped lands. Scattered ranches and residences are 
located to the east and southwest, and Smithers Lake (a 2,430-acre man-
made water body used for plant cooling water) is located to the north. 
The proposed CO2 capture facility would have a footprint of 
approximately 400 feet by 400 feet (3.3 acres) within the existing W.A. 
Parish Plant. Including the CO2 capture facility, the 
combustion turbine and heat recovery steam generator (CT/HRSG) area, 
two large laydown areas, and other project areas, a total of 
approximately 29 acres within the existing plant boundaries would be 
used during construction. Construction of the proposed project is 
planned to begin in mid-2013, at the earliest, and would take 
approximately 24 months to complete. Within the existing plant site, up 
to 22 acres of land would be required for two temporary construction 
staging and laydown areas for storage of materials and equipment. 
Construction materials and equipment would be delivered by truck and 
rail. The number of workers would vary during the two-year construction 
period, ranging from 250 to 600 during the various phases of 
construction and averaging approximately 300 personnel. The largest 
demand for construction workers would likely occur approximately six 
months after the start of construction, when approximately 600 
construction workers would be on site. Construction water needs would 
be supplied by the existing plant's water system. Electricity would be 
provided by on-site maintenance power sources or by new metered service 
from a local retail provider. Potential construction-related 
environmental impacts would be typical of those associated with a large 
industrial construction project and would primarily be related to air 
emissions, construction traffic, fugitive dust from disturbance, and 
storm water runoff from construction areas. Best management practices 
(BMPs) would be implemented and all necessary permits would be obtained 
to minimize potential impacts and to comply with regulatory 
requirements during construction. For the purposes of this EIS, DOE 
assumes the CO2 capture system would continue to operate for 
20 years. The capture facility and associated equipment installed as 
part of the project would require an increase of approximately 15 full-
time personnel divided among shifts (i.e., an increase of approximately 
4 percent over current conditions). Also, up to five additional new 
positions may be required at the plant.
    During operation of the project, process-related chemicals would be 
transported to the W.A. Parish Plant either by truck or rail. In 
addition to regulatory requirements, NRG would follow the chemical 
suppliers' recommendations and procedures in storing and handling all 
chemicals.

DOE's Proposed Action

    DOE's proposed action is to provide $167 million in cost-shared 
funding through a cooperative agreement with NRG for its proposed 
project. DOE has already provided $7 million to NRG under Phase I for 
preliminary design and related preliminary activities of the project, 
as described above. The estimated total project cost is $845 million.

Alternatives

    Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCPI program by 
means of partial funding of 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 the project. 
Here, the purpose of, and need for, DOE action is defined by the CCPI 
program (and its enabling legislation, Pub. L. 107-63). Given these 
programmatic purposes and needs, reasonable alternatives available to 
DOE prior to the selection of this project under the CCPI program were 
other projects that met the eligibility requirements. 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 completed for the selection process has been included as 
Appendix A of the EIS.

[[Page 30904]]

    The alternatives considered by DOE were limited to the applications 
submitted to DOE in response to requirements specified in the CCPI 
Round 3 solicitation. DOE considered all the applications that met the 
mandatory eligibility requirements as expressed in the funding 
opportunity announcement. DOE's action concerning these applications 
was to decide which projects would receive DOE financial assistance 
from among the eligible applications submitted. Unlike a project owned 
by DOE, when projects are selected in a competitive process in response 
to a funding opportunity announcement, DOE does not make decisions 
concerning the location, layout, design, or other features of the 
project. In other words, DOE must select among the eligible projects 
submitted to DOE by the applicants. DOE's initial decision is to select 
projects to receive federal financial assistance for a project 
definition phase prior to DOE's decision on whether to fund the 
project's construction and operation.
    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 W.A. Parish PCCS Project. In the absence of 
DOE cost-shared funding, NRG could still elect to construct and operate 
the proposed project. Therefore, under the DOE no-action alternative, 
DOE assumes the proposed project would not be built or it would be 
built by NRG without the benefit of DOE funding.
    DOE assumes that if NRG proceeded with project development in the 
absence of DOE funding, the project would include the features, 
attributes, and impacts as described for the proposed project. However, 
without DOE's participation, it is possible that the project would be 
canceled. Therefore, for the purposes of analysis in this EIS, DOE's 
no-action alternative is defined as the no-build alternative. This 
means that the project would not be built and environmental conditions 
would not change from the current baseline (i.e., no new construction, 
resource use, or CO2 capture and storage would occur).
    Therefore, under the no-action alternative, the project 
technologies (i.e., large-scale CO2 capture and geologic 
storage) may not be implemented in the near term. Consequently, timely 
commercialization of these technologies for large-scale, coal-fired 
electric generation facilities would be postponed and may not be 
realized. This scenario would not contribute to the CCPI goals to 
invest in the demonstration of advanced coal-based power generation 
technologies that capture and sequester, CO2 emissions. 
While the no-action alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need 
for DOE's proposed action, this alternative was retained for comparison 
to the effects of the proposed project, as required under CEQ 
Regulations (40 CFR 15012.14). The no-action alternative reflects the 
current baseline condition and serves as a benchmark against which the 
effects of the proposed action can be evaluated.
    NRG has begun construction and plans to operate certain individual 
project components such as the natural gas-fired turbine without DOE 
funding for other purposes not related to the Parish PCCS project. The 
construction of the natural gas-fired turbine would not be part of the 
cooperative agreement with DOE. This facility would begin operation in 
2013 and would provide peaking power unrelated to the Parish PCCS 
Project. At a later date, possibly 2015, the natural gas-fired turbine 
would be used to power the compressors of the carbon capture facility. 
This would result in a variation of the no-action alternative that 
would have minor environmental impacts, primarily in the area of air 
quality. If NRG decided to pursue the project without DOE funding, 
potential impacts would be similar to those evaluated under DOE's 
proposed action.

Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

    In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts of 
NRG's proposed project, DOE's proposed action, and the no-action 
alternative on potentially affected environmental resource areas. These 
included: Air quality and climate; greenhouse gas emissions; geology; 
physiography and soils; surface waters; ground water; floodplains; 
wetlands; biological resources; cultural resources; land use; 
aesthetics; traffic; transportation; noise; materials and waste 
management; human health and safety; utilities; community services; 
socioeconomics; and environmental justice. The EIS also considers the 
impacts from project facilities combined with those from other past, 
present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (i.e., cumulative 
impacts). The following sections discuss the potential impacts in these 
areas.

Air Quality and Climate

    Construction of the CO2 capture facility, CO2 
pipeline, and CO2 monitoring infrastructure would result in 
short-term, localized increased tailpipe and fugitive dust emissions. 
Emission rates for criteria pollutants would be less than 1 percent of 
the total emissions in the region of influence (ROI), except 
PM10 emissions during 2013, which would account for 3.1 
percent of total ROI emissions. Emission rates for ozone precursors 
(i.e., VOC and nitrogen oxides [NOX ]) during the 
construction phase of the project would be lower than thresholds 
documented in the EPA rules for General Conformity (40 CFR 94.153).
    Operational emissions from the pipeline corridor would be 
negligible. Operational emissions of criteria pollutants from the 
CO2 capture facility and related infrastructure (e.g., CT/
HRSG) and the CO2 recycle facility would be less than 1 
percent of the total emissions in the ROI. Operational emissions of 
NOX and VOC would exceed the thresholds documented in the 
Conformity Rules. NRG is required to obtain and retire 1.3 tons of 
credits or allowances, as applicable, for each ton of NOX 
and VOC emissions increase related to the proposed project. NRG owns 
and has assigned the appropriate amount of NOX emission 
credits approved for use in the Houston Galveston Brazoria Metropolitan 
Statistical Area (HGB MSA) to the Parish PCCS Project.
    NRG would be required to purchase and retire 1.3 tons of credits or 
allowances, as applicable, for each ton of emission increase related to 
the proposed project. Due to the 1.3 to 1 retirement ratio of emission 
reduction credits and allowances, the proposed project would result in 
no net adverse impact on air quality in the HGB MSA with regard to 
ozone. Therefore, adverse impacts to air quality in the ROI due to 
operational emissions from the proposed project would be considered 
negligible to minor with some beneficial impacts in the form of 
elimination of sulfur dioxide and other emissions from Unit 8's flue 
gas slipstream.
    As part of the state air permit application process, NRG was 
required to complete an air quality analysis to determine the effect of 
anticipated project air emissions on area air quality. The analysis 
included dispersion modeling, which compared the predicted ambient air 
quality concentrations to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS). The analysis supported the conclusion that predicted emissions 
resulting from the

[[Page 30905]]

project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. The 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) approved the analysis 
and issued the air permit on December 2012.
    Mitigation: To control fugitive dust, NRG must stabilize open piles 
and disturbed areas by covering and/or applying water or other dust 
control additive. NRG must also limit the speed of non-earthmoving 
equipment to 15 mph and earthmoving equipment to 10 mph to prevent 
spilling hauled materials. Disturbed areas shall be revegetated as soon 
as possible.
    To control mobile and stationary source emissions, NRG must use 
modern, well-maintained diesel-powered equipment during construction 
and limit idling of heavy equipment. EPA recommended limiting idling to 
less than five minutes.

Greenhouse Gasses

    Construction of the CO2 capture facility, CO2 
pipeline, and CO2 monitoring infrastructure would generate 
up to approximately 4,900 tpy (4,400 metric tons per annum) of 
CO2 emissions over the two-year construction period. 
Operation of the CO2 capture facility and CO2 
recycle facility would result in approximately 785,000 tpy (0.71 
million metric tons per annum [MMTA]) of new CO2 emissions. 
However, the proposed project would result in the capture of 
approximately 1.6 million tpy (1.5 MMTA) of existing CO2 
emissions, resulting in a net reduction of approximately 815,000 tpy 
(0.74 MMTA) of CO2 emissions during operations.
    The capture and geological storage of existing GHG emissions by the 
project would produce a minor beneficial cumulative effect on a 
national and global scale. The reduction in CO2 emissions 
resulting from the Parish PCCS Project would incrementally reduce the 
rate of GHG accumulation in the atmosphere and help to incrementally 
mitigate climate change related to atmospheric concentrations of GHGs.
    Mitigation: NRG must design and construct the Parish PCCS Project 
to capture at least 90 percent of the carbon in the fossil fuels when 
operating under normal conditions, and use best efforts to achieve at 
least a 90 percent capture rate during the demonstration period.

