JOHN YOUNG, MS (Psychology), MSW (Psychology), Retired 
` San Benito, TX 78586-6660 
`
`May 30, 2023
`
`Ms. Kimberly D. Bose,
`Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`888 First Street, NE Washington,
`DC 20426
`
`Re: Rio Grande LNG, Docket No. CP16-545-000.
`
`Criticism of Rio Grande LNG’s Emergency Response Plan and Cost Sharing Plan that
`remain inadequate even though its FERC Permit dates back to 11-22-2019 and its
`targeting a 2nd Quarter of 2023 positive FID.
`
`Dear Ms. Bose:
`
`My wife and I moved to Cameron County in 2015 and worked here for 20 or so years before
`retiring here. My wife as a Family Nurse Practitioner with master’s degrees in Public Health
`and Nursing Science and myself as a Licensed Professional Counselor, Licensed Marriage
`and Family Counselor, and Licensed Clinical Social Worker with master’s degrees in
`Psychology and Social Work.
`
`I have been an active member of Save RGV (aka Save RGV from LNG) since May 2014,
`when we and others first learned that LNG export operations were targeting our local Port of
`Brownsville TX and formed the group to oppose the LNG operations.
`
`In addition to my Critical Comment, I’m submitting a copy of Rio Grande LNG’s 01-11-2021
`and 11-01-2021 Scoping Comment to the Federal Aviation Administration asking the FAA to
`issue a new launch license for the SpaceX Boca Chica Starship operation that poses no
`additional problems for the construction and operation of its LNG Terminal and LNG tanker
`ship traffic than the SpaceX posed back in 2018 (Attachments A and B, respectively).
`
`Sincerely,
`
`John Young
`Active Member of Save RGV from LNG
`San Benito TX
`
`

`

`Comment of John Young on CP16-454-000 (Rio Grande LNG)
`
`Registered with FERC as an Intervenor opposed to:
`1) The originally paired Rio Grande LNG and Rio Bravo Pipeline projects on 05-25-
`2016 (http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160609-5280);
`2) Enbridge's Rio Bravo Pipeline Company's Rio Bravo Pipeline project on 06-26-2020
`(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20200626-5079);
`and 3) Rio Grande LNG's application for a Limited Amendment on 11-22-2021
`(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20211122-5057).
`Issue: Rio Grande LNG doesn’t appear to have provided its ERP or CSP to FERC for
`FERC’s consideration and approval before initiating limited site preparation activities
`starting in October 2022. Contrary to the 11-22-2019 Appendix A Environmental Condition
`53 (Which starts with “Prior to initial site preparation . . .”).
`In addition, Rio Grande LNG A) continues to portray LNG as safe and to delay publishing any
`meaningful public announcement or information regarding its Emergency Response Plan (ERP)
`or Cost Sharing Plan (CSP) beyond what FERC has made available in FERC eLibrary
`documents.
`B) Continues to refuse to adjust its ERP and CSP to the potential expansion of the SpaceX
`Boca Chica Starship operation (insisting that the FAA must recognize the primacy of its
`LNG NEPA Permit over SpaceX’s NEPA Permit).
`And C) Continues to raise expectations that it will make a positive FID by June 30, 2023. Even
`though it’s most recent 05-22 -2023 Quarterly Report to FERC on its ERP and CSP seems to be
`incompatible with that FID target date (“currently coordinating with FERC Staff to facilitate their
`participation in-person at the next quarterly meetings with these emergency stakeholders in July
`2023” and hiring AcuTech Group, Inc., to “ Suggest necessary drills (e.g., tabletop exercises)
`which should be planned within the next 9 months to ensure sufficient ERP development to
`satisfy the Commission for purposes of ongoing approvals for RGLNG construction.”
`(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_num=20230522-5157)
`
`Importantly, Rio Grande LNG’s connection goes back to 2015: A 5-page 03-18-
`2015 letter from AcuTech to the Coast Guard Captain of the Port is included in a
`03-20-215 Rio Grande LNG and Rio Bravo Pipeline "Request to Initiate NEPA Pre-
`Filing Process for Rio Grande LNG and Rio Bravo Pipeline Projects."
`
`In addition, both AcuTech and the SpaceX project are mentioned in a 01-18-2018
`unofficial .pdf from Gertrude Johnson, FERC Staff, asking that the 12-26-2017 Coast
`Guard Letter of Recommendation (LNR) and 9-page Analysis supporting the LOR be
`added to the Rio Grande LNG and Rio Bravo Pipeline Dockets, CP16-454-000 and
`CP16-455-000 (https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10762572/coast-guard-rio-grande-lng-
`letter.pdf).
`
`Regarding AcuTech:
`
`

