[Federal Register: February 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 8631-8635]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17fe06-126]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 5313]
Finding of No Significant Impact and Summary Environmental
Assessment Valero Logistics LP Pipeline in Hidalgo County, TX
The proposed action is to issue a Presidential Permit to Valero
Logistics Operations LP (``Valero'') to construct, connect, operate and
maintain an 8-inch outer diameter pipeline to convey light naphtha
(``naphtha'') across the border from Mexico to the Valero Terminal in
Hidalgo County, Texas. On behalf of Valero, URS Corporation of Austin,
Texas, prepared a draft Environmental Assessment under the guidance and
supervision of the Department of State (the ``Department''). The
Department placed a notice in the Federal Register (70 FR 36225 (June
22, 2005)) regarding the availability for inspection of Valero's
Presidential Permit application and the draft Environmental Assessment.
Numerous Federal and state agencies independently reviewed the
draft Environmental Assessment. They include: The United States Section
of the International Boundary and Water Commission, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal
Emergency Management Administration, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the
Council on Environmental Quality, the Texas Railroad Commission, the
Texas
[[Page 8632]]
Historical Commission, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Prior to publishing the
notice, Valero hosted a public meeting on behalf of the Department of
State, where public input on the project was received. The principal
concern expressed by the public at that time was whether there would be
any tank-vehicle transfers at Valero's Edinburg terminal as a result of
this project, which Valero representatives assured the public would not
be the case. Valero also hosted a follow-up meeting with area residents
to address concerns raised during the public meeting about the general
operation of the Edinburg terminal. However, no formal written comments
from the public were submitted on the draft Environmental Assessment.
Comments received from the Federal and state agencies were responded to
directly or by incorporation in the analysis contained in the draft
Environmental Assessment.
No additional mitigation measures beyond those proposed in the
draft Environmental Assessment have been proposed.
This summary, together with the comments submitted by the Federal
and state agencies on the project, the responses to those comments, and
the draft Environmental Assessment, as amended to take into account
those comments, together constitute the Final Environmental Assessment
of the proposed action by the Department under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, 40 CFR
1501.3, 1508.9, and the Department's NEPA regulations, 22 CFR 161.8(b),
161.9(a)(2).
Summary of the Environmental Assessment
I. The Proposed Project
The Department is charged with the issuance of Presidential Permits
for the construction, connection, operation and maintenance of
pipelines crossing international boundaries. See Executive Order 13337
of April 30, 2004, 69 FR 25299 (2004). Valero has applied for a
Presidential Permit to construct, connect, operate and maintain an 8-
inch outer diameter pipeline (``the Valero Burgos Pipeline'') at the
U.S.-Mexico border. The proposed pipeline would connect the Valero
terminal in Edinburg, Texas, with the Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX)
Burgos gas plant near Reynoso in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. The
U.S. portion of the project consists of approximately 34 miles of new
pipeline from a location on the Rio Grande southeast of Penitas, to the
Valero terminal approximately 6 miles north of downtown Edinburg. The
Mexican portion consists of approximately 20 kilometers of new pipeline
from the expanded Burgos gas plant near Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico to
the Rio Grande crossing.
At the Valero Edinburg Terminal, naphtha would be stored in a new
dedicated 80,000 barrel naphtha storage tank. Naphtha would be pumped
from this tank through a new pipeline currently being built by Valero
to link its Edinburg and Harlingen terminals, and to link its Harlingen
terminal with the Port of Brownsville.
Over half of the route of the proposed Valero Burgos Pipeline from
the Rio Grande to the Edinburg terminal would adjoin existing pipeline
rights-of-way, minimizing the amount of additional environmental
impact. The routing has also been designed to avoid, to the maximum
extent possible, populated areas of Hidalgo County.
The Valero Burgos Pipeline is being designed to transport up to
24,000 barrels (1 million gallons) of naphtha daily from Mexico to the
United States.
II. Alternatives Considered
The Department considered several alternatives to the proposed
Burgos Valero Pipeline. These are described in detail in the
Environmental Assessment, as amended, and in a summary fashion below.
