[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59292-59299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22241]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 4849]
Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact and Summary
Environmental Assessment: Express Pipeline in Montana and Wyoming
AGENCY: Department of State, Office of International Energy and
Commodities Policy.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed action is to issue a Presidential Permit to Express
Pipeline LLC (``Express'') to authorize it to construct, connect,
operate and maintain six new pump stations for an existing 24-inch
outer diameter pipeline to convey crude petroleum from Hardisty,
Alberta in Canada, to Casper, Wyoming. The Department of State (the
``Department'') issued a Presidential Permit on August 30, 1996 to
construct, connect, operate, and maintain the 24-inch-diameter buried
steel pipeline that is currently capable of transporting 172,000 bpd of
petroleum from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Casper, Wyoming. On behalf
of Express, Westech Environmental Services of Helena, Montana, prepared
a draft environmental assessment (``EA'') for the proposed action under
the guidance and supervision of the Department. The Department placed a
notice in the Federal Register (69 FR 33691 (June 16, 2004)) regarding
the availability for inspection of the Express permit application and
the draft environmental assessment, and initiating a 30-day public
comment period. No public comments were submitted on the draft
environmental assessment.
Numerous Federal and State agencies independently reviewed the
Express Permit application and the draft environmental assessment. They
include: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and the Department of
Energy.
Comments received from the Federal and State agencies were either
responded to directly, or addressed directly by incorporation into the
analysis contained in the draft environmental assessment. In addition
to inclusion in the analyses of impacts and risks, Federal and State
agency comments were used to develop measures to be undertaken by
Express to prevent or mitigate potentially adverse environmental
impacts, which were included as commitments by Express and its operator
Terasen Pipelines, Inc., in the EA and are to be included in the permit
to be issued.
The summary environmental assessment, comments submitted by the
Federal and State agencies, responses to those comments, and the draft
environmental assessment, as amended, together constitute the Final
Environmental Assessment of the proposed action.
Introduction
The Express Pipeline is a 24-inch-diameter buried steel pipeline
currently capable of transporting approximately 172,000 bpd of
petroleum from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Casper, Wyoming. The U.S.
portion of the Express Pipeline was authorized by a Presidential Permit
issued by the Department on August 30, 1996 which permitted the
operation of five pump stations, several mainline valves and other
pipeline related facilities on the basis of an environmental impact
statement that is an annex to this environmental assessment. The
Express Pipeline was constructed in the fall and winter of 1996-1997,
and became operational in early 1997.
The 1996 Presidential Permit was issued to Express Pipeline
partnership, a Delaware partnership. On August 1, 2001, Express
Pipeline partnership filed a certificate of conversion to a limited
liability company with the Delaware Secretary of State, thereby
automatically converting to a domestic limited liability company,
Express Pipeline LLC. On January 9, 2003, Encana Corporation of British
Columbia sold Express Pipeline LLC to a consortium comprised of
Terasen, Inc., of British Columbia, the Ontario Municipal Employees
Retirement System and the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board, each
holding an equal one-third interest. Terasen Pipelines (USA) Inc.,
(``Terasen'') operates and maintains the existing system on behalf of
Express Pipeline LLC.
Express Pipeline LLC (``Express'') owns the portion of the Express
Pipeline system from the Canada/U.S. border to Casper, Wyoming. Express
is now applying for a Presidential Permit from the U.S. Department of
State to construct, operate and maintain six additional pump stations
on the Express Pipeline in Montana and Wyoming and to transfer the
existing Presidential Permit from Express Pipeline partnership to
Express (the ``Proposed Action''). This expansion of the capacity of
the Express Pipeline in the United States would enable Express to
respond to the market demand of Rocky Mountain and Midwest refiners for
[[Page 59293]]
increased access to a wider diversity and additional supply of Canadian
petroleum.
Subsequent engineering and operational analysis demonstrated that,
in conjunction with the Proposed Action, two new 150,000 barrel storage
tanks would be needed at the existing Casper Station Tank Farm located
in Casper, Wyoming to accommodate the additional volumes of petroleum.
The Casper Station Tank Farm is owned by Platte Pipe Line Company
(``Platte''), an affiliate of Express. Because, according to Express,
these storage tanks would be located beyond the terminus of the Express
Pipeline system (i.e., they would be part of the Platte Pipeline
system), they were not included within the scope of Express' proposal
for which it seeks a Presidential Permit from the Department. After
thoroughly considering all factors, the Department has concluded that
the two additional storage tanks at the Casper Station Tank Farm are
not within the scope of the Proposed Action and therefore will not be
subject to the Presidential Permit, once issued. The environmental
consequences of construction, operation and maintenance of the two
storage tanks are evaluated in conjunction with the Proposed Action,
however.
Purpose and Need
The Express Pipeline was constructed to meet the requirements of
refiners in the U.S., particularly in the Rocky Mountain and Midwest
regions, by providing new sources of Canadian petroleum to numerous
markets including Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and
Illinois. The Express Pipeline system is consistently operating at or
near its maximum capacity in its current configuration. Market demand
for additional Canadian petroleum supplies continues to grow. The
Express Pipeline cannot meet the increased demand in its current
configuration. The construction of additional pump stations along the
existing, permitted Express Pipeline right-of-way (``ROW''), along with
construction of two new storage tanks at the Casper Station Tank Farm,
would result in the expansion of capacity necessary to enable Express
Pipeline to transport additional petroleum to these markets. Without
greater supply diversity and reliability of access to additional
supply, the potential that the consumer will enjoy the availability of
more competitively priced refined products could be substantially
reduced and the refiners' ability to comply with more rigorous refined
product specifications could be hindered.