`

`. . . a workshop held in Brownsville, TX on October 14, 2015. The workshop included
`a wide range of participants, including representatives from; Next Decade; AcuTech
`Consulting Group; the USCG; Brazos-Santiago Pilots Association; terminal operators;
`refinery operators; Port Authorities; shipping agents and law enforcement agencies.
`
`. . . Next Decade and AcuTech used the American National Standards Institute
`(ANSI)/American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 780 Security Risk Assessment
`(SRA) Methodology, as the basic approach for assessing risk. The standard was
`published in June 2013 as a U.S. standard for security risk assessments on petroleum
`and petrochemical facilities.
`
`. . . With the final draft of the WSA, Next Decade and AcuTech has satisfied the
`requirements of the LOR process.
`
`Regarding SpaceX:
`
`Space X Spaceport — This launch site is 5 miles away from the proposed facility
`location and is intended to support launches of space vehicles. FERC Staff reviewed
`a space launch analyses for impacts from the spaceport to the facility. Based on
`FERC assumptions (for modeling inputs) and risk criteria used internationally, by
`NFPA 59A, and FERC's hydro-dam Divisions, FERC staff found that the risk of
`public impact from a projectile in the 10,000 to 100,000 ft-lb range would be just
`inside the tolerable region (i.e., within the ALARP region) alter accounting for 10%
`probability factor for wind. [A finding no longer compatible with the FAA 2021
`presently suspended SpaceX Boca Chica Starship launch license. Against which
`License the Center for Biodiversity, et al., have filed a lawsuit. Leaving the viability of
`the present launch license and the viability of the SpaceX projects both up in the air.
`Contrary to Rio Grande LNG’s ongoing need for Regulatory Priority and Regulatory
`Certainty.]
`
`Importantly, Port Isabel TX hasn’t yet been included in the development of the EPA or
`CSP. Even though, back on 01-08-2020, FERC told Rio Grande LNG that:
`FERC staff have completed our review of RGLNG’s Emergency Response and Cost Sharing
`Plans included in Volume 2 of the Implementation Plan filed November 25, 2019. We have
`the following questions and comments at this time (note that this email will be filed on the
`FERC docket).
`(http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20200108-3063)
`
`And added that:
`Item 4 under Section V2‐15, Cost Sharing Plan states: "Indicate if coordination
`with Port Isabel and the City of South Padre Island has occurred for
`consultation on the Emergency Response Plan and the Cost Sharing Plan. Note
`
`

