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, 20328-20331 [2017-08744]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20328-20331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: https://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