Project Background
The increased demand for Canadian petroleum was anticipated at the
time the Express Pipeline was originally proposed in 1993. The entire
Express Pipeline system from Hardisty, Alberta to Casper, Wyoming was
originally designed for an ultimate capacity of approximately 280,000
barrels per day (``bpd''), depending on the characteristics of the
petroleum being transported. Accordingly, the original design of the
Express Pipeline system called for 11 pump stations to be located in
the United States.
Although the Express Pipeline system was designed for an ultimate
capacity of approximately 280,000 bpd, it was originally constructed to
transport approximately 172,000 bpd, in response to the anticipated
market demand in 1996. Consequently, only five of the 11 pump stations
planned for location in the U.S. were needed when the pipeline was
constructed.
Mainline valves were installed at the locations of the six
remaining pump stations in order to allow the future addition of the
remaining pump stations without requiring substantial alteration or
reconstruction of the pipeline itself.
To maintain the hydraulic efficiency of the pipeline system as
currently designed, the remaining six pump stations in the U.S. would
need to be placed at the locations originally planned. Three of the six
new pump stations will be located on public land administered by the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (``BLM'').
The BLM evaluated the environmental consequences of constructing and
operating pipeline facilities in the Express Crude Oil Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Since environmental conditions at the
three BLM-administered sites have not materially changed from those
reflected in the DEIS, BLM issued a ``Notice to Proceed'' with
construction of these pump stations on October 14, 2003.
The three pump stations on non-federal land would all be
constructed within the certified 500-foot-wide Express Pipeline
corridor. Express owns or has obtained easements on the land at these
three proposed pump stations. The general discussion of impacts and
mitigation measures for the pump stations on non-federal land set forth
below would also be relevant to the pump stations on Federal land.
Description of Alternatives
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further Analysis
Three action alternatives were considered but eliminated from
further analysis for the reasons discussed below.
(1) Looping the Express Pipeline
``Looping'' allows an existing pipeline system to expand its
capacity by constructing a second, generally parallel pipeline
alongside the existing pipeline. Looping is utilized when the existing
pipeline does not have the potential capacity to transport additional
petroleum. The two pipelines could be located in the same ROW, although
they would be offset far enough so that construction activities on the
second pipeline would not disturb the existing pipeline. The two
pipelines may share certain facilities, such as an operations center.
Looping is a major construction activity that has the potential for
environmental impacts equal to those encountered during construction of
the original pipeline. For example, if the Express Pipeline was looped
only along the U.S. portion of the pipeline, approximately 515 miles of
new pipeline along with pump stations, mainline valves and other
facilities would have to be constructed. The pipeline would have to
cross 137 named perennial, intermittent or ephemeral rivers and
streams, as well as 354 named or unnamed drainages, irrigations canals
or ditches. There could be potential impacts to land use activities
along the pipeline, to wildlife and fisheries habitat (including
endangered or threatened species), to soils and cultural resources, as
well as socioeconomic burdens on the existing infrastructure, such as
temporary housing and road systems. Looping would require a minimum of
two years to design the new pipeline and facilities, conduct a thorough
environmental impact analysis, obtain construction easements and other
permits, acquire the pipe and other materials, hire pipeline
contractors, construct the pipeline and rehabilitate disturbed areas
after construction.
In the case of the Express Pipeline, looping would not be necessary
because the Express Pipeline system was conceived and designed for an
ultimate capacity of approximately 280,000 bpd, assuming 18 pump
stations in Canada and the U.S. In other words, the Express Pipeline
system could be expanded simply by adding nine pump stations (three in
Canada and six in the U.S.) at sites where mainline valves were placed
[[Page 59294]]
during construction of the original pipeline. The potential
environmental impacts associated with constructing an entire pipeline
would be avoided, and additional petroleum supplies could reach U.S.
refiners within a few months, rather than a minimum of two years.
Consequently, looping was eliminated as a possible alternative from
further analysis.
(2) A New Pipeline on an Alternative Route
The Express Pipeline system transports petroleum from Hardisty,
Alberta, Canada to Casper, Wyoming, crossing the Canada/U.S. border
near the Port of Wild Horse. As part of the pre-construction
environmental impact analysis for the Express Pipeline, the Express
Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluated three
alternative points of entry into the U.S.: one located approximately
120 miles west of Wild Horse, and the other two located approximately
65 and 120 miles east of Wild Horse respectively. The Express Crude Oil
Draft Environmental Impact Statement concluded that these alternative
routes would add additional length and cost to the Express Pipeline
system without providing any environmental or engineering benefits.
