{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e8414c","title":"U.S.DOT/PHMSA - Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Implementation Modifications and Clarifications","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact For Implementation of the Final Rule For PIPELINE SAFETY: INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS [Docket No. PHMSA-04-18938] August 2006 Prepared for: Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline and Hazardous... TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I LIST OF ACRONYMS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 11 1.2 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-2 1-1 BACKGROUND Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 1-2 1-2 1-2 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Hazardous Liquid IMP 1-3 Flexibility in Reassessment Interval 1-4 1-3 Notification Requirements for Pressure...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8414c.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8414c.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8414c","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-2004-18938-0028/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nFinal Environmental Assessment and Finding of\nNo Significant Impact\nFor Implementation of the Final Rule\nFor\nPIPELINE SAFETY: INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT\nPROGRAM MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS\n[Docket No. PHMSA-04-18938]\nAugust 2006\nPrepared for:\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nPrepared by:\nEnvironmental Engineering Division\nJohn A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center\nResearch and Innovative Technology Administration\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nI\nLIST OF ACRONYMS\n1.0\nPURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION\n11\n1.2\n1.1\nINTRODUCTION\n1-2\n1-1\nBACKGROUND\nStatutory and Regulatory Requirements\n1-2\n1-2\n1-2\n1.3\nPURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION\nHazardous Liquid IMP\n1-3\nFlexibility in Reassessment Interval\n1-4\n1-3\nNotification Requirements for Pressure Reductions Exceeded 365 Days\nCorrecting Pressure Reduction Formula Requirements\n1-4\n1.4\n1.5\nPUBLIC INVOLVEMENT\n1-6\n1-5\nSCOPE OF ANALYSIS\n2.0\nPROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES\n2-1\n2.1\n2.2\nOVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES\n2-1\n2.3\nALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS\n2-1\nNO ACTION ALTERNATIVE\n2-1\n2.4\nPROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE\n2-35\n2.5\nALTERNATIVE A (NRPM PROPOSAL)\n2-3\n2-2\n2.6\nCOMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES\n2-4\n3.0\nAFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES\n3-6\nENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES\nAFFECTED ENVIRONMENT\n3-7\n3-6\n3.2.2 Hazardous Materials Transportation\nPublic Health and Safety\n3-7\n3-8\n3.2.3 Socioeconomics\n3-8\n3.3\n3.2.4 Special Areas of Consideration\nFINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT\n3-6\n3-9\n4.0\nLIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED\n4-1\n5.0\nLIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS\n41\n6.0\nREFERENCES\n4-1\nAugust 2006\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nLIST OF ACRONYMS\nAPI\nAmerican Petroleum Institute\nAOPL\nAssociation of Oil Pipelines\nCEQ\nCouncil on Environmental Qualit\nCFR\nlode of Federal Regulations\nDOT\nUnited States Department of Transportation\nEA\nEnvironmental Assessment\nEFRD\nEmergency Flow Restricting Devices\nFONSI\n'inding of No Significant Impact\nFR\nFederal Register\nHCA\nHigh Consequence Area\nIMP\nntegrity Management Prograr\nNEPA\nlational Environmental Policy Ar\nNGL\nVatural Gas Liquids\nNHPA\nJational Historic Preservation Ac\nNPRM\nNotice of Proposed Rulemaking\nNTSB\nNational Transportation Safety Board\nOPS\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S.\nUnited States\nU.S.C.\nUnited States Code\nAugust 2006\nii\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION\n1.1\nINTRODUCTION\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to\nimplement a final rule concerning revisions to the current pipeline safety regulations for\npipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. The revisions promote\nPHMSA's mission to ensure safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the\nNation's pipeline transportation system. The revised regulations are Title 49 of the Code\nof Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 192, Gas Transmission Pipelines, and Part 195,\nHazardous Liquid Operators. The final rule, entitled \"Pipeline Safety: Integrity\nManagement Program Modifications and Clarifications,\" will:\n• allow more flexibility in the reassessment interval for hazardous liquid pipelines\nby adding an eight-month window to the established five-year time frame for\noperators to complete reassessments;\n• add a requirement to include notifying PHMSA with reasons for repair delay\nwhen a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days;\n• correct existing provisions for calculating pressure reductions when making\nimmediate repairs on a hazardous liquid pipeline. The proposed correction will\nallow operators the use of another acceptable method for calculating reduced\noperating pressure when the specified formula is not applicable, or results in a\ncalculated pressure higher than the operating pressure; and,\n• Remove a requirement for gas operators to notify local authorities. There are no\nlocal authorities over these lines.