Geology

    Construction of the CO2 capture facility, pipeline, and 
recycle facility would result in negligible impacts to geologic 
resources. New well construction in the EOR area would result in 
removal of geologic media through the drilling process. This process 
would not be unique to the area and would not affect the availability 
of local geologic resources. Existing wells used by the project would 
be reworked, resulting in a potential beneficial impact to geologic 
resources by reducing the risk of leakage.
    Operation of the CO2 capture facility and pipeline would 
not affect geologic resources. In the EOR area, the potential for 
CO2 migration upward through the caprock seal is considered 
unlikely; however, leakage from one or more previously plugged and 
abandoned wells, oil-producing wells, injection wells, or observation 
wells might occur if any casing and/or cement placed in or around a 
well were to leak. To mitigate the potential for impacts related to 
casing or annular seal issues associated with wells in the proposed 
injection area, TCV would correct deficiencies prior to the use of such 
wells. These improvements to existing wells would result in a potential 
beneficial impact to geological resources by reducing the chance of 
leakage due to improperly sealed wells.
    Preliminary reservoir modeling indicates that injected 
CO2 and associated zones of increased pressure would not be 
expected to migrate laterally outside the area at the West Ranch oil 
field that is leased and operated by TCV. No known major faults exist 
within the West Ranch oil field or within the area of maximum predicted 
EOR-induced impacts to geologic formations. Therefore, the potential 
for the proposed project to increase seismic activity or for seismic 
activity to impact proposed project activities or facilities is low.
    The addition of CO2 to a geologic unit (i.e., a target 
geologic unit or an overlying unit, if leakage were to occur) could 
make the fluids within the unit more acidic. The creation of 
potentially more corrosive conditions could result in increased costs 
for later oil and gas development. However, DOE expects the injection 
of CO2 to beneficially impact oil and gas resources at the 
West Ranch oil field by increasing production from the target geologic 
units. Furthermore, the presence of infrastructure for CO2 
floods may make oil production from other geologic units at the oil 
field more feasible, which could result in an indirect beneficial 
impact.
    Mitigation: NRG must develop a CO2 monitoring plan, in 
coordination with the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) and DOE, 
to account for the CO2 used for EOR and ultimately 
sequestered. Subsequent reports submitted to the state of Texas must 
also be submitted to DOE.

Physiography and Soils

    Potential minor impacts to physiography and soils during 
construction would include disturbance of soils and the potential for 
increased soil erosion from grading, soil excavation activities, 
earthwork compaction, and installation of impermeable surfaces over 
soils at some locations. At the CO2 capture facility, up to 
29 acres of soil within the plant boundary would be disturbed or lost. 
Soils in this area are classified as Prime Farmland, but they have been 
previously impacted and would not be used for agricultural purposes. 
For the proposed pipeline development, up to 1,197 acres of soils would 
be disturbed; however, the disturbed areas would be restored following 
construction and overall impacts would be minimized through use of 
existing ROW for most of its length. Approximately 819 acres in the 
construction ROW is classified as Prime Farmland and approximately 43 
acres classified as more than slightly erodible (i.e., moderately to 
severely erodible). In agricultural areas, impacts to soil would be 
minimized by segregating topsoil from underlying soil and placing the 
topsoil back as the top layer when the trench is filled. For the EOR 
area, construction and operational activities would be conducted in 
existing operational areas; therefore, impacts to soils would be 
similar to existing impacts. 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 associated with the CO2 capture 
facility, CO2 pipeline, and CO2 monitoring 
infrastructure would be anticipated to result in negligible impacts to 
soil resources, primarily due to disturbance of soils from vehicle 
traffic and an increased potential for erosion.

Ground Water

    The potential for groundwater contamination during construction is 
considered low as potential spills and unintentional releases of wastes 
or petroleum-based materials to groundwater would be avoided or 
mitigated as described in a project-specific spill prevention, control 
and countermeasures (SPCC) plan.
    Operation of the CO2 capture facility would require an 
additional 0.2 to 0.3 million gallons per day (mgd) of groundwater from 
existing onsite wells (an approximately 13 percent increase as compared 
to current groundwater