These same three entry points are still potentially available for
an alternative pipeline route. However, use of any of these entry
points would require construction of a new pipeline on the Canada
portion of the Express Pipeline system as well as a new pipeline on the
U.S. portion (in effect, construction of an entirely new Express
Pipeline system). Any such pipeline system would be longer than the
existing pipeline, would require substantial engineering and
environmental study and design in both Canada and the U.S. that would
delay construction of the project for several years, and (as stated in
the Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact Statement) would not
provide any environmental or engineering benefits on the U.S. portion
of the project. In addition, as discussed previously, a new pipeline
would not be necessary to obtain the additional petroleum supplies for
U.S. refiners, since the existing Express Pipeline system could provide
those supplies by the simple addition of nine pump stations (three in
Canada and six in the U.S.). Therefore, a new pipeline on an
alternative route was also eliminated as an alternative from further
analysis.
(3) Alternative Pump Station Locations
The original Express Pipeline was designed for an ultimate capacity
of approximately 280,000 bpd, which would require a total of 18 pump
stations in Canada and the U.S. The location of each of the 18 pump
stations was selected when the Express Pipeline was originally designed
to minimize environmental impact and maximize both the capacity and
efficiency of the system. To achieve the initial capacity of
approximately 172,000 bpd, nine of the 18 pump stations were
constructed in 1996, four pump stations in Canada and five pump
stations in the United States. To maintain the hydraulic efficiency of
the pipeline system as it was originally designed, the remaining nine
pump stations (three in Canada, six in the U.S.) must be placed at the
intervals as originally planned.
The proposed pump station sites addressed in the Proposed Action
were selected not only for their hydraulic efficiency but to minimize
environmental impacts. The pump stations locations were deliberately
selected to avoid impacts to the following land uses:
National Wilderness Area
National Primitive Area
Designated or Undesignated Roadless Areas Greater Than 5,000
Acres
National Wild and Scenic Rivers (``WSR'')
Rivers Under Study for the WSR System
National Wildlife Refuges or Ranges
National or State Recreation Areas
National Trails
National Historic Landmarks/National Register Historic
Districts or Sites
State Historic Preservation Office (``SHPO'') Historic
Districts or Sites
Designated Habitat for Federally Listed, Proposed or Candidate
Endangered or Threatened Species
Habitats Occupied Seasonally by Federally Listed, Proposed or
Candidate Endangered or Threatened Species
Habitats Critical to Species of Special Interest or Concern
Unique Habitats or Natural Areas
Wetlands
Federal or State Waterfowl Production Areas
Areas With High Waterfowl Density
State Game Ranges and Game Management Areas
Big Game Winter Ranges
Big Game Summer Security Areas
Grouse Leks or Severe Winter Concentration Areas
Bird Nesting Colonies
Riparian Forests
Conservation Easements
Sites Funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund or Urban
Park and Recreation Recovery Programs
Water Bodies Larger Than 20 Acres
Municipal Watersheds
Surface Supplies of Potable Waters
Active Faults Showing Evidence of Post-Micoene Movement
Rugged Topography With Slopes Greater Than 15%
Erodible Soils, Areas with Severe Reclamation Constraints
Undeveloped Natural Features
Avalanche Chutes
Permitted Surface Mining Areas
Geological Formations with High Probability of Paleontological
Resources
Sites of Religious or Heritage Significance to Native
Americans
Schools or Future School Sites
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Prime or Unique Farmland and Orchards
Scenic Overlooks and Scenic Highways
Areas of Conflict with Published Visual Management Plans
Limited Access Areas
Because of the placement of the existing pump stations, any change
in the locations of the proposed pump stations would interfere with the
hydraulics and performance of the entire pipeline system. Changing the
locations of the proposed pump stations would not provide any
engineering or environmental benefits. Consequently, use of alternative
pump station locations were eliminated as an alternative from further
analysis.
In sum, there do not appear to be any alternatives other than the
Proposed Action and a No Action alternative. The design of the pump
stations as described in the Proposed Action represents the most
efficient use of the available site lands and minimizes environmental
impacts associated with construction, operation and maintenance of the
pump stations. Other alternatives that would increase pipeline capacity
are less desirable from an environmental standpoint. Putting the six
pump stations at new locations would entail much more invasive
construction than that required at the locations already identified and
moving the pipeline would be even more environmentally disruptive.
Accordingly, there are no other alternatives that would meet the
requirements of the Proposed Action and therefore this EA considers
only the Proposed Action and a No Action alternative.
Proposed Action
The physical design of the pump station facilities would be similar
to the originally constructed stations, although the footprint of the
new pump stations would be smaller than that of the
[[Page 59295]]
existing pump stations. Each proposed pump station would require about
5.74 acres of land during construction, while the post-construction
area of each pump station would be about 1.24 acres. Each site has
previously been entirely or partially disturbed by agricultural
activities and the construction of the Express Pipeline.
The stations would be constructed adjacent to existing mainline
valves, in fenced and graveled station yards. Electrical supply lines
and substations would provide the power required for the pump stations
and would be permitted, constructed and maintained by local electrical
utility companies.
Each pump station would have two 5,000 horsepower electric motor-
driven pumps located above ground on concrete pads, and coated at the
factory with protective paint to prevent corrosion. Each pump would
have a pump seal. Additional equipment at each station would include
piping, a double-walled sump tank, electrical controls, process
instrumentation, data collection and communication equipment. An
electrical building would be constructed at each pump station to house
electrical equipment including switchgear, motor controls and
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (``SCADA'') equipment. Each of
the proposed pump stations would be equipped with a SCADA system to
control and monitor the station. A satellite dish would be installed to
maintain the communication link with the Edmonton Control Center.