No Action Alternative: The ``no action'' alternative would involve
delivery of naphtha to the Port of Brownsville via tanker trucks. There
are two realistic options for this delivery. Under one option, the
product could be transported through Reynosa to cross the Rio Grande
near McAllen, and then proceed approximately 56 miles on U.S. highways
to the Port of Brownsville. Under a second option, product would travel
approximately the same distance on the Mexico side of the border,
crossing one of the commercial bridges near Brownsville.
While these ``no action'' alternatives would avoid the minor and/or
temporary noise and air quality impacts associated with the
construction of the pipeline, truck transport is not a preferred
alternative. Up to 120 tanker trucks daily would be needed to transport
naphtha from the Burgos gas plant to the Port of Brownsville in
quantities comparable to the expected daily capacity of the proposed
pipeline.
This would result in (i) exhaust emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxides
(SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and particulate
matter (PM) that exceed that of pipeline transport; (ii) extra loads on
busy highways and road bridges; (iii) transportation-related
environmental degradation, such as noise impacts and water
contamination related to operation of a tanker truck fleet, including
fueling and maintenance; and (iv) a continuous safety risk in
transportation corridors, including increased exposure to emissions,
spills, and accidents during truck loading and unloading operations.
The tanker trucks would produce a substantially higher regional
diesel exhaust burden, resulting in emission of 77 tons per year of
NOX, 22 tons per year of CO2, 238 tons per year
of PM, 241 tons per year of VOC, and 3 tons per year of SO2.
Routing Alternatives: Other potential pipeline routings to
transport naphtha to Brownsville included: (1) A 75-mile pipeline on
the Mexico side of the border, from the Burgos terminal eastward to an
existing PEMEX LPG terminal west of Matamoros, where it would be
connected to a currently unused Rio Vista Energy Partners pipeline that
connects the PEMEX terminal and the Rio Vista LPG terminal at the Port
of Brownsville; and (2) a pipeline crossing of the Rio Grande near the
proposed Valero Burgos Pipeline crossing, and then a pipeline to
transport the naphtha from the Rio Grande crossing to Brownsville
following, to the extent possible, the U.S. 281 corridor eastward
before deviating to the north of Brownsville to enter the Port of
Brownsville from the north, requiring approximately 85 miles of new
pipeline construction on the U.S. side of the border.
These options would both have resulted in significantly higher
environmental impacts and costs for product transport than the proposed
interconnect to the Valero system. In the Rio Grande Valley, there are
substantially more environmentally sensitive sites closer to the river
that would be affected by such routings, including U.S. National
Wildlife Refuge holdings, population centers, and higher quality
irrigated croplands.
With respect to any decision on whether to move forward with the
pipeline from the Burgos Gas Plant to the Valero Edinburg Terminal,
linking to the Valero system for transport to the Brownsville Terminal,
there is a tradeoff between pipeline length and potential impacts to
population sensitive areas.
A shorter pipeline from the Rio Grande crossing to the Valero
Edinburg Terminal would be approximately 24 miles in length, or
approximately \2/3\ the length of the proposed Valero Burgos
[[Page 8633]]
pipeline. As this alignment would run through or near to a number of
municipalities, including Palmview, Mission, Alton, Palm Hurst, and
Edinburg, it was discarded early in the analysis process in favor of
the proposed 34-mile route which only crosses 1 mile of metropolitan
area immediately prior to entering the Valero Edimberg Terminal. In
addition, any attempts to create a more direct routing would result in
much greater potential impacts to population sensitive areas, water
quality sensitive areas, and biologically sensitive areas. The proposed
route would maintain the maximum buffer possible between the pipeline
and population sensitive areas and would follow existing pipeline
rights-of-way to the extent possible. These benefits more than offset
the marginally increased risks associated with having a longer
pipeline.