`

`that the LNG Carriers would be routed near these areas and documentation
`confirming coordination with each area should be provided."
`
`On 03-23-2021, Rio Grande LNG stated its grand reason for not including the City of
`Port Isabel in the development of its ERP and CSP:
`
`In 2019, in preparation for the Emergency Services Gap Analysis to be
`performed in development of the Cost Sharing Plan, a Rio Grande consultant
`(AcuTech) scheduled meetings on behalf of Rio Grande with multiple
`responding agencies in Cameron County. Although not a responding
`agency, the Port Isabel San Benito Navigation District (Port Isabel) was
`contacted as a courtesy, given their cooperation agreement with The Port of
`Brownsville. The Port Isabel Port Director was requested and agreed, during
`scheduling their meeting, to extend an invitation to the City of Port Isabel
`representative to attend as well. The invitation was extended on behalf of
`NextDecade but was declined by the City of Port Isabel’s office. The meeting
`proceeded as scheduled on August 6, 2019 with only the Rio Grande HSSE
`Director, Rio Grande’s Safety & Security Consultant, and the Port Isabel Port
`Director in attendance at the Port Isabel San Benito Navigation District offices.
`
`(03-26-2021 “Response to Letters from Save RGV dated March 15, 2021 and
`from the City of Port Isabel dated March 23,
`2021,”https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_num=20210326-5109).
`
`[Note that the date Port Isabel was supposedly notified isn’t specified and that
`there’s no citation backing up Rio Grande LNG’s claim that Port Isabel was
`invited to the 08-06-2019 meeting.]
`
`Rhetorical Question: Will Port Isabel TX and South Padre Island TX staff members be
`included in the July 2023 stakeholders meeting, facilitated by AcuTech in the same
`way as FERC staff members towards finalizing the Emergency Response and Cost
`Sharing Plans?
`
`Side Note: The Brownsville Fire Department is a stakeholder. On 04-13 -2023, the
`Brownsville Fire Chief submitted a form letter to FERC in support of the Rio Grande LNG
`project that spoke about the jobs and boost to our economy the project would provide and
`included the statement "I can state unequivocally most people in my community
`support the development of the RGLNG project."
`(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_num=20230413-5025)
`
`Also: Rio Grande LNG hasn’t yet mentioned its ERP or CSP on its Facebook page
`(https://www.facebook.com/RioGrandeLNG). And didn’t mention its ERP or CSP in its four
`recent local LNG Safety Demonstrations (2 in Brownsville TX on 04-16 -2023 and 2 in
`Harlingen 04-27-2023). On both dates, about 200 students attended a morning
`demonstrations. Around 25 folks attended the publicized evening demonstrations (I and a
`
`

`

`couple of other Save RGV members attended the 04-16-2023 evening one in Brownsille, 4
`members attended the 04-16-2023 evening one).
`
`On 10-29-2019, KRGV Channel 5 News, Rio Grande Valley, aired a 3-minute 10-
`second segment: "LNG Company Addresses Safety Concerns over Projects in
`Brownsville,"https://www.krgv.com/news/lng-company-addresses-safety-concerns-
`over-projects- in-brownsville. It includes clips of NextDecade's presentation earlier
`that day that said, for example, "In the event that something were to happen, the
`facility is designed to mitigate that risk and keep that risk on site."
`LNG Safety appears to be mentioned only once on NextDecade’s musty and neglected
`corporate website: “NextDecade and Bechtel host first series of LNG demonstrations in the Rio
`Grande Valley,” 11-05-2019, https://www.next-decade.com/announcements/nextdecade-and-
`
`bechtel-host-first-series-of-lng-demonstrations-in -the-rio-grande-valley/ (A longer, better
`
`attended, and overall better LNG Safety Presentation than the April 2023 LNG Safety
`Demonstrations – though likewise lacking any comment about its ERP or CSP). (Yes I attended
`two of these better Presentations.)
`Overall, FERC’s ERP and CSP concerns -- contained in FERC’s eLibrary System
`documents addressed to Rio Grande LNG -- remain invisible to most of the local folks
`most at risk from the project.
`Despite FERC’s multiple request for Rio Grande LNG to make more information on
`both Plans public in the documents it submits to FERC. Rather than routinely asking
`FERC to withhold information from the public as CUI, PRIV, and/or CEII information.
`And despite my best efforts, and the efforts of others, to a) get the FERC concerns
`adequately reported by local newspapers and TV News stations and to b) circulate the
`FERC concerns adequately via social media platforms (such as Facebook).
`
`Unfortunately, the ERP and CSP are seen by many as limited to the issues of
`potential LNG fires, explosions, vapor clouds, and odor. Ignoring spikes in air
`emissions such as MP 2.5 particulates, etc., and the inadequacies of the Texas
`Commission for Environmental Quality in dealing with such emissions. A problem
`likely to be made worse by pending Texas legislation likely to discourage folks from
`reporting emission concerns (Texas Senate Bill SB 471, Sent to TX Governor Gregg
`Abbott for his signature on 05-29-2019, https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/SB471/2023, a bill
`that creates a fee to be paid by anyone who files a complaint with the Texas
`Commission on Environmental Quality if they have already filed three
`complaints within the past year that did not result in TCEQ enforcement actions,
`etc.)
`Regarding Rio Grande LNG’s insistence that its 2018 ERP should take precedence over
`the continued expansion of the size and activity level of the SpaceX Boca Chica
`Starship operation since 2018, and a possible FAA launch license that may significantly
`impact Rio Grande LNG’s construction and operational plans, see Rio Grande LNG’s 05-01-
`2021 Response to Request to Suspend Permits and Issue Order Conditions under CP16-454
`et. al. At https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_ num=20210506 -5091. And the
`
`