[[Page 30906]]

usage rates). The existing wells at the W.A. Parish Plant offer 
adequate capacity to supply the CO2 capture facility with 
potential minor impacts to on-site groundwater supplies.
    There are currently no plans to withdraw groundwater or to 
discharge directly to groundwater during construction of the proposed 
pipeline.
    Water supply wells near the West Ranch oil field are not 
anticipated to be affected by injected or displaced fluids due to the 
relatively shallow depths of existing groundwater supply wells as 
compared to the depths of the proposed CO2 injection wells 
in the Frio Formation (approximately 5,000 to 6,200 feet bgs) and the 
existing produced water injection wells in the Catahoula Sandstone 
(approximately 4,250 to 4,500 feet bgs); the presence of the 
approximately 400-foot-thick, low-permeability confining caprock 
formation (i.e., the Anahuac Formation) and the approximately 2,000-
foot-thick low-permeability Burkeville confining system; and the 
absence of known faults in the EOR area.
    DOE considers it unlikely that CO2 would leak from the 
injection zone. However, the possibility exists for impacts to occur to 
shallower geologic units if leakage of CO2 from the 
injection reservoir units occurred. As part of the proposed 
CO2 monitoring program, TCV and BEG would conduct studies to 
detect migration of injected or displaced fluids, should migration 
occur, so that potential long term impacts to groundwater resources may 
be minimized or avoided.
    In the EOR area, the potential for CO2 to migrate upward 
through fractures in the caprock seal is considered unlikely. However, 
leakage from one or more wells might occur if any casing and/or cement 
placed in or around a well failed. TCV and BEG would conduct well 
integrity testing prior to EOR operations and TCV would correct 
deficiencies prior to use of such wells in order to mitigate the 
potential for impacts. Additionally, existing wells used by the project 
would be reworked. Improvements to existing wells would result in a 
potential beneficial impact to groundwater resources by reducing the 
chance of leakage due to improperly sealed wells.

Surface Water

    Construction of project-related facilities has the potential to 
cause increased sedimentation and turbidity in adjacent water bodies 
and increase the potential for surface water contamination from 
material spills. A SWPPP would be developed and implemented to avoid or 
minimize potential impacts to surface waters during construction 
activities.
    Negligible impacts to the surface water supply at the W.A. Parish 
Plant would be expected due to the approximately 12,000 gallons per day 
(gpd) required during construction for dust suppression, vehicle wash 
down, and other construction-related uses. Operation of the 
CO2 capture facility (including supporting infrastructure 
and facilities, such as the CT/HRSG and cooling water tower), would 
require approximately 3.5 to 4.9 mgd more surface water from Smithers 
Lake than is currently used by the W.A. Parish Plant. Including this 
approximately 10 percent increase in surface water usage, the plant 
would use a total of 38 to 55 mgd of surface water. Minor impacts on 
surface water supplies would be expected. NRG's projected surface water 
usage would also be well below its current 99 mgd of surface water 
rights.
    During construction of the proposed pipeline, approximately 1.75 
million gallons of water would be trucked in from outside sources or 
obtained from nearby surface water. NRG must discharge spent 
hydrostatic test water to upland areas according to RRC and EPA 
discharge permits and guidelines, as applicable. Additional mitigation 
measures, as identified in communication from the Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department (TPWD) must be employed when crossing or working 
near Ecologically Significant Stream Segments. Some of these streams 
will be crossed using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) 
construction techniques. Crossings of the San Bernard River and Caney 
Creek are not expected to exacerbate existing water quality impairments 
in these water bodies. Construction-related impacts are expected to be 
negligible to moderate and temporary. Normal pipeline operations are 
not expected to impact surface waters.
    Negligible to minor impacts to surface water features at the West 
Ranch oil field would be expected to occur as a result of construction 
activities within the proposed EOR area. During EOR operations, the 
potential exists for a CO2 well blow-out, with some injected 
material being ejected and deposited into nearby surface waters. If 
that were to occur, such effects would be highly localized, minor, and 
readily remediated.
    Mitigation: NRG must implement the additional mitigation measures, 
e.g., double silt fencing, identified by the TPWD in a March 20, 2012, 
letter when crossing or working near Ecologically Significant Stream 
Segments during pipeline construction.

Floodplains and Wetlands

    In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022 (DOE regulations on Compliance 
with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements), DOE 
considered the potential impacts of the proposed project and its 
connected actions on wetlands and floodplains in the affected area. An 
assessment of impacts to wetlands and floodplains is included in the 
EIS. NRG selected sites and a pipeline route that would minimize 
impacts to wetlands and floodplains, and has committed to implementing 
methods designed to further reduce impacts. Overall, the proposed 
project would result in minor, direct short-term impacts to wetlands 
and negligible impacts to floodplains.
    No wetlands or floodplains exist within the area proposed for the 
CO2 capture facility at the W.A. Parish Plant or within the 
area proposed for the CO2 recycle facility at the West Ranch 
oil field. However, construction of project-related facilities has the 
potential to cause increased sedimentation and turbidity in adjacent 
wetlands and increase the potential for contamination from materials 
spills. A SWPPP utilizing appropriate spill prevention, control and 
countermeasures would be developed and implemented to avoid or minimize 
potential impacts to wetland and floodplain areas during construction 
activities, resulting in negligible to minor impacts.
    Approximately 81 acres of wetlands would be temporarily impacted 
during pipeline construction and approximately 4 acres of wetlands may 
be permanently impacted. Topsoil in wetland areas would be segregated 
from other excavated material during trenching and returned to the 
surface to promote revegetation of disturbed areas and to restore 
preexisting soil conditions. NRG plans to reduce the width of the 
construction ROW in wetland areas and/or use timber mats or low ground 
pressure equipment to minimize wetland impacts, as appropriate. Impacts 
to large riverine features and any adjacent wetlands would be avoided 
through the use of HDD methodology. Based on the current project design 
and field survey data collected to date, compensatory wetland 
mitigation would likely not be required for NRG's proposed project by 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the state of Texas. At this 
time, DOE anticipates that wetland impacts will require Nationwide 
Permits for all stream and water body crossings. If conditions or plans 
become altered, any changes in permitting strategy or the need for 
compensatory wetland