\nPHMSA, with the cooperation of the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems\nCenter (Volpe Center), prepared this final environmental assessment (EA) and finding of\nno significant impact (FONSI) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act\n(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality's\n(CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR § 1500 et seq.), and the United States\nDepartment of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering\nEnvironmental Impacts. In this EA, PHMSA shares its analysis of the potential\nenvironmental impacts associated with the implementation of the final rule.\nAugust 2006\n1-1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n1.2 BACKGROUND\n1.2.1 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements\nPHMSA has broad authority under 49 USC 60102 to issue regulations applying to the\ndesign, installation, inspection, emergency plans and procedures, testing, construction,\nextension, operation, replacement, and maintenance of pipeline facilities Both the natural\ngas and hazardous liquid integrity management program (IMP) regulations (49 CFR Part\n192, Subpart O and Part 195.452 respectively) require operators to continually assess,\nevaluate, repair, and validate through comprehensive analysis the integrity of pipeline\nsegments in places where a leak or rupture would do the most damage, such as populated\nand environmentally sensitive areas. These areas are called \"High Consequence Areas\"\n(HCAS).\n1.2.2 Gas Integrity Management Program\nThe natural gas IMP regulations apply to gas transmission pipelines located in HCAs. A\ngas HCA is defined by either of two methods: (a) a Class 3 or 4 location and any area\noutside a Class 3 or 4 location where the Potential Impact Radius is greater than 660 feet\n(200 meters), and the area within a Potential Impact Circle contains 20 or more buildings\nintended for human occupancy; or (b) an identified site, which is an area meeting one of\nthree sub-criteria:\n• an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more people at least 50\ndays a year (the days need not be consecutive);\n• a building that is occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10\nweeks in a year (the days and weeks need not be consecutive); or,\n• the area within a potential impact circle containing 20 or more buildings intended\nfor human occupancy, (unless the exception described above in method (a)\napplies).\nGas transmission operators must complete a baseline assessment and conduct continual\nintegrity assessment of the pipeline segments in HAs and address all anomalous\nconditions discovered from the assessment. An operator must remediate the anomalies\naccording to a schedule that prioritizes the conditions for evaluation and remediation.\nTime frames are specified for certain conditions. These conditions are categorized as\nimmediate, one-year, or monitored conditions.\n1.2.3\nHazardous Liquid Integrity Management Program\nThe hazardous liquid IMP regulations apply to any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\npipeline that could affect a HCA. Hazardous liquid HAs are defined as populated areas,\nareas unusually sensitive to environmental damage, and commercially navigable\nwaterways. Among other requirements, these regulations require operators to conduct a\nbaseline assessment and then to periodically assess the integrity of each pipeline segment\nthat could affect a HCA. Operators must also remediate anomalous conditions\nAugust 2006\n1-2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\ndiscovered from these assessments. Each operator is to have a schedule for the\nevaluation and remediation of anomalous conditions discovered. For certain conditions,\nthe regulations prescribe the time frames for an operator to complete the remediation of\nthe defect. These conditions are categorized into either immediate, 60-day, or 180-day\nrepair conditions.\n1.3\nPURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION\nOn June 18, 2004, the American Petroleum Institute and the Association of Oil Pipe\nLines (API/AOPL) petitioned PHMSA for changes to the hazardous liquid pipeline IMP\n'egulations (PHMSA 200Sa). The petition sought several changes, including the\nfollowing\n(1) adding flexibility to the reassessment intervals,\n(2) adding flexibility to scheduling repairs; and,\n(3) providing notification of operators' inability to make repairs due to permitting\nor other problems.\nIn accordance with 49 U.S.C. 60109(b) pipeline safety standards are required to be\npracticable and designed to meet the need for environmental safety and protection.\nAccordingly, PHMSA considered the API/AOPL petition in this respect and met with\nAPI/AOPL representatives on August 27, 2004, to further discuss the proposed changes.\nA meeting summary is contained in the docket. PHMSA agreed that certain measures\nproposed by the API/AOPL were practical and added operator flexibility while still\nmeeting the need for environmental safety and protection.