Collected data would be relayed to the Control Center in Edmonton,
Alberta where Control Center Operators monitor the status of the
stations and pipeline. The Edmonton Control Center is a 24-hour staffed
facility, and has full control of all the station equipment including
the capability to start and stop station pumps, and close and open
station valves.
Express and Terasen have agreed to test each pump station
hydrostatically to ensure system integrity prior to operation. The pump
stations would be maintained and operated in accordance with the
standards set forth in the General Operations Management Plan that are
applicable to the existing stations. All manuals, including the
Express/Platte Emergency Response Plan (``ERP'') required by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (``U.S. DOT''), would be updated to
reflect the addition of these proposed stations.
In addition, the storage tanks would be constructed at the Casper
Station Tank Farm. Other possible locations outside the Casper Tank
Farm boundary would reduce the efficiency of the transfer of petroleum
from the Express Pipeline system to the Platte Pipeline system because
it would lengthen the distance to the refineries as well as increase
costs and opportunities for system failure. In addition, locating the
storage tanks within the Casper Tank Farm, which has been disturbed by
past and on-going activities with the existing tanks, would minimize
potential environmental impacts from construction and operation of the
tanks while allowing quick response from Terasen personnel and
equipment in the event of an emergency.
The project facilities would consist of two 150,000-barrel storage
tanks, leak detection system, spill-containment dikes, impervious
liners, piping, control valves, manifold piping and site lighting.
Electrical service would be provided by an extension from the
distribution center in Platte's station yard, or from an adjacent
transmission line. Other facilities such as an access road, control and
quality assurance buildings and satellite dish are already in place in
the Casper Station Tank Farm. A secure 6-foot chain link fence
surrounds the entire complex.
Like the pump stations, Express and Terasen have agreed to
hydrostatically test the storage tank facilities prior to operation to
ensure system integrity. According to Express and Terasen, the new
storage tanks would be operated in accordance with appropriate manuals
and procedures for the Casper Station Tank Farm. Further they state
that all manuals, including the Express/Platte ERP required by the U.S.
DOT, would be updated to reflect the addition of these additional
storage tanks.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would mean that the additional pump
stations and storage tanks would not be constructed. There would be no
additional environmental impacts under the No Action alternative.
However, there would be no beneficial economic effects because the
pipeline capacity would remain unchanged.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Proposed Action
Construction and normal operation of the Proposed Action would have
beneficial economic impacts. Temporary socioeconomic benefits would
flow to the local economy during the construction period and would
result in a temporary increase in local personal income. Local motels,
restaurants, retail outlets and recreation providers would be the
primary recipients of these benefits.
Over the long-term, the state of Montana and respective counties
would receive additional tax benefits as a result of the ad valorem tax
that would be assessed on the three proposed stations on private land.
It is estimated that the ad valorem tax would be approximately $225,000
per station per year.
The construction of the proposed pump stations would increase the
throughput capacity of the Express Pipeline, increasing the pipeline's
ability to deliver high quality Canadian petroleum to refiners in PADD
II and PADD IV including Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and
Illinois. This would enable these refiners to access additional
quantities of specialized petroleum, enhancing their ability to meet
increasingly stringent refined product quality requirements. The
Proposed Action would also provide the refiners access to an increased
number of potential suppliers, and potentially longer-term supply
sources at tolls that would be competitive with alternative routes.
Based on the draft environmental assessment prepared by Westech
Environmental Services on behalf of Express, normal operation of the
Proposed Action would have no significant adverse impacts on climate,
air quality noise, geology, wetlands and riparian areas, navigable
waters, floodplains, plant species of special concern/sensitive
communities, noxious weeds, threatened or endangered species, land use,
transportation, socioeconomics, population and housing, recreation, and
cultural and paleontological resources. This document lays out the
minimal impacts that have been identified in the environmental
assessment.
Water Resources: There may be short-term impacts from construction
of the Proposed Action to water resources as a result of runoff and
sedimentation during construction or hydrostatic testing. Express and
Terasen have agreed to undertake the following measures to mitigate
impacts to surface water for the proposed pump stations:
During construction, drainage control structures (ditches,
ponds, sediment fence) would be designed, built and maintained to
transport surface runoff from the affected area but prevent discharge
to drainages or areas outside the 5.74-acre site.
A detailed hydrostatic test plan would be prepared before
mechanical construction of the pump stations would begin.
[[Page 59296]]
Any necessary permits or approvals would be obtained prior
to hydrostatic testing.
Soil: There could be impacts to soil resources during the
construction phase as a result of salvage and storage, clearing and
grading, compaction, and wind or water erosion. Express and Terasen
have agreed to undertake the following measures to mitigate impacts to
upland soil resources for pump stations:
During construction, drainage control structures (ditches,
ponds, sediment fence) would be designed, built and maintained to
transport surface runoff off the affected area but to prevent discharge
to drainages or areas outside the 5.74-acre site.
With the potential exception of the proposed Faulkners
Coulee pump station, salvaged topsoil would be spread to blend with the
landforms on undisturbed portions of the site.