[[Page 30907]]

mitigation would come under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Mitigation 
requirements would be detailed as part of the permitting process.
    The pipeline route would cross Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) 100-year and 500-year floodplains in 25 locations. DOE does not 
expect that the minor, temporary impacts from construction would reach 
a level of endangering human health or property or conflict with any 
state, local, or federal floodplain ordinances or plans. Following 
pipeline installation, the construction ROW would be returned to its 
original topography to the extent practicable. Five main line valves 
would be constructed within the FEMA 100-year floodplain in Wharton 
County. Changes to the flood elevation or the flow of water in the 
floodplain as a result of these valves would be negligible. No other 
aboveground facilities are planned within floodplain areas. 
Additionally, BMPs (as specified in a site-specific SWPPP) would be 
implemented to avoid or minimize potential impacts to wetland and 
floodplain areas during construction activities, resulting in 
negligible to minor impacts.
    During pipeline operations, a 30-foot permanent ROW would be mowed 
and maintained along the pipeline route for pipeline inspection and 
maintenance activities, which could result in minor long-term impacts 
due to the potential changes to wetland quality and function in the 
approximately 31 acres of wetlands located within the proposed 
permanent ROW. Impacts to floodplains would be minor during pipeline 
operations.
    DOE does not expect EOR operations or related CO2 
monitoring activities to impact floodplains or wetlands within the West 
Ranch oil field. Activities would be conducted on existing well pads 
and within existing ROWs as much as possible.
    Mitigation: NRG must implement the mitigation techniques described 
above and analyzed in the EIS, including but not limited to reducing 
the construction ROW width in wetland areas, use of timber mats or low 
ground pressure equipment, and the use of HDD to cross sensitive areas. 
If compensatory wetland mitigation becomes necessary as part of any 
USACE permit, NRG must implement additional mitigation as required and 
described in the permit.

Biological Resources

    Construction and operations activities at the CO2 
capture facility and EOR area would be expected to have negligible 
impacts to biological resources. Affected habitats at these locations 
have been disturbed by past and ongoing industrial and oil production 
activities. Impacts to wildlife from construction of the pipeline 
corridor would be negligible to minor. Approximately 75 percent of the 
proposed pipeline corridor would be constructed within or immediately 
adjacent to existing mowed and maintained utility corridors. Also, 
approximately 60 percent of the pipeline corridor is currently in 
agricultural use, which is of limited use to wildlife. The pipeline 
route was chosen to minimize the overall effect to wildlife and 
fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Construction activities, including 
land clearing, would cause a negligible loss of wildlife habitat. The 
potential would exist for invasive species to colonize newly disturbed 
areas following construction, which could result in long-term moderate 
adverse impacts to biological resources. Except in cultivated fields or 
unless requested by the landowner, NRG would revegetate areas of 
disturbed soil along the pipeline construction ROW following 
construction with an appropriate mix of seeds for perennial grasses and 
forbs native to the area or with a seed mixture requested by the 
landowner to reduce the potential for establishment of invasive plant 
species. Depending on the season in which construction is completed, 
NRG may also seed with a cold-weather annual grass species, such as 
Gulf Coast ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), to establish a temporary 
vegetative cover until conditions become favorable for growth of 
perennial grasses and forbs.
    One active bald eagle nest was observed during field surveys in the 
ROI. The proposed pipeline route has been located approximately one 
mile from this nest, thus avoiding any impact.
    One state-listed threatened mussel species (smooth pimpleback, 
Quadrula houstonensis) was observed during field surveys in the ROI. 
This species has also been proposed for federal listing. Impacts to 
this mussel species, and mussel habitat in general, would be avoided by 
using HDD and by careful placement of temporary water intakes and 
discharges at this location. Similarly, HDD methodology will be 
employed at other river crossing locations classified as Ecologically 
Significant Stream Segments by the state of Texas.
    NRG would limit land-clearing activities in previously undisturbed 
areas to periods outside of migratory birds' nesting seasons, to the 
extent practicable, to minimize the potential for impacts to migratory 
birds. If clearing vegetation during the nesting season or whooping 
crane migration period is unavoidable, previously undisturbed areas 
within the construction area would be surveyed prior to construction to 
verify that whooping cranes or nests with eggs or young would not be 
disturbed by construction activities. The proposed pipeline corridor 
would cross the whooping crane migratory pathway. Any areas being 
temporarily used by whooping cranes during its migration at the time of 
construction must be avoided until the cranes have left the area.
    Mitigation: NRG must continue consultation with the TPWD to 
minimize potential impacts on state-listed mussel species at pipeline 
crossings at larger rivers. As described in the EIS, HDD methods must 
be employed at these and other crossings, with appropriate actions 
taken to locate soil borings and temporary water intakes and discharges 
to minimize impacts to nearby mussel beds. If mussel relocations become 
necessary, NRG must coordinate its efforts with the TPWD.
    NRG must avoid ground disturbing activities during migratory birds' 
nesting and breeding seasons to protect species protected by the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If this is not practicable, a qualified 
biologist must survey potentially affected areas prior to ground 
disturbing activities and determine the appropriate actions needed to 
avoid impacts.
    During the whooping crane migration period (late March to early 
April; and late October to mid-December), if whooping cranes are 
observed in areas planned for pipeline construction, NRG must 
temporarily suspend activities in those immediate areas until the 
cranes leave.
    NRG, in coordination with DOE, must continue consultation with the 
TPWD and should request technical assistance from the USFWS if project 
changes require additional disturbance at new locations. This may occur 
if the currently proposed pipeline route needs to be altered or for 
other unforeseen areas of ground disturbance not included in the EIS. 
NRG must complete any additional surveys and identified mitigation 
prior to construction in those areas.
    NRG must revegetate disturbed areas using methods approved by the 
state of Texas and with coordination with land owners.

