[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25404-25407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11732]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of International Energy and Commodities Policy

[Public Notice 4362]


Finding of No Significant Impact and Summary Environmental 
Assessment: PMI Services North America, Inc. Pipeline in Cameron 
County, TX

    The proposed action is to issue a Presidential Permit to PMI 
Services North America, Inc. (``PMI'') to construct, connect, operate 
and maintain a 10\5/8\-inch outer diameter (``OD'') pipeline to convey 
refined petroleum products and liquid petroleum gas (``LPG'') across 
the border between Mexico and Cameron County, Texas. On behalf of PMI, 
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, 67 FR 65168 (2002), regarding the availability for 
inspection of PMI'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 Department of Defense, the 
Department of Commerce, the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Council on Environmental Quality, the Texas Railroad Commission, the 
Texas Historical Commission, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 
and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Some members of the 
public also reviewed the draft environmental assessment and submitted 
comments to the Department.
    Comments received from the Federal and State agencies and the 
public were responded to directly or by incorporation in the analysis 
contained in the revised draft environmental assessment and/or by 
developing measures to be undertaken by PMI to prevent or mitigate 
potentially adverse environmental impacts.
    This summary environmental assessment, comments submitted by the 
Federal and State agencies and the public, responses to those comments, 
and the final environmental assessment, as amended, together constitute 
the ``Final Environmental Assessment'' of the proposed action by the 
Department.

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 11423 
of August 16, 1968, 33 FR 11741 (1968), as amended by Executive Order 
12847 of May 17, 1993, 58 FR 29511 (1993). PMI has applied for a 
Presidential Permit to construct, connect, operate and maintain a bi-
directional 10\5/8\-inch OD pipeline (``the MB Pipeline'') at the U.S.-
Mexico border. The MB Pipeline will connect the Transmontaigne terminal 
at the Port of Brownsville, Brownsville, Texas, with an existing 
Petr[oacute]leos Mexicanos (PEMEX) pipeline in the state of Tamaulipas, 
Mexico. The U.S. portion of the project consists of approximately 17 
miles of new pipeline from the Transmontaigne terminal to a location on 
the Rio Grande west of the unincorporated town of San Pedro, 
approximately 9 miles northwest of downtown Brownsville. The Mexican 
portion consists of approximately 11 miles of new pipeline from the Rio 
Grande crossing to the PEMEX pipeline at the town of Curva, Texas.
    A significant portion of the route of the MB Pipeline will follow 
the Penn Octane (``POCC'') pipeline right of way, for which the 
Department issued a finding of no significant impact (``FONSI'') in 
1999 (64 FR 42163 (1999)). The MB Pipeline follows the POCC right of 
way until it reaches the area of the Resaca de la Palma State Park west 
of Brownsville. Instead of following the POCC pipeline south to the US/
Mexico border, the MB Pipeline angles west-southwest to cross the Rio 
Grande at a point approximately 4 miles upriver of the POCC crossing. 
The routing for the MB Pipeline has been designed to avoid, to the 
maximum extent possible, populated areas of Cameron County and 
sensitive environmental features, including existing State park lands 
and Federal nature preserve lands.

[[Page 25405]]

    Initially, the MB Pipeline will transport less than 100,000 barrels 
of refined product (motor gasoline, diesel fuel or jet fuel) per day. 
It is designed, however, to transport up to 100,000 barrels of refined 
product and may later be used to transport LPG between the United 
States and Mexico.