`

`Scoping Comments Rio Grande LNG submitted to the FAA on the Starship project on 01-22-
`2021 and 11-01-2021 (Attachment A and Attachment B).
`
`Last but not least regarding Rio Grande LNG’s difficulties in adequately meeting the
`terms of its 11-22-2019 FERC Permit as modified by FERC’s 04-21-2013 Order
`(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_num=20230421 -3056): On 05-27-2023, I
`spotted a job listing for a Permitting Specialist being sought by Rio Grande LNG
`(https://www.energyjobline.com/job/permitting-specialist- 17398393).
`
`It’s a little late in the game for RGLNG to be seeking someone to take on the following
`permitting responsibilities requiring the following qualifications:
`KEY RESPONSIBILITIES
`•Working in close coordination with senior management to lead environmental permitting,
`regulatory strategy development, environmental assessments, environmental impact
`statements and regulatory compliance for Rio Grande LNG and NEXT Carbon Solutions projects
`•Oversees development of Class VI permit applications, drilling permits, and associated
`pipeline permitting
`•Develops or Reviews plans for inclusion in permit application packages
`•Engages with asset teams to ensure regulatory concerns are addressed in the
`development planning cycles
`•Works with team to ensure compliance with applicable Federal, tribal, state, and local rules
`and regulations and internal company policies pertaining to assigned production areas
`•Maintains Compliance Assurance program for assigned topics and/or areas
`REQUIREMENTS
`Minimum/preferred experience required for the position:
`•5-10 years of regulatory or permitting experience with State and Federal agencies
`•2+ years of EPA Underground Injection Control Permitting with a focus on Class II
`and/or VI well permitting
`Minimum/preferred knowledge, skills and abilities required of the position:
`•Experience managing the permitting, environmental consulting or NEPA documentation
`for energy projects
`•Experience navigating the EPA Geological Sequestration Data Tool (USGT) would be a plus
`•Advanced knowledge of and ability to apply environmental compliance and permitting
`regulations of applicable regulatory agencies including the Federal Energy Regulatory
`Commission (FERC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Army Corps
`of Engineers (USACE) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
`•Knowledge regarding all local, state, and federal regulations governing carbon
`capture, transportation, and sequestration throughout the United States.
`•Strong interpersonal and communication skills, ability to interact with multiple layers
`of organization
`•Well-developed planning and organizational skills including the ability to work
`independently, prioritize activities, meet commitments, and proactively manage time.
`
`

`

`•Able to handle difficult conversations with regulators and coworkers with
`professionalism
`Required/preferred education:
`•Bachelor's degree or higher in Science, Biology, Ecology, Natural Resource Management,
`Environmental Sciences or related discipline or foreign equivalent
`
`BOTTOM LINE:
`
`NextDecade said back on 11-05-2015 that it would make FID by early 2017 and would be
`producing 11 mtpa of LNG by 2020 (“NextDecade Signs HOAs for 14 Mtpa of LNG for Rio
`Grande LNG Facility,” Business Wire Press Release, 11-05-2015,
`https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151105005738/en/NextDecade-Signs-HOAs-
`for-14-Mtpa-of-LNG-for-Rio-Grande-LNG-FacilityG-for-Rio-Grande-LNG-Facility.)
`
`So far, NextDecade has announced a number of projects (Pelican Island LNG, Galveston
`Bay LNG, a Inisfree FSRU MOU with the Port of Cork, a NEXT Carbon Solutions and related
`Rio Grande LNG CCS Systems Project), has sold its Rio Bravo Pipeline project to Enbridge,
`and has kicked its initial positive FID target date forward again and again and again (now 2nd
`Quarter of 2023).
`
`But, in terms of actually putting a shove to ground on any of these projects, it has only
`managed to do some Limited Initial Preliminary Site Preparation Activities (regarding which,
`you might want to check out the 4-minute 25-second Save RGV Facebook “LNG Terminals
`in the RGV: Harbingers of Destruction” video at https://www.facebook.com/watch/?
`v=895156171696510).
`
`Incorporated in November 2010, NextDecade hasn’t shown itself to be responsible and
`reliable enough to be entrusted with the construction and operation of a 27 mtpa expandable
`LNG Terminal at the present Rio Grande LNG Port of Brownsville project lease site.
`
`Especially with one end of the Rio Grande LNG lease site being ~5.4 miles and the other
`end ~7.4 miles from the SpaceX launch site. With lots of visitors and tourists visiting the area
`year round, at increased risk to possible Rio Grande LNG anomalies and mishaps requiring
`sheltering in place and/or evacuations (due to their familiarity with the area).
`
`In closing:
`
`Thank you for your kind consideration of my comments, starting back in 2015, regarding the
`development and finalization of the paired Rio Grande LNG and Rio Bravo Pipeline Project
`Final Environmental Impact Statement, and likely to continue until who-knows-when.
`
`John Young
`San Benito TX
`Active member of Save RGV since May 2014
`
`