Cultural Resources

    The THC identified the following Native American Tribes that may 
have an interest in activities in the proposed

[[Page 30908]]

project area: The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Apache Tribe of 
Oklahoma, the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana, the Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, the Mescalero Apache 
Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, the Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of 
Oklahoma, and the Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana. DOE sent 
letters to these tribes, and only the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 
responded. The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana concurred with DOE's 
findings of ``no historical properties affected.''
    DOE determined, and the THC has concurred, that no impacts to 
historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the Nation 
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would be expected from construction 
or operational activities for the CO2 capture facility or 
EOR areas. Additionally, based on cultural resources survey data 
collected to date, DOE has determined that no historic properties 
listed, or eligible for listing, in the NRHP would be impacted by the 
construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. Additional 
investigation activities (i.e., mechanized trenching) found no deeply 
buried archaeological deposits at HDD entry and exit locations near 
several proposed river crossings. DOE submitted its findings regarding 
pipeline corridor surveys to the THC for review, and consultation with 
the THC is ongoing.
    Mitigation: NRG, in coordination with DOE, must continue 
consultation with the Texas Historical Commission (State Historical 
Preservation Office) 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 included in the EIS. NRG must complete any additional surveys prior 
to construction in those areas.

Land Use and Aesthetics

    The proposed construction and operation of the CO2 
capture facility at the W.A. Parish Plant and CO2 monitoring 
infrastructure at the West Ranch oil field is consistent with existing 
land use and would result in negligible to minor impacts. Construction 
of the proposed CO2 pipeline would temporarily impact 
approximately 386 acres of agricultural lands, but no permanent loss of 
agricultural lands would occur. Less than 0.3 acres would be converted 
for aboveground pipeline facilities (one meter station and 12 main line 
valves).
    Impacts to aesthetic values would be negligible at the 
CO2 capture facility and EOR field as the existing aesthetic 
character would generally remain unchanged. Along the proposed 
CO2 pipeline route, minor to moderate aesthetic impacts to 
adjacent property owners would occur in some locations due to 
construction noise, truck traffic, fugitive dust emissions, and 
vegetation clearing. Operational aesthetic impacts would be negligible 
to minor and would be related to placement of pipeline markers, 
periodic vegetation clearing, and other maintenance activities.
    The impact of lighting during construction would be temporary and 
minor. The impact of lighting for operations at the proposed 
CO2 capture facility, the CO2 monitoring 
facilities, and the pipeline meter station would be negligible to minor 
as lighting would be consistent with existing operations. Lighting 
along the pipeline would be limited to the meter station. Meter station 
lighting would be down shielded to avoid interference with wildlife, 
which would result in minor impacts.
    Mitigation: NRG must install down-shielded lighting for permanent 
light needs wherever possible.

Traffic and Transportation

    A temporary increase in traffic during construction (up to 1,100 
workers) is expected and would be easily accommodated by the existing 
road systems with only minor temporary disruptions. Continuing 
operation of the W.A. Parish Plant, the pipeline, and the West Ranch 
oil field would have negligible effects as a relatively small number of 
commuting employees (10 to 15) would be added as well as a relatively 
small amount of additional material deliveries.

Noise

    Construction of the CO2 capture facility would result an 
estimated 0.3 dB increase over existing noise levels for nearby 
receptors (i.e., nearby residential areas), which is below the 
threshold of human perception. Increased truck traffic during daytime 
hours may result in minor, short-term noise impacts along 
transportation corridors. Residences within 500 to 1,000 feet of 
pipeline construction 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. Overall, noise and vibrations would result in minor to 
moderate impacts to receptors, depending on the distance from the 
receptor to the construction area. Construction and operations at the 
West Ranch oil field would result in an estimated 0.8 dB increase over 
existing noise levels for nearby individuals (i.e., in Vanderbilt), 
which is below the threshold of human perception, resulting in 
negligible to minor impacts to receptors.