II. Alternatives Considered

    The Department considered several alternatives to the proposed MB 
Pipeline. These are described in detail in the final environmental 
assessment and in a summary fashion below:
    Alternative 1: The ``no action'' alternative would involve 
continued transportation of refined products to the Brownsville 
terminal from Matamoros via tanker trucks. While this alternative would 
avoid the minor or temporary noise and air quality impacts associated 
with the construction of the MB Pipeline, truck transport is not the 
better alternative. Up to 50 tanker trucks of refined product might 
cross the border on a regular basis, resulting in (i) exhaust emissions 
of NOX, CO, SO2, VOC, and particulate matter that 
exceed that of pipeline transport; (ii) extra loads on busy highways 
and road bridges, (iii) transportation-related environmental 
degradation related to operation of a tanker truck fleet, including 
fueling and maintenance, and (iv) a continuous safety risk in a heavily 
urbanized area, including increased exposure to emissions, spills, and 
accidents during truck loading and unloading operations. If, as 
expected, the demand for cross-border shipments of product were to 
increase, the need for additional truck transport would result in 
greater impacts to the transportation infrastructure, public safety, 
and air quality. The added travel from existing tanker trucks would 
substantially increase the regional diesel exhaust burden, resulting in 
15 to 37.5 tons per year of nitrogen oxides, and smaller amounts of 
other pollutants compared to the proposed MB Pipeline.
    Alternative 2: A second alternative would involve the use of an 
existing 8\5/8\-inch OD POCC pipeline to transport refined products. 
POCC currently transports LPG through this pipeline, which could, 
however, be used to transport refined products. There is a second POCC 
pipeline which has a 6\5/8\-inch outer diameter and which runs parallel 
to the 8\5/8\-inch pipeline; this smaller pipeline is not currently 
being used. Prior to deciding to proceed with its application for 
authority to construct its own 10\5/8\-inch OD pipeline, PMI entered 
into negotiations with POCC on the use of its 8\5/8\-inch OD pipelines. 
The parties, however, were unable to reach agreement on a framework for 
completing due diligence and negotiating a definitive contract.
    In addition, PMI has determined that a 10\5/8\-inch OD pipeline is 
consistent with and allows for anticipated growth in demand for 
pipeline transportation in this system. Overall PMI anticipates a need 
for increased trans-border commerce, to provide better alternatives to 
manage Mexican product commercial surpluses and shortfalls. In fact, 
replacement of truck transport with installation of efficient 
transportation systems such as the proposed MB Pipeline will likely 
serve to accelerate the increase in trans-border commerce. Thus, the 
Department has concluded that utilization of the POCC pipeline is not a 
viable alternative because (i) the parties were not able to reach 
agreement on commercial terms on its use, and (ii) it would not fulfill 
the anticipated long-term needs for a more efficient and effective 
high-volume transportation system.
    Other Alternatives: In 1999, the Department issued a FONSI for the 
POCC pipeline. In that FONSI, the Department considered three alternate 
routes for the proposed project: Route A ran to the east of Brownsville 
and Matamoros; Route B ran though downtown Brownsville directly into 
Matamoros; and Route C ran through the northern and western suburban 
portions of Brownsville. Each of these alternatives were set aside. 
Route A was set aside on environmental grounds; Routes B and C were set 
aside due to their proximity to residences. For these same reasons, 
these alternate routes are being set aside for the MB 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
    i. Environmental Impacts: The final environmental assessment 
contains detailed information on the environmental effects of the MB 
Pipeline and the alternatives outlined above. In particular, the final 
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 that there would be (i) no impact 
to or on, among others, geology and topography, ground water, the 
Heritage status of the Rio Grande, wetlands, mineral resources, and 
recreation resources; (ii) insignificant, minor or temporary impact to 
or on, among others, noise, surface waters and canals, soils, protected 
biological resources, transportation, and land use; and (iii) net 
benefits to air quality through the elimination of exhaust emissions of 
CO, NOX, VOCs, and particulate matter that are generated 
when tankers move fuel across the border. A more detailed analysis of 
each of these factors and their cumulative effects is provided in the 
final environmental assessment, as amended, to address issues raised by 
Federal and State agencies and the public.
    ii. 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 MB Pipeline on minority and low-income populations. The 
population of Cameron County is heavily minority, with outlying, less 
dense population areas of the county having higher percentages of 
minorities than the closer-in suburban areas to Brownsville. To the 
extent that minority and low-income populations reside in the vicinity 
of the MB Pipeline, they risk exposure to the insignificant, temporary 
and/or minor potential human health and environmental effects that are 
discussed in detail in the final environmental assessment 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 refined product transportation. The removal of tanker trucks from 
roads, particularly border crossings, will increase safety at these 
highly sensitive locations and route refined products away from more 
populous areas of town while in transit. Also, emissions of hazardous 
air pollutants during loading operations within the Brownsville 
Matamoros airshed will be reduced. It is also worth noting that due to 
the overall makeup of the Brownsville metropolitan area, all of the 
alternatives for consideration, including the no-action alternative of 
tanker truck transport of gasoline and other refined products, will 
impact primarily low-income and minority