`

`A NEXTDECADE
`
`January 22, 2021
`
`RE: Response to Requestfor Public Comments
`
`To Whom It May Concern:
`
`1000 Louisi
`
`PHouston,TX77002
`
`Street, 39th Fl
`
`Weare writing in response to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) request for public
`comments on the SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Project at the Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron
`County, Texas, and “potential alternatives and impacts... affecting the quality of the human
`environment.” Referenceis also madeto that letter to the FAA, dated July 3, 2020, and signed by
`multiple interested parties — including NextDecade Corporation (“NextDecade”) — concerning the SpaceX
`Boca Chica LaunchSite.
`
`Weunderstandthat the FAA is undertaking the License Review Process and the Environmental Review
`Processto assess a range of issues and concernsrelated to public safety, national security, foreign
`policy, insurance requirements, and potential environmental impacts.
`
`Additionally, we understandthat FAA is utilizing a “Programmatic” Environmental Assessment(“EA”)
`given that the proposed Starship/Super Heavy launch operations from the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch
`Site will be conducted on a recurring basis and that each launch operationis likely to result in
`substantially similar impacts. According to guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality
`(“CEQ”), the Programmatic EA “must [therefore] provide sufficient detail to foster informed decision-
`makingthat reflects broad environmental consequencesfrom a wide-ranging federal program.”?
`
`In light of SpaceX testing and otheractivities at the Boca Chica LaunchSite, which are already causing
`near-daily closures of area recreationalfacilities and roadways(including, for example, every day this
`week)? and appearto be expandingsignificantly, we appreciate FAA’s consideration of the below which
`pertain to the safe and secure construction and operation of NextDecade’s fully permitted Rio Grande
`LNGfacility to be constructed in the nearby Port of Brownsville, as well as to the sustainment of the
`human environment and indigenousflora and fauna for those wholive, work, and recreate in Cameron
`County, Texas.?
`
`It is important that SpaceX be required to provide regular and reliable information regarding its planned
`operationsat the Boca Chica LaunchSite. This will ensure the safe and efficient construction and
`operationsofcritical infrastructure in the region, including Rio Grande LNG.Asit relates to the FAA’s
`scoping of issues for analysis in the draft EA, we suggest that particular focus be placed on: (1) frequency
`and scopeof launch operations and consistency with maximum numberof launchesassessed in the
`FAA’s June 2014 final EIS; (2) Emergency response and planning; (3) offshore area clearing andfacility
`closures; and (4) storage and handling of propellant fuel.
`
`NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG project was the subject of an extensive, multi-year, multi-agency review
`pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”). The entirety of the Rio Grande LNG
`NEPAreview, which was managedby the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), was
`
`2 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/05/f31/effective_use_of_programmatic_nepa_reviews_18dec2014.pdf
`2 https://www.cameroncounty.us/spacex/
`3 https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/
`https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/media/Final_BO_FA
`A_SpaceX_sm.pdf
`
`