At the proposed Faulkners Coulee pump station, it may be
necessary to retain a small topsoil stockpile for the life of the
project, due to the active cultivation of portions of the site that
would make it difficult to maintain (and eventually salvage) a uniform
soil depth. Unless otherwise requested by the landowner, the topsoil
would be seeded in the first appropriate season with ``Sodar''
streambank wheatgrass.
Vegetation: Because soils would be disturbed, there could be
impacts to upland vegetation as a result of construction of the
Proposed Action. Express and Terasen have agreed to undertake the
following measures to mitigate any impacts to vegetation resources for
the Proposed Action:
After construction is completed, temporary workspace and
other portions of the affected area where long-term disturbance is not
required would be rehabilitated using the topsoil spreading and
revegetation mixtures recommended in the applicable discussion for each
pump station in the EA.
Ultimate reclamation of the three pump stations would be
addressed in the abandonment plan.
Noxious weeds at each station would be monitored and
controlled.
Wildlife and Fisheries: Similarly, there could be impacts to
wildlife and fisheries from surface runoff, as a result of surface
disturbance during construction, and from normal operation of the
Proposed Action. Express and Terasen have agreed to undertake the
following measures to mitigate impacts to wildlife and fisheries from
the Proposed Action:
Implement the surface runoff control mitigation measures
recommended above to reduce the potential for surface runoff and
sedimentation to reach drainages.
Any transmission line poles erected on the site would
provide raptor protection in accordance with Suggested Practices for
Raptor Protection on Power Lines: the State of the Art in 1996 (APLIC
1996).
Visual Resources: The Proposed Action could impair or detract from
the scenery surrounding the pipeline as a result of vegetation removal,
grading and site development, the presence of construction workers and
equipment, and the long-term presence of small buildings, the pumps and
other facilities. Express and Terasen have agreed to undertake the
following measures to mitigate impacts to visual resources from the
Proposed Action:
Facilities would be painted similar to the paint scheme
used at the existing pump stations.
As soon as practicable after construction, temporary
workspace that is not needed for the life of the project would be
revegetated.
Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, provides that each Federal agency must identify and
address, as appropriate, effects of its activities on minority
populations and low-income populations. The Proposed Action would be
located in rural areas of comparatively low population density. No
residences are located less than 0.25 mile from any proposed pump
station. There are no population centers at or proximal to the Proposed
Action, and none are proposed for development. Consequently, it is not
anticipated that the Proposed Action would have any significant adverse
human health or environmental effects on any minority or low-income
populations.
Historical and Cultural Resources: Pre-construction field surveys
for cultural and paleontological resources along the 500-foot-wide
permitted Express Pipeline route discovered no such resources at any of
the Proposed Action locations. No historic, archaeological,
architectural and/or traditional cultural properties on or eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places were found. No
paleontological resources were documented. The proposed pump station
sites are comprised of land that is or has been cultivated, and no
undisturbed surface cultural or paleontological resources would be
expected at any of the sites. In addition, all proposed pump station
sites were previously affected by construction of the Express Pipeline.
Because no cultural or paleontological resources are known to be
present at any of the proposed pump stations, there would be no known
significant impacts from construction and operation of the proposed
pump stations on these resources. Any cultural or paleontological
resources found during the construction of the proposed pump stations
would be addressed in accordance with protocols established for the
existing Express Pipeline.
Pipeline Safety and Reliability: The potential for an operational
petroleum release from the Express Pipeline throughout its life would
be very low. Because the pipeline and its facilities were designed for
the ultimate capacity of approximately 280,000 bpd, it was constructed
to accommodate the change in pressure profile that would be needed to
transport that capacity, which is the Proposed Action. The SCADA system
and its accompanying leak detection system were also designed for the
ultimate capacity of about 280,000 bpd. Consequently, the addition of
the six pump stations covered by this Proposed Action would not require
any material changes in the overall design, engineering, or operational
procedures currently employed by the Express Pipeline. None of the
proposed additional pump stations is located in a ``High Consequence
Area'' as defined by 49 CFR 195.450. Therefore the addition of the
Proposed Action to the Express Pipeline system would not result in an
increase in the pipeline integrity-related potential for an accidental
petroleum release, compared to the existing conditions.
The potential for a petroleum release during normal operations
would be driven by the age of the pipeline rather than its operating
capacity. The Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact Statement
presented a risk analysis for petroleum release in or near riverbeds,
based on pipeline industry statistics. That analysis concluded that,
over a potential 25-year life of the project, two releases of 50
barrels or less and one release of over 50 barrels could statistically
occur. If the life of the project were extended an additional 25 years
(i.e., a total of 50 years), there would be a statistical potential for
nine more releases of less than 50 barrels and two releases of over 50
barrels. Since the Express Pipeline was placed in service in 1997,
there has been only one release that occurred in 2003 when a backhoe
excavating at a block valve hit a valve fitting. The entire release
(approximately 70 barrels) was contained on site.