Materials and Waste Management

    Construction materials, equipment and supplies are readily 
available within the ROI and quantities required to support the 
proposed project are expected to be well within the capacity of 
material suppliers. Some specialized equipment may be required from 
outside the ROI; however, it is expected that this equipment would also 
be within existing supplier capacities. As a result, impacts to 
regional and national construction material resources and special 
equipment suppliers would be negligible.
    The W.A. Parish Plant is currently a conditionally exempt small 
quantity generator and generates approximately 200 pounds of hazardous 
waste per year. During operations, the generation of approximately 
2,712 pounds per day of reclaimer effluent, a hazardous material, would 
cause the plant to be classified as a large quantity generator. 
Approximately 24 shipments of reclaimer effluent would be sent to a 
permitted treatment, storage and disposal facility (TSDF) per year. The 
amounts sent for disposal would not substantially affect the capacities 
of the TSDF selected.
    Adequate non-hazardous solid waste disposal capacity exists within 
the ROI. Based on the over 20 million tons of capacity available in 
regional waste disposal facilities and the relatively low volumes of 
solid waste that would be generated by the proposed project (e.g., up 
to approximately 60 tons per year from the CO2 capture 
facility), adequate regional capacity exists for solid waste disposal 
with negligible impacts to waste management service providers.

Human Health and Safety

    The potential for worker injuries and fatalities would be present 
during the construction of the proposed CO2 capture 
facility, CO2 pipeline, and CO2 monitoring 
infrastructure. Based on historical records for related industries, no 
worker fatalities would be expected. During facility operation, workers 
could be subject to physical and chemical hazards, which would be 
typical of those associated with similar power plant, pipeline, and oil 
field operations. An estimated nine to 12 OSHA recordable incidents 
would be anticipated during project construction based on national 
incidence rates for comparable industries.
    A human health risk assessment was performed for the EIS to analyze 
the

[[Page 30909]]

potential health and safety impacts associated with CO2 and 
amine releases from proposed project components. The potential for 
CO2 pipeline ruptures or punctures is considered to be 
unlikely. The upper bound impact from a pipeline release of 
CO2 would be transient and reversible effects for up to 12 
people. More severe impacts would affect less than one person for all 
other pipeline release scenarios. If a release were to occur with 
workers present, the workers would likely experience the physical 
effects of an accident or a higher concentration exposure to 
CO2 than the surrounding population. Potential exposure 
would be limited because the pipeline would be buried underground. 
Additionally, NRG plans to install 12 main line valves to stop the 
release of CO2 should a puncture or rupture occur. These 
valves, along with pipeline pressure monitoring equipment, would be 
linked to the CO2 capture system operations control room, 
which would be staffed at all times when the system is in operation. In 
the event of a pressure drop indicating a pipeline rupture, the control 
room operator would shut down the system and remotely activate the main 
line valves to prevent further damage to the pipeline and minimize 
impacts to people in the surrounding area and the environment.
    The potential for release of CO2 from the EOR area is 
considered to range from unlikely to incredible (i.e., extremely 
unlikely), with less than one person affected for all release 
scenarios. In the extremely unlikely occurrence of an injection well 
blowout, the main adverse outcome would be the potential for ejection 
of CO2, possibly as dry ice particles, and formation fluids 
from the wellhead. Effects would be expected to be localized to the 
area around the affected wellhead and events of this type would be 
avoided or minimized by incorporating high pressure piping, 
overpressure protection valves, and blowout preventers into the design 
of the injection wells. A leak of amine-based solvent from a storage 
tank was also evaluated. Such a release would be unlikely and effects 
would be confined to the plant property. No nearby residents or the 
general public in the vicinity of the plant would be affected. Plant 
workers would need to take appropriate response actions, since life-
threatening concentrations of the solvent in air could occur within the 
plant site to a distance of 0.3 miles from the release. No nearby 
residents or other individuals in the vicinity of the plant would be 
affected beyond mild irritation if an amine-based solvent tank release 
occurred, although an odor may be detectable depending on wind 
conditions.

Utilities

    The construction and operations phases of the proposed project 
would increase demand for potable and industrial water; and wastewater 
treatment services. Construction-related impacts to water supplies 
would be short term and negligible to minor. Construction-related 
impacts to wastewater treatment would be negligible. Operations impacts 
to water supplies would be negligible. Operations of the CO2 
capture facility would result in negligible impacts to the natural gas 
supply as compared to existing use (i.e., much less than 1 percent of 
the current maximum usage).
    EOR operations may require additional natural gas supply and 
electricity, which may result in minor impacts to the local utility 
infrastructure. Beneficial impacts to oil supplies would be provided in 
the long term as a result of increased production of oil in the ROI as 
a result of EOR operations.

Community Services

    A temporary workforce of up to 1,100 workers would be required for 
construction of the proposed project. Long-term operation of the 
project would require up to 20 new employees. Many of these workers are 
expected to be employed from within the ROI. Negligible impacts on 
community services would be expected due to a relatively small 
population increase during the construction and operation phases of the 
Parish PCCS Project. Existing community services (i.e., law 
enforcement, emergency response, hospitals, and education) are expected 
to be adequate to address the needs of the population in the ROI, 
including project personnel.