III. Summary of the Assessment of the Potential Environmental Impacts
Resulting From the Proposed Action
A. Impacts of Construction and Normal Operation of the Pipeline
The Environmental Assessment, as amended, contains detailed
information on the environmental effects of the Valero Burgos Pipeline
and the no-action alternative. None of the routing alternatives was
considered to have the potential to reduce impacts to any
environmentally sensitive sites. In particular, the Environmental
Assessment analyzed the impacts of construction and normal operation of
the pipeline on air and sound quality, topography, water resources,
soils, mineral resources, biological resources, land use,
transportation, socioeconomic resources, and recreation and cultural
resources. Based on the detailed environmental assessment and
information developed by the Department and other federal and state
agencies in the process of reviewing the draft Environmental
Assessment, the Department concluded the following:
i. Environmental Concerns: There would be no impacts to or on,
inter alia, geology and topography, groundwaters, the heritage status
of the Rio Grande, wetlands, mineral resources, and recreation
resources. There would be insignificant, minor or temporary impacts to
or on, inter alia, noise, surface waters and canals, soils, and
protected biological resources. Finally, there would be net benefits to
air quality through the elimination of exhaust emissions of
CO2, NOX, VOC, SO2, and particulate
matter that would be generated when tankers move fuel across the
border.
ii. Transportation and Land Use: The Valero Burgos Pipeline does
not conflict with existing land use plans for Hidalgo County or
Edinburg. By maximizing the use of existing fence line and pipeline
corridors, the pipeline would avoid splitting parcels and thereby
complicating future development, and would minimize new impacts. The
pipeline would represent a net positive benefit to local transportation
by removing additional truck traffic from roadways.
iii. Homeland Security: There would be net benefits to homeland
security because the pipeline would reduce the truck traffic volume at
border crossings, thereby resulting in fewer trucks that would need to
be searched at the border for smuggled individuals and/or weapons.
Valero has completed an evaluation of the infrastructure for the
proposed Valero Burgos Pipeline under the principles outlined by the
National Infrastructure Protection Center for protecting critical
assets, and a determination has been made that the Valero Burgos
Pipeline would not meet the criteria for a critical asset;
iv. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources: There
would be a commitment of land resources that would need to be dedicated
to the new pipeline right-of-way. At the same time, the operation of
the pipeline would represent a critical part of a system that would
greatly reduce the energy requirements for transporting naphtha from
the Burgos gas plant to the Port of Brownsville.
Between mile point 4 and 6 of the proposed pipeline, the right-of-
way would divert 1200 feet to the west to avoid crossing an operational
rock quarry in Hidalgo County, thus avoiding impacts to the future
productive capacity of the quarry.
v. Cumulative Effects: The pipeline would expand an existing
pipeline corridor traveling north from the Rio Grande. The corridor
currently is occupied by two natural gas pipelines, and operation of
the naphtha line within the corridor would represent a limited increase
in potential risks from pipeline accidents in this area.
A more detailed analysis of each of these factors is provided in
the Environmental Assessment, as amended, which addresses issues raised
by Federal and state agencies and the public.
B. Impacts Due to Corrosion of the Pipeline or Damage From an Outside
Agent
The Environmental Assessment, as amended, also contains detailed
assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Valero Burgos
Pipeline arising from pipeline integrity issues. A release of naphtha
from the pipeline, though improbable, would have very different impacts
from those associated with construction and normal operation.
i. Human Health and Safety Concerns: Potential human health and
safety impacts that may result from a release of hazardous liquids
include: (i) Fire or explosion from refined product liquid and/or
vapors; (ii) short-term exposure to hazardous vapors resulting from a
refined product release; (iii) long-term exposure to hazardous vapors
resulting from contaminated soils, ground water, or surface water
following a release of refined product; and (iv) exposure to toxic
constituents of refined product from ingestion.
The potential risks to human health and safety would be most
concentrated in areas where the pipeline would be close to residences,
businesses, or transportation corridors. Only six short segments of the
proposed Valero Burgos Pipeline would be located in areas where a
pipeline accident could result in risk to nearby residences and
businesses. A large portion of the pipeline would be located in rural
areas where no development is likely in the near future.
Any mode of transporting hazardous liquids shares these potential
safety impacts. Since the accident rate for pipelines on a product-mile
basis is in orders of magnitude lower than that of tanker or rail
transport, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) considers
pipeline transport to be the safest transportation for refined product.