[[Page 59297]]
The statistical potential for a major release (i.e., greater than
500 barrels) during the first 25 years of the Express Pipeline was
calculated to be 0.31, and 0.62 during the second 25 years. This
release potential would not be expected to change regardless of the
operating capacity of the pipeline, because the maximum release in the
event of a major rupture is comprised of the volume lost before the
leak is recognized and the valves are closed, plus the volume that
drains down due to topography. The volume lost prior to shut down is
related to the amount of flow (i.e., 280,000 bpd vs. 172,000 bpd), but
this is small in relation to the amount of peak drain down, which is
generally not affected by throughput (i.e., amount of flow).
For example, a 15-minute recognition and shut down time of a major
rupture of the Express Pipeline at 280,000 bpd (release volumes were
calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 194.105(b)(1)), would result in a
volume release of 2,917 barrels, which could be up to 1,125 barrels
greater than would be expected under the current capacity.
In comparison, drain down volumes following shut down would vary as
a function of topography, rather than throughput, and so would not be
significantly increased by the Proposed Action (as compared to current
capacity). Peak drain down volumes for the Express Pipeline would be in
the order of 30,000 to 50,000 barrels, far greater than the volume lost
as a result of the increased flow in the pipeline system.
Terasen has an Integrity Management Program, developed as a result
of the requirements of 49 CFR 195.452. When constructed, the Express
Pipeline employed ``state-of-the-art'' technology, including the most
recent SCADA and leak detection systems.
The sensitivity of leak detection is a function of the uncertainty
in the flow rate of fluid entering and delivered from the pipeline
system, and the uncertainty in the line pack within the pipeline. These
uncertainties are dependent on a number of parameters including
instrumentation accuracy and repeatability, fluid properties and SCADA
system characteristics. The proposed Action would not fundamentally
change the type or level of instrumentation, the fluids being
transported or the SCADA system. Therefore the leak detection system
would continue to operate at the same sensitivity, as a percentage of
flow rate, at the ultimate capacity of approximately 280,000 bpd as it
does at the current rate of 172,000 bpd.
Upon regulatory approval of the Proposed Action, as required by the
U.S. DOT, Terasen would update the Express/Platte ERP to consider the
worst-case scenario based on the throughput under the Proposed Action.
Although the worst-case scenario would not likely represent a ``real
world'' occurrence, Terasen's response planning is based on this
scenario. For example, additional manpower and spill response equipment
might be needed as a result of these calculations; if so, Terasen would
obtain these resources through local contractors and the Montana-
Wyoming Spill Cooperative.
As discussed in the Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, in the event of a release anywhere on the Express Pipeline,
the magnitude and duration of environmental damage would be influenced
by a number of factors. The kind, magnitude and duration of these
effects would not be expected to materially change under the Proposed
Action, although the released volume could be greater in some locations
and smaller in others.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (``DOT'') regulates all
aspects of pipeline design, construction, operations, maintenance and
emergency and spill response. Pipeline safety regulations are designed
to protect the public, environmentally sensitive areas, cultural
resources and economic resources. Emergency and spill response planning
regulations require the identification of environmentally important
areas, and require that operators have response capabilities in place
to minimize a pipeline release and the impact of such a release on the
environment, the public and other resources.
In the event of a release, the Federal regulatory programs define
the notification requirements and required response actions. These
programs include: The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP: 40 CFR part 300); the Clean Water Act; the Oil
Pollution Act; and the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act.
U.S. DOT NEPA regulations allow for coordinated implementation of these
federal requirements. The U.S. DOT requires Terasen to develop,
maintain and update an approved ERP. The ERP defines notification and
initiation of response actions in a timeframe and on a scale
appropriate to the extent of the release. The ERP establishes a
required endpoint for response actions, that being the mitigation of
any unacceptable threat to human health or the environment. The ERP
includes a mechanism for providing compensation for short- or long-term
damages to any natural resources and for restoration costs. The
cumulative result of these regulatory constraints is that the adverse
impacts of a release will be temporary and that baseline conditions
will be restored.
In summary, although the throughput of the Express Pipeline system
would be greater under the Proposed Action than under the currently
certificated capacity, the kind, magnitude, duration and result of
environmental impacts are not expected to be significant under the
Proposed Action because:
(1) The range of these impacts was identified and discussed in the
Express Crude Oil Draft Environmental Impact Statement and would not be
expected to change as a result of the Proposed Action;
(2) The Express Pipeline was designed and constructed to operate at
the volumes contemplated by the Proposed Action, and can safely
accommodate these volumes;
(3) The petroleum release detection system currently in place on
the Express Pipeline would continue to work at the same efficiency as
at the current certificated volume, and continues to be ``state-of-the-
art'' technology; and
(4) Procedures for design, construction, operation and maintenance
of the Express and Platte Pipeline systems are covered by a variety of
Federal regulations under the oversight of the U.S.DOT. The ERP
required by the U.S. DOT mandates the mechanisms of Terasen's response
to a petroleum release and would be updated to reflect the pipeline
capacities under the Proposed Action.
Accidental release of petroleum at any of the proposed pump
stations would not affect most environmental disciplines. The
disciplines most likely to be affected would be surface water,
groundwater, wildlife and fish. The following measures are proposed to
minimize the potential impacts as a result of a petroleum spill:
Sump tanks will be constructed to incorporate a double
wall with integrity monitoring instrumentation, to enable Terasen to
know of any leak in either sump tank wall.
