[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75312-75316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-32051]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4576]


Finding of No Significant Impact and Summary Environmental 
Assessment; Valero Logistics LP Pipeline in Webb County, TX

    The proposed action is to issue a Presidential Permit to Valero 
Logistics Operations LP (Valero) to construct, connect, operate and 
maintain a 8\5/8\ inch outer diameter pipeline to convey liquid 
petroleum gas (``LPG'') across the border from Webb County, Texas to 
the United States of Mexico. 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 
(68 FR 44560 (July 29, 2003)) regarding the availability for inspection 
of Valero's 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 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 the behalf of the 
Department of State, where public input on the project was received. No 
formal written public comments were submitted on the draft 
environmental assessment.
    Comments received from the Federal and state agencies and the 
public were either responded to directly, or addressed directly by 
incorporation into the analysis contained in the draft environmental 
assessment. In addition to inclusion in the analyses of impacts and 
risks, comments were used to develop measures to be undertaken by 
Valero to prevent or mitigate potentially adverse environmental 
impacts, which were included as commitments.
    This summary environmental assessment, comments submitted by the 
Federal and state agencies and the public, responses to those comments, 
and the draft 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

[[Page 75313]]

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). 
Valero Logistics LP (``Valero'') has applied for a Presidential Permit 
to construct, connect, operate and maintain an 8\5/8\ inch outer 
diameter pipeline (``the Dos Laredos Pipeline'') at the U.S.-Mexico 
border. The pipeline will connect the Valero terminal in Laredo, Texas, 
with a newly-constructed Valero terminal in the state of Tamaulipas, 
Mexico. The U.S. portion of the project as described in the final 
Environmental Assessment consists of approximately 10.6 miles of new 
pipeline from the Valero terminal to a location on the Rio Grande known 
as ``La Bota'' in Laredo, approximately 6 miles northwest of downtown 
Laredo. The Mexican portion consists of approximately 1.5 kilometers of 
new pipeline from the Rio Grande crossing to the newly constructed 
Valero Nuevo Laredo terminal.
    A significant portion of the route of the Dos Laredos pipeline will 
utilize existing utility rights of way and cleared fenceline, 
minimizing the amount of additional environmental impact. The routing 
has also been designed to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, 
populated areas of Webb County.
    The Dos Laredos pipeline is being designed to transport up to 
32,400 barrels (1.36 million gallons) of LPG daily from the U.S. to 
Mexico. Originally, the pipeline will service Valero's contractual 
obligation to supply 5,000 barrels a day to MGI Supply Limited, a 
subsidiary of Pemex-Gas y Petroquimica Basica, with capacity available 
for future expansion.