\nIn addition, PHMSA has identified other potential changes to the IMP regulations that\nmeet the need for environmental safety and protection including: 1) a need for more\ninformation from the liquid and gas pipeline operators on repair delays when a pressure\nexceeds 365 days; and, 2) a need to modify how the current pressure calculation formula\nis required to be used (American Society of Mechanical Engineers and American\nNational Standards Institute standard B31.4 (ASME/ANSI B31.4)) for hazardous liquid\noperators, as it does not always apply and may result in a calculated pressure higher than\nthe original operating pressure.\nAs a result, the final rule will change the IMP regulations at 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart O\nand Part 195.452 respectively. The rationale and/or need for each of these elements is\ndiscussed in this section.\n1.3.1 Flexibility in Reassessment Interval\nTo maintain a pipeline's integrity, § 195.452(i) requires a continual process of evaluation\nand assessment of each hazardous liquid pipeline segment that could affect an HCA.\nAugust 2006\n1-3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nUnder § 195.452(j)(3), an operator is required to establish intervals not to exceed five\nyears for continually assessing the pipe's integrity.\nThe final rule will allow the reassessment interval to expand from \"five years\" to \"five\nyears not to exceed 68 months.\" Adding a window of time to complete the reassessment\nis necessary to allow operators some flexibility when having to factor in events impacting\nthe reassessment (such as weather conditions, scheduling difficulties in getting certain\ntools, life cycle activities of species, and permitting problems). The expanded interval\nwould be consistent with other pipeline safety regulations specifying time frames for\ncompleting required activities, and would not compromise pipeline safety. This change is\nconsistent with other pipeline safety regulations that specify time frames for an operator\nto complete an inspection.\n1.3.2 Notification Requirements For Pressure Reductions Exceeding 365 Days\nBoth the current gas IMP and liquid IMP remediation requirements (§192.933 and\n§195.452(h)) require an operator to temporarily reduce pressure or to shut down the\npipeline until the operator completes the repair of an immediate repair condition. Gas\noperators are also required to reduce pressure if they cannot meet a specified time limit\nfor making a repair, or to take other action to ensure the safety of the segment.\nNotification is currently not required when an operator reduces pressure. Notification is\nrequired when an operator cannot meet its schedule for evaluating and remediating any\ncondition and cannot provide safety though a temporary reduction in operating pressure.\nAny pressure reduction longer than 365 days must be justified\nThe final rule will revise the remediation requirements to require both gas and hazardous\nliquid operators to notify PHMSA with reasons for repair delays when pressure reduction\nexceeds 365 days. Operators will still be required to take further remedial action to\nensure the safety of the pipeline when pressure reduction exceeds 365 days. These\nnotifications will allow PHMSA to become aware of situations in which delays to\nrequired repairs extend for long periods. Each such situation can then be examined on its\nown merits to determine if additional regulatory action is appropriate.\n1.3.3\nCorrecting Pressure Reduction Formula Requirements\nCurrently, Section 195.452(h)(4) requires an operator to calculate a temporary reduction\nin operating pressure using the formula in section 451.7 of ASME/ANSI B31.4 when\nmaking an immediate repair. The requirement was meant to ensure that an additional\nrecent frequently asked question highlighted that this formula does not always apply and\nsafety margin be provided while an operator makes an immediate repair. However, a\nmay result in a calculated pressure higher than the original operating pressure. Moreover,\nthe formula only applies to metal loss anomalies, not to immediate repair conditions not\ninvolving metal loss.\nAugust 2006\n1-4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nThe final rule will correct the provision by allowing a hazardous liquid pipeline operator\nto use the ASME/ANSI B31.4 formula only if applicable. If not applicable to the type of\nanomaly, or if the formula results in a calculated pressure higher than the original\noperating pressure, an operator would be allowed to use another acceptable means to\ncalculate pressure reduction.\n1.4\nPUBLIC INVOLVEMENT\nPublic involvement is a critical aspect of the NEPA process. As such, PHMSA must\nconsider any comments received from the public and any comments and\nrecommendations of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee and other\nrelevant stakeholders.\nA Notice of Propose Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled; Integrity Management: Program\nModifications and Clarifications-Request for Comments was published in the Federal\nRegister (FR) on Thursday, December 15, 2005. Interested individuals were invited to\nsubmit comments on the NPRM by February 13, 2006. The NPRM referenced the EA in\nthe docket and stated that PHMSA had preliminarily determined that the proposed action\nwould not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.