In accordance with U.S. DOT requirements, Terasen has
developed an ERP that is updated as necessary. In accordance with the
ERP, sufficient petroleum spill response equipment and other resources,
such as contractors and equipment, are provided to respond to any
emergency along the Express pipeline within a specified timeframe.
Therefore response times in the event of major petroleum spill at any
of the
[[Page 59298]]
action alternative sites would be approximately two hours.
In the event of a petroleum release, Terasen is committed
to remediating impacted areas so that vegetation can be reestablished.
Implementing the ERP and reestablishing vegetation will remediate
impacts to surface water, groundwater, fish and wildlife.
As noted above, implementation of the Proposed Action would require
the construction and normal operation of the two storage tanks at the
Casper Station Tank Farm. Construction and operation of the storage
tanks would contribute to the local and State (Wyoming) economic
benefits described above.
Based on the draft environmental assessment prepared by Westech
Environmental Services on behalf of Express, construction and normal
operation of the storage tanks would have no significant adverse
environmental impacts on climate, air quality noise, geology, wetlands
and riparian areas, navigable waters, floodplains, plant species of
special concern/sensitive communities, noxious weeds, threatened or
endangered species, land use, transportation, socioeconomics,
population and housing, recreation, and cultural and paleontological
resources, given that they are additions to an existing tank farm.
Construction and operation of the storage tanks could affect
surface water as a result of runoff and sedimentation during
construction or hydrostatic testing. Express and Terasen have agreed to
undertake the following measures to mitigate impacts to surface water
from the two storage tanks:
During construction, drainage control structures (ditches,
ponds, sediment fence) would be designed, built and maintained to
transport surface runoff from the affected area but prevent discharge
to drainages or areas outside the Casper Station Tank Farm.
Terasen would prepare a detailed hydrostatic test plan
before mechanical construction of the storage tanks and piping would
begin.
Terasen would obtain any necessary permits or approvals
prior to hydrostatic testing.
Groundwater at the Casper Station Tank Farm consists of shallow,
fractured aquifers that could be affected by construction of the
proposed storage tanks. Express and Terasen have agreed to undertake
the following measures to mitigate impacts to groundwater at the
storage tank site:
An impervious liner would be installed beneath the storage
tanks and berm.
A leak detection system would be installed below the
tanks.
There could be impacts to soil resources at the Casper Station Tank
Farm as a result of salvage and storage, clearing and grading,
compaction, and wind or water erosion. Express and Terasen have agreed
to undertake the following measures to mitigate any such impacts to
upland soil resources:
During construction, drainage control structures (ditches,
ponds, sediment fence) would be designed, built and maintained to
transport surface runoff off the affected area but to prevent discharge
outside the Casper Station Tank Farm.
After construction, any remaining subsoil would be spread
onto the 2-4 acres used for temporary workspace, and the salvaged
topsoil would be placed over the subsoil. The topsoil would be seeded
with ``Ephraim'' crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) and Sodar
streambank wheatgrass (Agropyron riparium) at a rate of eight pounds
each pure live seed (PLS) per acre if applied by drill seeding, and 16
pounds each PLS per acre if applied by broadcast seeding. These two
perennial cultivars were selected because they are drought-tolerant,
readily available, relatively low growing, and have a rhizomatous
growth habit that would readily cover and stabilize topsoil. This
vegetative cover would reduce fire hazards and maintenance concerns.
Ultimate reclamation of the proposed storage tank site
would be addressed in the abandonment plan to be submitted to the DOT
Office of Pipeline Safety at least one year prior to abandonment.
Because soils would be disturbed, there could be impacts to upland
vegetation as a result of construction and normal operation of the
storage tanks. Express and Terasen have agreed to undertake the
following measures to mitigate impacts to vegetation resources:
After construction is completed, temporary workspace and
other portions of the affected area where long-term disturbance is not
required would be rehabilitated using the topsoil spreading and
revegetation mixtures recommended above.
Ultimate reclamation of the site would be addressed in the
abandonment plan.
Noxious weeds would be monitored and controlled.
Similarly, there could be impacts from construction and operation
of the storage tanks to wildlife and fisheries. Express and Terasen
have agreed to undertake the following measures to mitigate these
impacts:
Terasen would implement the surface runoff control
mitigation measures recommended above to reduce the potential for
surface runoff and sedimentation to reach drainages.
Wildlife habitat would be considered in the abandonment
plan.
Terasen would prepare a detailed hydrostatic test plan
before mechanical construction of the storage tanks and piping would
begin.
Terasen would obtain any necessary permits or approvals
prior to hydrostatic testing.
Because the storage tanks would be constructed in the existing
Casper Station Tank Farm, they would not detract from the visual
impression of the site or surrounding area. However, Express and
Terasen have agreed to undertake the following measures to minimize
impacts to visual resources from the two storage tanks:
Facilities would be painted similar to the paint scheme
used at the existing Casper Station Tank Farm.
As soon as practicable after construction, temporary work
space that is not needed for the life of the project would be
revegetated.
No Action Alternative
If no action were taken, there would be no environmental impacts
from the Proposed Action or associated facilities. Any environmental
impacts currently occurring at these sites would continue to occur.