`

`had been completed and made
`conducted after the SpaceX environmental impact statement
`public. Indeed, the plans and conclusions of multiple federal agencies and community stakeholders as
`they relate to the safe coexistence of SpaceX with Rio Grande LNG were formulated in reliance on
`statements regarding the
`12 annual launch operations
`including launches of the Falcon 9,
`a maximum of two Falcon Heavy launches, and/or associated mission rehearsals and static fire engine
`4
`testing, through the year
`
`For example, as set out in the Rio Grande LNG final EIS,5 the construction schedule for Rio Grande LNG
`contemplates carefully integrated and phased interruptions based specifically on information provided
`by SpaceX to the FAA pertaining to the 2016 2025 period. FERC has approved our project siting,
`construction and operations, based on these representations by FAA and SpaceX. It is our expectation
`that any alterations to the SpaceX launch program will result in no greater impacts to Rio Grande LNG or
`the community than contemplated in the SpaceX EIS.
`
`There is little doubt that the U.S. Space Program and the agencies and companies that support it
`contribute significantly to enhancing our national security, not to mention national pride and patriotism,
`and we appreciate the FAA characterization of its own goals as they relate to commercial space
`transportation:
`facilitate, and
`However, to permit boundless extension of the
`radius of impact of
`experimental activities in South Texas without sufficient consideration of
`the substantial potential impacts on international commerce and community safety and vitality would
`be inconsistent with the authority delegated to FAA under the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as
`amended and codified.
`
`For the past several years, the FAA has collaborated with federal agencies to ensure SpaceX may safely
`coexist with other industries and communities, and we are confident the FAA will uphold its standard of
`constructive stakeholder engagement in response to this latest Starship/Super Heavy proposal.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Ivan Van der Walt
`Senior Vice President
`
`4 https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/
`5 https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020 05/FEIS volume I_0.pdf
`
`

`

`Background
`
`development company focused on LNG export projects.
`NextDecade is a liquefied natural gas
`NextDecade is developing the largest LNG export solution linking Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale
`natural gas to the global LNG market.
`marquee project, Rio Grande LNG, is to be
`constructed on a 984 acre site on the north embankment of the Brownsville Ship Channel.
`common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol
`NextDecade is
`headquartered in Houston, Texas.
`
`including but not limited to global LNG customers, U.S. gas
`NextDecade and its stakeholders
`producers, midstream companies, vendors, contractors, shareholders, and employees have an interest
`in the outcome of the
`proceedings in this matter.
`
`Rio Grande LNG comprises the largest privately funded infrastructure project in the State of Texas. The
`project will be constructed pursuant to a lump sum turnkey engineering, procurement, and construction
`contract executed with Bechtel Oil, Gas, and Chemicals in May 2019. Bechtel is the
`leading LNG
`EPC contractor, having constructed more than 30 percent of the liquefaction capacity in the world,
`including seven liquefaction trains to date on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
`
`Rio Grande LNG is expected to contribute more than $35 billion to U.S. GDP during the construction
`phase, and more than $550 million per year during operations. At full scale, the facility will be capable of
`producing 27 million metric tonnes of LNG per year for export to markets around the world. Rio Grande
`LNG will create thousands of direct and indirect jobs during construction and ongoing operations,
`driving increased revenues to local businesses in Cameron County and throughout the Rio Grande
`Valley. In addition to maximizing local hiring, NextDecade has committed to enhancing youth education,
`utilizing local training facilities, promoting safe work environments, and supporting improvements to the
`Brownsville Ship Channel.
`
`FERC NEPA Review
`
`LNG facilities in the United States are subject to extensive federal and state regulatory standards. To
`satisfy NEPA requirements, FERC evaluated the potential environmental impacts of Rio Grande LNG in
`an environmental impact statement
`issued in April 2019. In addition to the FAA, several other
`agencies cooperated with FERC in the preparation of the EIS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast
`Guard, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
`U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
`(National Marine Fisheries Service), and U.S. Department of Energy.
`
`including the FAA have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to
`Cooperating agencies
`resources potentially affected and thus participated in the NEPA analysis of Rio Grande LNG. As part of
`the NEPA analysis, the FAA assisted FERC in
`impacts on and from the SpaceX rocket launch
`facility in Cameron County
`Specific recommends [were] included [in the final EIS] to address potential
`impacts from rocket launch failures on [Rio Grande
`
`future
`In March 2017, and as requested by FERC, NextDecade filed a third party analysis of
`space launch missions at the SpaceX
`launch
`This analysis was completed by ACTA, Inc., a
`recognized subject matter expert in the evaluation of a range of safety hazards and risks from launch
`vehicle debris, blasts, and toxic gases, for the FAA, U.S. Department of Defense, the National
`
`