II. Alternatives Considered

    The Department considered two routing alternatives and one modal 
alternative to the proposed Dos Laredos 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 delivery 
of LPG to Nuevo Laredo via tanker trucks. There are two possible 
options for this delivery.
    The current delivery system involves trucks carrying LPG from the 
Three Rivers facility to Eagle Pass (approximately 160 miles), crossing 
the border at Eagle Pass to Piedras Negras, and offloading at a 
terminal on the Mexican side of the border. A Mexican fleet then 
transports the LPG the approximately 120 miles from Piedras Negras to 
Nuevo Laredo to customers.
    A second delivery routing could occur after Valero constructs a new 
LPG terminal to the west of Nuevo Laredo (the planned terminus of the 
Dos Laredos Pipeline). In this case, tanker trucks would carry LPG 
approximately 120 miles from Three Rivers to Laredo, cross the border 
to Nuevo Laredo at the World Trade Bridge, and proceed to the terminal 
location, where again it would be offloaded for pickup by local service 
vehicles.
    While these ``no action'' alternatives would avoid the minor or 
temporary noise and air quality impacts associated with the 
construction of the pipeline, truck transport is not a preferred 
alternative. An average of 24 tanker trucks carrying LPG to travel from 
Three Rivers across the border per day would be needed to meet Valero's 
contractual obligations. This would result in (i) exhaust emissions of 
nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon dioxide (CO2), 
sulfur dioxide (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, (iv) a continuing safety risk, including 
increased exposure to emissions, spills, and accidents during truck 
loading and unloading operations, and (v) a long-term commitment to 
moving these hazardous liquids through more heavily populated 
transportation corridors in Webb County, rather than through pipeline 
rights-of-way which have been situated in a way which minimizes 
potential impacts to existing and currently planned communities.
    If, as expected over time, population growth in Northern Mexico 
creates additional demand for cross-border shipments of LPG, the need 
for additional truck transport would result in greater impacts to the 
transportation infrastructure, public safety, and air quality. The 
added travel from tanker trucks, assuming the shorter round trip 
directly between Three Rivers and Nuevo Laredo (as compared to the 
current round trip between Three Rivers to Nuevo Laredo through Eagle 
Pass/Piedras Negras) would produce a substantially higher regional 
diesel exhaust burden, resulting in emission of 63 tons per year of 
NOX, 30 tons per year of CO2, 11 tons per year of 
PM, 8 tons per year of VOC, and 2 tons per year of SO2.
    Alternatives 2 and 3: Alternatives 2 and 3 considered for the 
project involved pipeline routings that roughly parallel the proposed 
route, to the north and south. The existing fencelines/utility 
corridors, and desire of local landowners not to have large tracts 
divided by a newly established pipeline corridor, limited the number of 
possible alternatives. Both routings would have also involved the 
laying of a new 8\5/8\ inch diameter pipeline.
    The northern alternative was viewed as not preferred because it 
required approximately 3 additional miles of pipeline, while not 
providing substantial relief from any of the impacts documented for the 
proposed pipeline route.
    The southern alternative was also viewed as not preferred. While it 
required roughly the same pipeline distance as the proposal, it passed 
through industrial corridors along Killen Industrial Road and Mines 
Road prior to crossing the river. The existing development within these 
corridors would have made right-of-way much more difficult to obtain, 
in light of the City of Laredo's existing ordinance requiring a 25-foot 
setback between any pipeline and a structure. This ordinance makes 
siting much more practicable in an undeveloped corridor such as that 
found along the proposed route.
    In addition, neither alternative routing provided avoidance or 
mitigation of any of the unavoidable impacts attributable to the 
selected corridor. For these reasons, the Department concluded that 
these alternate routes were not preferred alternatives.

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 Final Environmental Assessment contains detailed information on 
the environmental effects of the Dos Laredos 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 the following:
    i. Environmental Concerns: There will be no impacts to or on, inter 
alia,

[[Page 75314]]