Under the No Action Alternative, economic benefits to the U.S. from
additional petroleum supplies via the Express Pipeline would not be
realized. Economic benefits to the States of Montana and Wyoming from
additional taxes, and construction and operation benefits to local
power providers and communities, would not materialize.
If the Express Pipeline were not expanded, three potential
scenarios would be reasonably foreseeable:
(1) Existing pipelines other than Express would expand by looping
or building entirely new pipelines;
(2) Some smaller refineries could be forced to reduce throughput or
close if they were unable to access specialized petroleum and maintain
the quality of their petroleum via transportation on a batch pipeline
system such as Express; and
(3) A refined products pipeline could be built that would serve the
Rocky Mountain region thereby causing the closure of smaller refineries
because of competing lower-priced refined products from larger
refineries.
Under the first scenario, the market responses to the Express
Pipeline's inability to deliver additional petroleum
[[Page 59299]]
supplies could encourage other pipelines to expand their systems. While
no information is available at this time about the location or time
frames of any such projects, expansion of these systems could result in
more extensive environmental impacts than the Proposed Action because
they would require the construction of additional pipelines, while the
Proposed Action would not. Specific impacts from these other projects
would be speculative, but would have to be identified and analyzed
during the regulatory process for these other projects.
Under the second scenario, one or more Rocky Mountain refineries
could close. These refineries are currently evaluating their ability to
comply with new environmental requirements. To comply they must either
invest in facility upgrades or obtain a source of higher quality
petroleum that enables them to comply without major capital investment.
The Proposed Action would expand access to a wide variety of high
quality petroleum supply that complies with the new environmental
objectives. The Express Pipeline also transports petroleum on a batched
basis, which meets the smaller refiners' need for specialized
petroleum. It is possible that one or more of these refineries could
close under the No Action alternative.
Under the third scenario, an entirely new refined product pipeline
could be constructed from Canada to the United States. The construction
of an entirely new pipeline would likely result in more extensive
environmental impacts than the installation of additional pump stations
on the existing Express Pipeline. The specific impacts would be
speculative and would have to be identified and evaluated during the
regulatory process for these other projects.
Cummulative Effects
Cumulative effects are the impacts on the environment that result
from an incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added to other
past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. Examples of such
actions would include the past construction and operation of the
Express Pipeline; other pipelines proposed for construction near the
Express Pipeline; upgrades of existing highways in the vicinity of the
proposed pump stations; and construction or upgrades of transmission
lines in the vicinity of the proposed pump stations.
The Express Pipeline was constructed in 1996 and has been in
operation since 1997. The Express Pipeline has provided positive
economic benefits to local communities, local power providers, the
States of Montana and Wyoming through ad valorem taxes, and improved
petroleum supply to Montana refiners. Environmental impacts from
construction of the pipeline have been largely mitigated, and there
have been no major operational problems with the pipeline.
No other petroleum pipelines are known to be proposed for
construction in the vicinity of the Express Pipeline. No substantial
upgrades (i.e., not including normal maintenance and resurface
operations, which are short-term activities) are scheduled for any of
the public highways in the vicinity of the proposed pump stations for
the next two years. Thus there would be no conflicts with the Proposed
Action in terms of use of temporary housing or short-term population
increases. It is assumed that environmental impacts of any new highway
construction projects would be addressed by separate analysis
documents.
There are no known proposals to construct or upgrade electric
transmission lines in the vicinity of the proposed pump stations,
except for the transmission lines that would directly supply the
proposed pump stations. It is assumed that environmental impacts of any
transmission line projects would be addressed by separate analysis
documents. If it assumed that the transmission lines that would supply
electrical power to the proposed pump stations were constructed in the
same time frame as the proposed pump stations, there could be increased
short-term socioeconomic benefits to the States of Montana and Wyoming,
as well as counties and local communities, but there could also be
shortages of temporary housing for construction workers, depending on
the number of workers employed for transmission line construction, and
the season of construction.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Construction of the Proposed Action would result in some short-term
direct and indirect unavoidable impacts. Temporary impacts to wildlife
and visual resources during construction could not be avoided. Soil and
vegetation would be removed, and agricultural productivity would be
lost, on a maximum of 1.24 acres at each proposed pump station over the
life of the project, but restored per the mitigation measures described
here-in. All such impacts would be mitigated as described above.
Conclusion
On the basis of the Final Environmental Assessment submitted by the
sponsor, the Department's independent review of that assessment,
information developed during the review of the application and
Environmental Assessment, comments received by the Department from
Federal and State agencies, and measures that Express and Terasen are
prepared to undertake to prevent or mitigate potentially adverse
environmental impacts, the Department has concluded that issuance of a
Presidential Permit authorizing construction and operation of the
proposed Express Pipeline capacity increase would not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment within the
United States. Accordingly, a Finding of No Significant Impact is
adopted and an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared.
The Final Environmental Assessment addressing this action is
incorporated by reference and is on file and may be reviewed by
interested parties at the Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Room
3535, Washington, DC 20520 (Attn: Mr. Pedro Erviti, Tel. 202-647-1291).
Dated: September 24, 2004.
Stephen J. Gallogly,
Director, Office of Energy & Commodity Policy, Bureau of Economic and
Business Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 04-22241 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P