\nThe NPRM and Draft EA identified the following proposed modifications and\nclarifications for consideration:\n• allow more flexibility in the reassessment interval for hazardous liquid pipelines\nby adding an eight-month window to the established five-year time frame for\noperators to complete reassessments;\nrequire both hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline operators to notify PHMSA\nwhenever they reduce pipeline pressure to make a repair and to provide reasons\nfor pressure reduction;\nadd a requirement to include notifying PHMSA with reasons for repair delay\nwhen a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days; and,\ncorrect the existing provision for calculating pressure reductions when making\nimmediate repairs on a hazardous liquid pipeline. The proposed correction allows\noperators the use of another acceptable method for calculating reduced operating\npressure when the specified formula is not applicable, or results in a calculated\npressure higher than the operating pressure.\n• Remove a requirement for gas operators to notify local authorities.\nThere are no\nlocal authorities over these lines.\nAugust 2006\n1-5\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nThere were no comments received specific to the Draft EA. Several comments were\nreceived in response to the NPRM from gas and hazardous liquid pipeline operators or\nassociations representing the industry including: The American Gas Association; Texas\nPipeline Association; Kinder Morgan Energy Partners; Southwest Gas Corporation;\nPaiute Pipeline Company; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Duke Energy Gas\nTransmission Corporation; American Petroleum Institute/Association of Oil Pipe Lines;\nMagellan Midstream Partners; Panhandle Energy; Puget Sound Energy; Enbridge Energy\nCompany, Inc; and Atmos Energy Corporation.\nMost of the comments were in response to the technical aspects of the NPRM changes (in\nparticular the additional reporting requirements) and not the environmental impacts of the\nchanges. These comments will all be summarized in the final rule that will be published\nin the FR.\nIn addition, on June 28, 2006, during joint meetings of the Technical Hazardous Liquid\nPipeline Safety Standards Committee, the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards\nof the requirement that gas and hazardous liquid operators notify PHMSA every time\nthey reduce pipeline pressure to make a repair. Following a brief discussion, a motion\nwas made and seconded for the committees to accept the proposed rule changes (as\npresented during the oral presentation). The motion was unanimously carried.\n1.5 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS\nThis final EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences associated with\nimplementing the final rule entitled; Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program\nModifications and Clarifications. Chapter 1 provides background information regarding\nthe purpose of and need for the proposed rulemaking. Chapter 2 describes PHMSA's\nNo Action Alternative. Chapter 3 describes the environment affected by the proposed\nProposed Action, Alternative A (the proposed changes described in the NPRM) and the\nenvironment from the alternatives. This EA will focus only on those resource categories\nrulemaking, as well as potential environmental consequences to that affectec\nnat are of interest to the public and/or important to the decision: public health an\nafety, hazardous materials transportation. socioeconomics, and other special areas o\nconsideration.\nAugust 2006\n1-6\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\n2.0\nPROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES\n2.1\nOVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES\nThis chapter briefly describes the Proposed Action and any reasonable alternatives to the\nProposed Action for the modifications and clarifications to the IMP regulations. In\naccordance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations and DOT Order 5610.1C, the No Action\nalternative must also be considered to define the existing conditions of the natural and\nhuman-made environments and to use as a baseline comparison to the Proposed Action\nand other reasonable alternatives.\n2.2\nALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS\nPHMSA considered four alternatives in considering modifications and clarifications to\nthe IMP regulations:\n• No Action\n•\nProposed Action - revise the current pipeline safety IMP regulations in HCAs\nby adopting the recommendations in the API/AOPL petition with some\nmodifications, including adding a requirement to include that gas and\nhazardous liquid operators notifying PHMSA with reasons for repair delay\nwhen a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days, and correcting provisions for\ncalculating pressure reductions for hazardous liquid pipelines operators.\n•\nAlternative A - includes the modifications contained in the Proposed Action\nas well as an additional requirement that gas and hazardous liquid pipeline\noperators notify PHMSA whenever they reduce pipeline pressure to make a\nrepair and to provide reasons for pressure reduction. Alternative A was\nincluded as the proposed action in the draft EA as well as the NPRM.\n2.3\nNO ACTION ALTERNATIVE\nUnder the No Action alternative the existing regulations would remain in place and the\ncurrent PHMSA regulations that prescribe standards regarding pipeline integrity\nmanagement in HCAs would remain unchanged. The No Action alternative does not\nallow for increased flexibility for operators in scheduling assessments. It also does not\nallow PHMSA to become aware of situations in which delays to required repairs extend\nfor long periods of time (e.g. beyond 365 days), or to correct the provisions for\ncalculating reduced pressure for hazardous liquid operators. Therefore, the No Action\nAlternative does not meet the purpose and need to develop pipeline safety standards that\nAugust 2006\n2-1\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nare practicable and designed to meet the need for environmental safety and protection in\naccordance with 49 USC 60109 (b).