`

`and a variety of international companies and agencies.
`Aeronautics and Space Administration
`The ACTA analysis considered a full range of launch vehicles that met the threshold criteria for realness
`and relevance at the time and concluded that the risk (including likelihood and consequence) of a
`potential launch failure leading to an impact to the Rio Grande LNG facility boundary or the Brownsville
`Ship Channel was insignificant.
`
`Additionally, a Letter of Recommendation issued in December 2017 by the U.S. Coast Guard featured
`consideration of SpaceX related safety and security matters through consultation with
`variety of
`stakeholders including representatives from the Brownsville Navigation District, Port Isabel
`San Benito
`Navigation District, local facility security, the Brazos Santiago Pilots Association, and Signet
`
`At the conclusion of the extensive NEPA review, FERC issued an order granting authorization under
`Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to site, construct, and operate the Rio Grande LNG facility.
`
`Frequency and Scope of Launch Operations and Planned Interruptions
`
`The FAA completed a final EIS pertaining to the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Site in June 2014. The EIS
`covers a 10 year period from 2016 to 2025 and
`a maximum of 12 annual launch operations
`during this time period, which would include orbital and suborbital
`The FAA notes that
`SpaceX had not, at the time,
`proposed operations beyond this time
`As necessary, for any
`activity that is outside the scope of [the] EIS and falls under the
`purview, a new or supplemental
`NEPA analysis would be
`
`Rio Grande LNG project was
`NEPA review of
`As noted above, the entirety of
`conducted in the years following the completion of the SpaceX EIS. The plans and conclusions of
`multiple federal agencies and community stakeholders as they relate to the safe coexistence of SpaceX
`with other interests were formulated, relying on
`statements regarding the
`12 annual
`launch operations
`including launches of the Falcon 9, a maximum of two Falcon Heavy launches,
`6
`and/or associated mission rehearsals and static fire engine testing, through the year
`
`Additional interruptions due to unplanned experimental events may cause our EPC contractor,
`operations staff, and other personnel to take shelter with an unknown frequency, resulting in
`substantial impact to cost and schedule, as well as potential interference with vessel operations. We
`request the FAA consider the potential consequential effect to other industries should SpaceX be
`permitted to meaningfully exceed previously disclosed maximums.
`
`Other Considerations
`
`It is important that SpaceX be required to provide regular and reliable information regarding its planned
`operations at the Boca Chica Launch Site. This will ensure the safe and efficient construction and
`operations of critical infrastructure in the region, including our Rio Grande LNG facility.
`
`Emergency Response and Planning
`
`In accordance with various federal standards and to ensure the safety and security of our personnel,
`NextDecade has established an Emergency Response Plan
`which accounts for all anticipated
`
`6 https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/
`
`

`

`events, including those resulting from planned rocket launch and recovery efforts. As a good corporate
`citizen, SpaceX must include industrial interests within impact zones in emergency response planning.
`Reliable communications will help to minimize disruption to industrial and marine activities in the region
`and mitigate potential impact to the liability of the federal government due to indemnification by the
`federal government for losses above $3.1 billion.7 FAA should note that
`Health, Safety,
`Security, and Environment
`team is keen to engage with SpaceX counterparts to promote the
`health and safety of the human environment and sustainment of indigenous flora and fauna.
`
`Offshore Area Clearing and Facility Closures
`
`On the day of a launch, Boca Chica Beach and portions of State Highway 4 are closed to the public. While
`closures are only on to the south of the Brownsville Ship Channel and do not impact the Channel itself,
`such closures have become near daily (including, for example, every day this week) and have indeed
`disrupted access to recreational facilities frequented by those who live, work, and recreate in Cameron
`County. As part of a coastal management plan, SpaceX was to develop a plan for clearing offshore areas
`to ensure public health and safety. Clearing activities include boat patrol and helicopter sweeps
`conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard. Increased scope and frequency of
`disruptive activities may
`also have implications for the extent and duration of offshore area clearing.
`
`Storage and Handling of Propellant Fuel
`
`Energy infrastructure projects in South Texas have been subjected to appropriate regulatory scrutiny to
`ensure compliance and consistency with standards maint