Socioeconomics

    The project would be expected to contribute minor, long-term, 
beneficial impacts on the local economy and employment activities, as 
well as taxes and revenue through increased employment opportunities 
and expenditures in the local economy. Housing demand may increase 
slightly during construction if a portion of the 1,100 construction 
workers temporarily relocate to the area; however, this would be a 
negligible, short-term effect. TCV estimates that using CO2 
floods (i.e., EOR), the West Ranch oil field could produce an 
additional 55 to 75 million barrels of oil. This projected increase in 
oil production would translate directly into additional revenues for 
the State of Texas, even after taking into account the tax exemptions 
related to use of CO2 from anthropogenic sources for EOR.

Environmental Justice

    Three census tracts in the ROI qualify as minority environmental 
justice areas of concern using the threshold of 50 percent minority in 
the corresponding county. However, the proposed project is not expected 
to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental impacts on minority populations. The overall impacts of 
the proposed project would be negligible or minor, depending on the 
resource area evaluated, and would not be directed at any particular 
minority group. Significant or adverse impacts on potential 
environmental justice areas of concern would not occur. In addition, 
the proposed project is expected to create economic benefits for local 
communities, regardless of race, by generating employment 
opportunities, local expenditures by workers, and compensation for 
proposed project-related easements to local landowners. Mitigation 
measures for resource areas impacted have been identified to further 
reduce environmental impacts and adhere to policies and regulations for 
the protection of the environment and local public health. Therefore, 
the proposed project would not create disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental impacts on minority populations 
during construction or operation.
    Because there is no low-income population in the ROI to be 
affected, there would be no adverse environmental justice impacts 
associated with the proposed project. However, DOE expects the proposed 
project would create economic benefits for local communities during 
construction and operation.

Potential Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, DOE assumed the only development 
at the facility would be the construction and operation of a natural 
gas-fired turbine at the W.A. Parish Plant that would begin operation 
in 2013. The impacts under the no-action alternative (i.e. no 
development) were evaluated in the EIS and compared to the proposed 
action.
    Under the no-action alternative, the W.A. Parish Plant, pipeline 
corridor, and the EOR area at the West Ranch oil field would remain in 
their current condition with respect to the following: Geologic 
resources; physiography and soils; groundwater resources; surface

[[Page 30910]]

waters; wetlands and floodplains; biological resources; cultural 
resources; land use and aesthetic resources; noise; material use and 
waste generation; human health and safety; community services; and 
environmental justice.
    Construction and operation of a natural gas-fired turbine at the 
W.A. Parish Plant under the no-action alternative would be a new source 
with emissions of criteria pollutants and GHG. The criteria pollutant 
emissions associated with the facility are estimated to be: 102.1 tpy 
of CO, 37.6 tpy of NOX, 75.1 tpy of PM10, 71.7 
tpy of PM2.5, 6.9 tpy of SO2, and 12.88 tpy of 
VOC. These potential emission increases were evaluated by TCEQ, and are 
authorized in the permit that it issued on December 21, 2012. The GHG 
emissions associated with the turbine are estimated to be: 582,328 tpy 
of CO2, 2.44 tpy of H2SO4, and 34.2 
tpy of NH3. Since there will be no emission reductions to 
offset the emission increases from the turbine; there would be an 
overall increase in GHG emissions. These GHG emission increases would 
have to be authorized under a PSD permit from the EPA. There would also 
be no commercial-scale demonstration of advanced coal-based power 
generation technologies to capture CO2 for EOR and ultimate 
sequestration.
    Construction of the natural gas-fired turbine at the W.A. Parish 
Plant would temporarily increase traffic during construction (up to 100 
workers), but would be easily accommodated by the existing road systems 
with only minor temporary disruptions. The personnel employed during 
construction of the turbine would result in minor short-term beneficial 
impacts by consumption of goods and services. Construction of the 
natural gas-fired turbine would likely result in a moderate, beneficial 
impact to taxes and revenue within the ROI.
    The construction and operations phases of the natural gas-fired 
turbine would increase demand for potable and industrial water; and 
wastewater treatment services. Construction-related impacts to water 
supplies would be short term and negligible to minor. Construction-
related impacts to wastewater treatment would be negligible. Operations 
impacts to water supplies would be negligible. Operations of the 
turbine would result in negligible impacts to the natural gas supply as 
compared to existing use (i.e., much less than 1 percent of the current 
maximum usage). The turbine would supply electricity that would be 
available for commercial sale through the power grid, and would be a 
beneficial impact until the electricity and steam are needed for the 
capture facility.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    From a local perspective, the no-action alternative is the 
environmentally preferable alternative because it would result in no 
changes to the existing environmental conditions, with the exception of 
the natural gas-fired turbine, which NRG has begun constructing and 
plans to operate with or without DOE funding. However, from a national 
perspective, DOE's proposed action is the environmentally preferred 
alternative. Successful demonstration of the proposed project could 
facilitate the deployment of carbon capture, utilization and storage 
(sequestration) practices at power plants and other industrial 
facilities in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that would 
otherwise occur with the continued combustion of fossil fuels, 
especially coal, from large stationary sources.

    Issued in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on this 8th of May 2013.
Anthony V. Cugini,
Director, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2013-12280 Filed 5-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P