[[Page 25406]]

populations. There is no evidence to suggest that minority or low-
income populations will experience disproportionate adverse impacts as 
a result of the construction and operation of the MB Pipeline. To the 
contrary, since less than 10% of the MB Pipeline will traverse areas 
where human health and safety could be adversely affected as compared 
to 50% in the case of truck transport, the MB Pipeline will result in 
lower risks to the health and safety of minority and low-income 
populations.
B. Impacts Due to Corrosion of the Pipeline or Damage From an Outside 
Agent
    i. Impacts on Human Health and Safety: Corrosion of the MB Pipeline 
or damage to it from an outside agent may result in the release of 
hazardous liquids. Potential human health and safety impacts that may 
result from such a release include (i) fire or explosion from LPG or 
refined products, (ii) short-term exposure to hazardous vapors 
resulting from a refined product or LPG release, (iii) long-term 
exposure to hazardous vapors resulting from contaminated soils, ground 
water, or surface water following a release of refined products, and 
(iv) exposure to toxic constituents of refined product from ingestion.
    The potential risks to human health and safety are most 
concentrated in areas where the MB Pipeline is close to residences, 
businesses, or transportation corridors. Only three small portions of 
the MB Pipeline will be located in areas where a pipeline accident 
could result in risk to nearby residences and businesses. This 
represents approximately 1\1/4\ miles, or less than 7% of the total 
pipeline length. These also are the areas--along FM 1847, U.S. 77/83, 
and U.S. 281--where the greatest potential impact to health and safety 
of motorists is present.
    Any mode of transporting hazardous liquids shares these potential 
safety impacts. Since accident rates for pipelines on a product mile 
basis are lower in magnitude (40 to 300 times) than those of rail or 
tanker transport, the U.S. Department of Transportation considers 
pipeline transport to be the safest transportation for refined product. 
As previously discussed, since the MB Pipeline will traverse less areas 
where impacts to human health and safety are likely to result from a 
major accident than the no-action alternative, the MB Pipeline should 
result in substantially lower risks to human health and safety than the 
``no action'' alternative.
    Expanding on the comparison of the project with the alternatives: 
(a) On a product mile transport basis, DOT statistics show that 
pipeline transport is safer than tanker truck transport by orders of 
magnitude; (B) less than 10% of the pipeline route will be in areas 
representing a threat to human health and safety, as indicated by 
proximity of residences or businesses which may be impacted by an 
accidental release; however more than 50% of the route used by tanker 
trucks would be in such areas, because of the natural development 
patterns along public roadways in urban settings. These two factors 
combine to make pipeline transport of product much safer than the ``no 
action'' alternative. Moreover, at the level where there is sufficient 
data to perform risk-analyses, it does not matter from a human health 
and safety standpoint whether product is transported in the MB Pipeline 
or in the POCC pipeline.
    The MB Pipeline project has incorporated many safety features to 
address human health and safety concerns. These include specifications 
and maintenance practices to reduce the probability of outside force 
(third-party) damage, corrosion, or poor construction practices 
resulting in a release of product. Drilling or boring below waterways 
reduces the probability that a pipeline release could contaminate 
valuable water resources. In addition, leak detection systems coupled 
with 4 remotely-operated valves provide a means for the operator to 
rapidly respond to any accidents by shutting down the pipeline and 
isolating the leaky section.
    ii. Environmental Impacts: The air quality impacts from an 
accidental product release from the MB Pipeline would be short term and 
would not constitute a significant impact. Brownsville is not close to 
non-attainment for any of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 
and while a major release could result in an increase in ozone 
formation, environmental engineers advise it is not likely that even 
this condition would cause non-attainment conditions.
    Groundwater contamination from an accidental release is more likely 
to occur due to a slow refined products leak that goes undetected for a 
substantial portion of time, so that product might transport through 
the soil downward to the local aquifer system. Proper cleanup of 
contaminated soil should prevent long-term impacts to groundwater. The 
transportation of soil downward to the local aquifer system, however, 
may also result in contamination of soils in the vadose zone, and 
stress local vegetation, a symptom that would be detected during the 
regular pipeline patrols. If such problems were observed, 
investigations could be commenced in the vicinity of the pipeline where 
the release is occurring, and remediation, including soil cleanup, 
could once again proceed. Given the slow transmission capability of the 
soil types surrounding the MB Pipeline, it is unlikely that substantial 
volumes of refined product would reach the local aquifer prior to 
detection and remediation.
    Looking at the potential impacts to drinking water from an 
accidental release, the proposed MB Pipeline routing crosses the Rio 
Grande substantially upriver of the POCC crossing. This would place it 
further away from the diversion for the Olmito Water Supply, and from 
the Brownsville Diversion Point. This distance would be critical in an 
accident scenario because of the additional time it would take for 
product to travel downstream to those diversion points.
    Most of the MB Pipeline right of way traverses areas characterized 
either by sparse grassy areas or by agricultural cultivation. An 
accidental release of product in either area would result only in minor 
impacts to biological resources. Emergency response and soil 
remediation should ensure no long-term impacts to the local vegetation. 
No threatened or endangered vegetative species were identified which 
might be critically impacted from a release.
    In conclusion, the Department finds that impacts on the environment 
from an accidental release would not be significant.
    iii. Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided 
Due to Associated Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects from an 
accidental release of product are discussed in detail in the final 
environmental assessment. In short, there are two important factors to 
take into consideration with respect to cumulative impacts analysis on 
human health and safety for the MB Pipeline. The first is the 
cumulative effect of risks to the MB pipeline, and correspondingly to 
those living or working near to the MB Pipeline, due to potential 
accidents on other pipelines in the vicinity. This particularly applies 
to the POCC pipeline, which shares a common right-of-way for 
approximately two thirds of the MB Pipeline route. 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 hazardous liquids from the MB 
Pipeline, industrial sources or both.
    A study of U.S. DOT databases has not revealed any cases where a 
belowground pipeline has had an