geology and topography, groundwaters, the Heritage status of the Rio 
Grande, wetlands, mineral resources, and recreation resources. There 
will be insignificant, minor or temporary impacts to or on, inter alia, 
noise, surface waters, soils, and protected biological resources. 
Finally, there will be net benefits to air quality through the 
elimination of exhaust emissions of CO2, NOX, 
VOCs, SOX, and particulate matter that are 
generated when tankers move fuel across the border. Alternative 1, 
transporting product by tanker truck in the future will continue these 
emissions. Alternatives 2 and 3, the routing alternatives, are not 
judged to represent any major difference in impacts to environmental 
concerns than the preferred route, although by virtue of being 30% 
longer Alternative 2 (the northern routing) would result in 
incrementally higher construction-related impacts.
    ii. Transportation and Land Use: In consultation with the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, certain crossings will be re-aligned or will be 
directionally drilled to protect riparian bands that may be used by 
migratory threatened and endangered species. The Dos Laredos Pipeline 
does not conflict with existing land use plans for Laredo or Webb 
County. By utilizing existing fenceline and utility line corridors, the 
pipeline avoids splitting parcels and thereby complicating future 
development, and minimizes new impacts. Following consultation with 
local environmental groups, the alignment of the pipeline in the area 
south and west of FM 1472 was adjusted to minimize impacts to trees 
adjoining Sombretillo Creek and also to provide (via the maintained 
right of way) a buffer to keep development away from the creek. When 
compared with the ``no action alternative'' of continued truck 
transport, the pipeline represents a net positive benefit to local 
transportation by removing additional truck traffic from roadways. 
There are no major transportation issue related differences in impacts 
between the preferred routing and the two alternatives evaluated.
    iii. Homeland Security: Compared to the ``no action'' alternative, 
there will be net benefits to homeland security because the pipeline 
will reduce the truck traffic volume at border crossings. There are no 
homeland security related differences in impacts between the preferred 
routing and the two alternatives evaluated.
    iv. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources: There 
is a small increase in the commitment of land resources which are 
dedicated to transporting LPG due to the establishment of the new 
pipeline ROW, as compared to the ``no action'' alternative. The 
preferred alignment is advantageous compared to the two alternatives 
because Alternative 2 would increase the length of the pipeline (and 
therefore the commitment of land) by approximately 30%, while not 
changing the land uses which would be affected, and Alternative 3 while 
not increasing the length of the pipeline, would require adding new 
restrictions to land use in an already developed light-industrial 
corridor.
    The operation of the pipeline will greatly reduce the energy 
requirements for transporting LPG from Three Rivers to Nuevo Laredo in 
comparison with the ``no action'' alternative. The selection of the 
preferred alignment will not affect energy requirements for LPG 
transport to any notable degree when compared with the 2 alternative 
alignments.
    v. Cumulative Effects: There are no cumulative impacts to the Nuevo 
Laredo-Laredo airshed due to consumption of LPG in Mexico, since this 
supply represents LPG which is already being delivered to Mexico via 
truck, and the pipeline will only represent a change in delivery 
system.
    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 Final Environmental Assessment also contains detailed 
assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Dos Laredos 
Pipeline arising from pipeline integrity issues. A release of LPG 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 fire or explosion from LPG, and short-term exposure to 
hazardous vapors resulting from an LPG release.
    The potential risks to human health and safety are most 
concentrated in areas where the pipeline is close to residences, 
businesses, or transportation corridors. Only two small portions of the 
Dos Laredos Pipeline will be located in areas where a pipeline accident 
could result in risk to nearby residences and businesses: (1) At the 
northern end where it exits the Valero Laredo Terminal and runs along 
I-35; and (2) near the midpoint of the line where it crosses FM 1472 
(Mines Road). A large portion of the pipeline is located in areas where 
no development is likely in the near future.
    Any mode of transporting hazardous liquids shares these potential 
safety impacts. The probability of accidents resulting in fire or 
explosion for pipelines on a product-mile basis is 35 times lower than 
that of tanker transport, and the probability of deaths resulting from 
hazardous liquids transport in pipelines is 87 times lower than 
transport by tanker trucks on a product-mile basis. For these reasons, 
the U.S. Department of Transportation considers pipeline transport to 
be the safest transportation for hazardous liquids.
    In addition, as previously discussed, the Dos Laredos Pipeline will 
traverse fewer areas where impacts to human health and safety are 
likely to result from a major accident than the ``no-action'' 
alternative, and therefore the pipeline will result in substantially 
lower risks to human health and safety than the ``no action'' 
alternative. Alternative 2, the northern alternative routing, would 
result in a slightly higher risk due to the longer length of pipeline; 
while Alternative 3, the southern alternative routing, would result in 
a higher risk because it would pass through already developed 
industrial corridors for much of the alignment.
    This pipeline project has incorporated 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 product release from the Dos Laredos Pipeline would be short 
term and would not constitute a significant impact. Groundwater 
contamination is unlikely to occur from an LPG leak, because the 
product immediately expands into a gas upon release. Along most of the 
alignment, release resulting in fire would cause damage to vegetation 
in the immediate vicinity of the release, but is unlikely to result in 
widespread fires because of the types and distribution of vegetation. 
The mesquite and cactus which dominate the uplands sections of the 
alignment are difficult to burn even during planned fires, usually 
requiring mechanical preparation of the site and cessation of grazing 
to build up sufficient fuel, due to the naturally wide spacing and 
sparse ground cover. A greater fire hazard is present immediately along 
the Rio Grande where frequent fires occur in bamboo stands, but the 
pipeline will be directionally drilled to depths greater than the 
standard 3-foot minimum cover

