Finding of No Significant Impact and Summary Environmental Assessment Valero Logistics LP Pipeline in Hidalgo County, TX, 8631-8635 [E6-2350]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8631-8635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2350]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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