[[Page 25407]]

accidental release due to the effects of an accidental release, fire, 
or explosion of a nearby buried pipeline. There is at least one known 
event of an accidental fire on a pipeline causing rupture of a fixture 
(valve rack) on an adjacent pipeline. This distinction is important, 
because except for the metering station there are only two aboveground 
fixtures (valves) along the MB Pipeline from the Transmontaigne 
Terminal to the Rio Grande, and the metering station is not positioned 
near to the existing POCC pipeline. Therefore, only a very small 
portion of the proposed MB Pipeline is susceptible to damage from an 
accident on the POCC line.
    There is insufficient incident data on pipelines in the United 
States to numerically analyze the cumulative risk of two pipelines 
occupying the same corridor. However, there remains the presumption 
that it is possible for a catastrophic event on one pipeline to cause 
damage to a nearby pipeline. If the MB Pipeline route is utilized, it 
would result in two pipelines running parallel for approximately 60-70% 
of the length of the MB Pipeline; alternatively, if the 8\5/8\ inch OD 
POCC pipeline alternative is utilized, it would result in two pipelines 
(the 8\5/8\ and the 6\5/8\ POCC lines) running parallel for nearly the 
entire length of the POCC pipelines. Therefore, there is an 
unquantifiable (and from an engineering perspective, insignificant) 
reduction in the risk of ``cumulative impacts'' from reducing the 
amount of ROW that PMI product transport will share with POCC LPG 
transport if the MB Pipeline is used.
    Finally, these potential cumulative risks are smaller in magnitude 
than the overall reduction in risk that would accrue from transporting 
the same volume of hazardous liquids in pipelines rather than in tanker 
trucks.
    iv. Possible Conflicts Between the MB Pipeline and the Objectives 
of Federal, Regional, State and Local Use Plans, Policies and Controls 
for the Area Concerned: The MB Pipeline supports Brownsville's 
continued development of the Port of Brownsville for industrial uses, 
and removes hazardous liquids transport from international bridges and 
populated areas. PMI will be responsible for ensuring that all 
applicable environmental and construction permits are obtained prior to 
the implementation of any portion of this project.