[[Page 75315]]

in this area in order to avoid impacts to the riparian band along the 
river.
    iii. Possible Conflicts Between the Dos Laredos Pipeline and the 
Objectives of Federal, Regional, State and Local Use Plans, Policies 
and Controls for the Area Concerned: The risks posed by the Dos Laredos 
Pipeline do not conflict with any local land use plans, policies, or 
controls.
    iv. Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided: 
There will 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 county that would handle substantial truck transport of 
product under the ``No Action'' alternative or the alternative 
alignment scenarios. 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 the cumulative impacts analysis for the Dos Laredos 
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 on other pipelines in the vicinity. The only 
major transmission line in the vicinity of the Dos Laredos Pipeline is 
the Duke Energy Pipeline, which shares a common right-of-way for a \1/
4\ mile stretch of the proposed alignment just north of FM 1472. 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 LPG from the Dos Laredos 
pipeline, industrial sources or both.
    A study of U.S. DOT databases has not revealed any cases where a 
below ground pipeline has ruptured due to the effects of another 
accidental release, fire, or explosion of a nearby buried pipeline. No 
portions of the Dos Laredos pipeline will be above ground in the 
vicinity of any exposed portions of the Duke Energy pipeline. Therefore 
the proximity to the Duke Energy pipeline is not considered a 
significant cumulative impact.
    Over much of the alignment there are no heavy industrial 
activities, particularly those involving hazardous liquids or gases, 
that would create a cumulative impact in combination with the Dos 
Laredos Pipeline. The Valero Laredo terminal at the north end of the 
alignment is situated in an industrialized area, along the railroad and 
I-35, and has storage tanks for gasoline. No storage of LPG will take 
place at this facility at this time. The industrial park along FM 1472 
which will border a portion of the alignment appears to be dedicated to 
warehousing and transportation, and there are no current plans to 
incorporate any heavy industrial uses in the area. These factors all 
lead 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 Dos Laredos pipeline on minority and low-income 
populations. The population of Webb County is heavily minority, with 
dense population areas of the county around Laredo containing a higher 
percentages of minorities. 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 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 
LPG transportation. The removal of tanker trucks from roads, 
particularly border crossings, will increase safety at these highly 
sensitive locations and route LPG away from more populous areas of town 
while in transit. Emissions of hazardous air pollutants during LPG 
transfer operations within the Laredo-Nuevo Laredo airshed will be 
reduced. It is also worth noting that due to the overall makeup of the 
Laredo metropolitan area, all of the alternatives for consideration, 
including the ``no-action'' alternative of tanker truck transport of 
LPG, will impact primarily low-income and minority 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 Dos Laredos Pipeline. To the 
contrary, since most of the Dos Laredos 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 will result in lower risks to the 
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:
    [sbull] Bury the pipeline a minimum of 3 feet below grade.
    [sbull] Place and maintain prominent warning markers at all 
crossings and property lines along the pipeline.
    [sbull] Participate in all applicable one-call notification systems 
and coordinate with the local emergency planning committee.
    [sbull] Conduct regular ROW drive-overs or over flights in order to 
identify potential pipeline encroachments and unauthorized activities.
    [sbull] Ensure that a Valero representative is physically present 
anytime there is construction activity within the pipeline right of 
way.
    [sbull] 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 every five years
    [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 Dos Laredos 
Pipeline from a dispatch and control center.
    [sbull] Use computers to identify significant operational 
deviations, and to set-off appropriate alarms.
    [sbull] Monitor remotely the pressure at the Rio Grande River.
    [sbull] Provide on-going training and performance certification of 
employees responsible for pipeline operations and maintenance, as 
required by the

[[Page 75316]]

Operator Qualification regulation of DOT.
    [sbull] Maintain a SCADA link via satellite to the Valero control 
center in San Antonio.
    [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.

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 Environmental 
Assessment, comments received by the Department from Federal and state 
agencies and the public, and measures that Valero has or is prepared to 
undertake to mitigate prevent potentially adverse environmental 
impacts, the Department has concluded that issuance of a Presidential 
Permit authorizing construction of the proposed Dos Laredos 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: December 19, 2003.
Stephen J. Gallogly,
Director, Office of Energy and Commodity Policy, Bureau of Economic and 
Business Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 03-32051 Filed 12-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P