As previously discussed, since the Valero Burgos Pipeline would
traverse fewer areas where impacts to human health and safety are
likely to result from a major accident than the ``no-action''
alternative, the pipeline would result in substantially lower risks to
human health and safety than the ``no action'' alternative. Alternative
pipeline routings would require significantly more new pipeline
construction through populated areas, either along the Rio Grande
(alternative routings to connect the Burgos gas plant and the Port of
Brownsville), or across portions of Mission and Edinburg (alternative
alignments from the Rio Grande crossing to the Valero Edinburg
Terminal).
This pipeline project proposal incorporates many safety features to
address health and safety concerns. These are presented as mitigation
measures.
ii. Environmental Concerns: The air quality impacts from an
accidental
[[Page 8634]]
product release from the Valero Burgos Pipeline would be short term and
would not constitute a significant impact. Significant groundwater
contamination would be unlikely to occur from a leak, because local
groundwater sources are at a depth where they would not be impacted
rapidly by a release, allowing time for emergency response and cleanup
of contaminated soils. A release resulting in fire would cause damage
to vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the release, but would be
unlikely to result in widespread fires because of the types and
distribution of vegetation.
iii. Possible Conflicts Between the Valero Burgos Pipeline and the
Objectives of Federal, Regional, State and Local Use Plans, Policies
and Controls for the Area Concerned: The Valero Burgos Pipeline project
does not conflict with the objectives of any Federal, Regional, or
local land use plans, policies, or controls.
iv. Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided:
There would be a long-term increase in health and safety risk in the
immediate vicinity of the pipeline due to the nature of the product
being transported, which represents a shifting of risk from other
portions of the Rio Grande Valley (including northern Mexico and
southern Texas) that would handle substantial truck transport of
product under the ``No Action'' alternative. Any potential impacts
would be mitigated by the measures described below, which are proposed
to prevent or mitigate potentially adverse environmental impacts and
which Valero intends to take.
v. Cumulative Effects: There are two important considerations with
respect to cumulative impact analysis for the Valero Burgos Pipeline.
The first is the cumulative effect of risks to the pipeline, and
correspondingly to those living or working near to the pipeline, due to
potential accidents with respect to other pipelines in the vicinity.
For the first 14 miles the right-of-way for the Valero Burgos Pipeline
would largely adjoin the rights-of-way for two existing natural gas
pipelines. The second is the cumulative effect of the increased overall
risk to surrounding populations from an industrial accident occurring
along the right-of-way that results in the release of naphtha from the
Valero Burgos Pipeline, industrial sources or both. These represent two
different scenarios. In the first, consider that each individual
pipeline has a statistical probability of some sort of accident. For a
person in the vicinity of the pipeline, there is a cumulative risk
representing the summation of the probability of each individual
pipeline having an accident. On this basis, if x, y, and z represent
the probability of accident for each line, then some function of x+y+z
will represent this cumulative risk, and the proposed pipeline can be
said to increase the cumulative risk by ``z''. The second case
acknowledges that along with the independent risk (z) of an accident
along the proposed pipeline, there is some additional risk (a function
of x and y) resulting from its proximity to two other pipelines which
could have accidents resulting in a rupture of the proposed pipeline.
Under most pipeline studies this risk is acknowledged, but not
quantified, because such events have occurred so rarely as to be
statistically insignificant in any assessment of risk.
A study of U.S. DOT databases has not revealed any cases where a
below ground pipeline has had an accidental release due to an unrelated
accidental release, fire, or explosion of a nearby buried pipeline. No
portions of the Valero Burgos pipeline would be above ground in the
vicinity of any exposed portions of the adjoining pipelines.
Over much of the alignment there are no heavy industrial
activities, particularly those involving hazardous liquids or gases,
which would create a cumulative impact in combination with the Valero
Burgos Pipeline. These factors all led to a no significant cumulative
impacts assessment.