IV. Prevention and Mitigation Measures

    In order to control risks associated with outside force damage, 
corrosion and leaks, PMI has undertaken or will undertake the 
prevention and mitigation measures listed below. PMI has or will:
    [sbull] Bury the pipeline a minimum of 3 feet below grade;
    [sbull] Place and maintain prominent warning markers at all 
crossings and so that two are always in line-of-sight along the 
pipeline ROW;
    [sbull] Require the pipeline operator to participate in all 
applicable one-call notification systems;
    [sbull] Conduct regular ROW drive-overs or over flights in order to 
identify potential pipeline encroachments and unauthorized activities;
    [sbull] Ensure that a PMI representative is physically present 
anytime there is construction activity within the pipeline ROW;
    [sbull] Assign, on a permanent basis, a pipeline operator employee 
to headquarter in the area;
    [sbull] Require the pipeline operator to participate in on-going 
public education initiatives stressing pipeline safety and damage 
prevention;
    [sbull] Use factory-applied fusion-bonded epoxy coating on all 
pipes;
    [sbull] Use field-applied coating on all welded joints;
    [sbull] Conduct biennial surveys to determine effectiveness of 
corrosion control;
    [sbull] Use a certified impressed current cathodic protection 
system;
    [sbull] Use a heavy wall pipe in lieu of cased crossings;
    [sbull] Use high-resolution internal inspection tools (i.e., pigs) 
at least as frequently as required by 49 CFR 195;
    [sbull] X-ray all girth welds completely;
    [sbull] Use pipe manufactured at an ISO 9000-certified mill;
    [sbull] Hydro test pipe in place to 125% of its maximum allowable 
operating pressure for 8 hours;
    [sbull] Require that material specification, design, and 
construction meet or exceed all applicable standards and codes 
established by API, ASME, DOT/OPS, and TRC;
    [sbull] Perform comprehensive construction and installation 
inspection;
    [sbull] Provide continuous 24-hour monitoring of the MB Pipeline 
from a dispatch and control center;
    [sbull] Use computers to identify significant operational 
deviations, and to set off appropriate alarms;
    [sbull] Remotely monitor pressure at the Rio Grande River and 
always be capable of remotely blocking valve sites along the MB 
Pipeline;
    [sbull] Provide on-going training and performance certification of 
employees responsible for pipeline operations and maintenance, as 
required by the Operator Qualification regulation of DOT;
    [sbull] Install a fiber optic communications cable in the ditch to 
provide rapid and reliable transmission of signals between the pipeline 
equipment and the control room;
    [sbull] Establish block valve spacing of less than 7.5 miles 
through industrial, commercial, or residential areas, as recommended 
under ASME/ANSI B31.4 standards for transport of LPG; and
    [sbull] Install check valves with each block valve set to provide 
auto blockage of reverse flow prior to LPG transport.

V. Conclusion: Analysis of the Environmental Assessment Submitted by 
the Sponsor

    On the basis of the final environmental assessment, the 
Department's independent review of that assessment, information 
developed during the review of the application and draft environmental 
assessment, comments received by the Department from Federal and State 
agencies and the public, and measures that PMI has or is prepared to 
undertake to mitigate or prevent potentially adverse environmental 
impacts, the Department has concluded that issuance of a Presidential 
Permit authorizing construction of the proposed MB 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. 
Pedro Erviti, Tel. 202-647-1291).

    Dated: May 6, 2003.
Stephen J. Gallogly,
Director, Office of Energy and Commodity Policy, Bureau of Economic and 
Business Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 03-11732 Filed 5-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P