[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30901-30910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://energy.gov/nepa/ and on the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory
(NETL) Web site at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/nepa/index.html. 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:
[email protected].
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