C. Environmental Justice/Socio-Economic Concerns
The environmental justice assessment for this project analyzed the
impact of the potential human, health, socioeconomic, and environmental
effects of the Valero Burgos Pipeline on minority and low-income
populations. The population of Hidalgo County is heavily minority. To
the extent that minority and low-income populations reside in the
vicinity of the pipeline, they risk exposure to the insignificant,
temporary and/or minor potential human health and environmental effects
that are discussed in detail in the Environmental Assessment, as
amended, and summarized above. These include temporary, minor
construction related noise and threats to human safety due to fire or
accidental product release.
These risks, however, must be weighed against the benefits that
would result from the removal of tanker trucks as the primary mode of
naphtha transportation. The removal of tanker trucks from roads,
particularly border crossings, would increase safety at these highly
sensitive locations and route naphtha away from more populous areas of
town while in transit. Emissions of hazardous air pollutants during
naphtha transfer operations within the lower Rio Grande airshed would
be reduced. It is also worth noting that due to the overall demographic
makeup of the lower Rio Grande Valley, all of the alternatives for
consideration, including the ``no-action'' alternative of tanker truck
transport of naphtha, would impact primarily low-income and minority
populations. There is no evidence to suggest that minority or low-
income populations would experience disproportionate adverse impacts as
a result of the construction and operation of the Valero Burgos
Pipeline. To the contrary, since most of the Valero Burgos Pipeline is
situated away from areas where human health and safety could be
adversely impacted, while truck transport necessarily takes place in
areas where human health and safety are at risk, the pipeline would
result in lower risks to the overall health and safety of minority and
low-income populations than the ``no-action'' alternative.
IV. Prevention and Mitigation Measures
In order to control risks associated with outside force, damage,
corrosion and leaks, Valero has undertaken or intends to undertake the
prevention and mitigation measures listed below. Valero has or will:
Bury the pipeline a minimum of 3 feet below grade.
Place and maintain prominent warning markers at all
crossings and property lines along the pipeline.
Participate in all applicable one-call notification
systems and coordinate with the local emergency planning committee.
Conduct regular right-of-way drive-overs or over-flights
in order to identify potential pipeline encroachments and unauthorized
activities.
Ensure that a Valero representative is physically present
anytime there is construction activity within the pipeline right of
way.
Participate in on-going public education initiatives
stressing pipeline safety and damage prevention.
Use factory-applied fusion-bonded epoxy coating on all
pipes.
Use field-applied coating on all welded joints.
Conduct annual surveys to determine effectiveness of
corrosion control.
Use a certified impressed current cathodic protection
system.
Use a heavy wall pipe at waterway, road, and rail
crossings.
Use high resolution internal inspection tools (i.e., pigs)
at least every five years.
[[Page 8635]]
X-ray all girth welds completely.
Use pipe manufactured at an ISO 9000-certified mill.
Hydro test pipe in place to 125% of its maximum allowable
operating pressure for 8 hours.
Require that material specification, design, and
construction meet or exceed all applicable standards and codes
established by API, ASME, DOT/OPS, and TRC.
Perform comprehensive construction and installation
inspection.
Provide continuous 24-hour monitoring of the Valero Burgos
Pipeline from a dispatch and control center, with a crew of technicians
available on a rapid response basis.
Use computers to identify significant operational
deviations, and to set off appropriate alarms.
Provide on-going training and performance certification of
employees responsible for pipeline operations and maintenance, as
required by the Operator Qualification regulation of DOT.
Maintain a SCADA link via satellite to the Valero control
center in San Antonio.
V. Conclusion: Analysis of the Environmental Assessment Submitted by
the Sponsor
On the basis of the Environmental Assessment, as amended, 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 Valero has or is prepared to undertake to
prevent or mitigate potentially adverse environmental impacts, the
Department has concluded that issuance of a Presidential Permit
authorizing construction of the proposed Valero Burgos Pipeline 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 on
file and may be reviewed by interested parties at the Department of
State, 2200 C Street NW., Room 3535, Washington, DC 20520 (Attn: Mr.
Charles Esser, Tel. 202-647-1291).
Dated: January 26, 2006.
Stephen J. Gallogly,
Director, Office of International Energy and Commodity Policy,
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E6-2350 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P