\n2.4\nPROPOSED ACTION\nThe proposed action includes implementation of the final rule entitled: Pipeline Safety:\nIntegrity Management Program Modifications and Clarifications and would amend the\npipeline safety regulations to:\n• Allow more flexibility in the reassessment interval for hazardous liquid pipelines\nby adding an eight-month window to the established five-year time frame for\noperators to complete reassessments;\n• Add a requirement to include notifying PHMSA with reasons for repair delay\nwhen a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days; and\n• Correct the existing provision for calculating pressure reductions when making\nimmediate repairs on a hazardous liquid pipeline. The proposed correction allows\noperators the use of another acceptable method for calculating reduced operating\npressure when the specified formula is not applicable, or results in a calculated\npressure higher than the operating pressure\nThe Proposed Action applies specifically to hazardous liquid and gas pipeline operators.\nPHMSA had previously established the IMP, requiring hazardous liquid and gas\ntransmission pipelines to regularly schedule the evaluation of pipeline integrity and to\nrepair discovered defects. The final rule will add flexibility to scheduling assessments for\nhazardous liquid pipelines, but will not impact the number of entities subject to the\nexisting regulatory requirements nor impact the number of assessments and repairs to be\nconducted. The notification requirements to PHMSA will increase slightly under the final\nrule. The regulatory changes will be incorporated into Title 49 of the CFRs. The proposed\nchanges are as follows:\nSection 195.452 (i)(3): Change length of intervals for continually assessing the integrity\nof hazardous liquid pipelines from five-years (60 months) to five-years not to exceed 68\nmonths.\nSection 195.452 (h)(4)(i): Allow hazardous liquid pipeline operators to use another\nacceptable method for calculating a reduced operating pressure when the formula in\n451.7 ot ASME/ANSI B31.4 (ibr, see Sec. 195.3) is not applicable. If the formula is not\napplicable to the type of anomaly or the calculated pressure results in higher operating\npressure, an operator must use an alternative acceptable method to calculate a reduced\noperating pressure.\nSections 192.933 (a)(1)(i) and 195.452 (h)(1)(i): Change notification of pressure\nrequirements for gas transmission operators (192.933) and hazardous liquid pipeline\nAugust 2006\n2-2\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\noperators (195.452). Currently, an operator must notify PHMSA when they cannot meet\nscheduled repairs and cannot provide safety though a temporary pressure reduction. The\nfinal rule will require operators to notify PHMSA with reasons for repair delay when a\npressure reduction exceeds 365 days.\n2.5\nALTERNATIVE A (NPRM PROPOSAL)\nAlternative A includes all of the changes contained in the Proposed Action in addition to\nthe following measure:\n• Require both hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline operators to notify\nPHMSA whenever they reduce pipeline pressure to make a repair and to provide\nreasons for pressure reduction;\nThe frequency of notification of reduced pressure would increase for operators under\nAlternative A (NPRM proposal). As stated above for the Proposed Action, the regulatory\nchanges would be incorporated into Title 49 of the CFR at 192.933 for gas operators and\n195.452 for hazardous liquid pipeline operators.\n2.6\nALTERNATIVE B\nAlternative B includes the recommendations contained in the petition by API/AOPL.\nThis alternative would amend the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations to:\n• Allow more flexibility in the reassessment interval for hazardous liquid pipelines\nby adding an eight-month window to the five-year time frame for operators to\ncomplete the reassessment; and\n• Require hazardous liquid pipeline operators to notify PHMSA whenever various\nobstacles prevent them from compliance under the IMP (e.g. visual assessment,\ninvestigation, remediation and repair.\nThe regulatory changes would be incorporated into Title 49 CFR in Sections 195.452, as\ndetailed above.\nPHMSA acknowledged that Alternative B would not correct the existing provision for\ncalculating a pressure reduction nor would it provide additional information to PHMSA\non reasons gas and hazardous liquid operators need to reduce pressure. For the reasons\nstated in section 1.3.2 and 1.3.3, such modifications are viewed as necessary by PHMSA.\nAs Alternative B does not meet the purpose of and need to develop pipeline safety\nstandards designed to meet the need for environmental safety and protection it was\ndismissed from further consideration and is therefore not analyzed in detail in this EA\nAugust 2006\n2-3\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\n2.7 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES\nThis section compares the potential consequences of the Proposed Action, Alternative A\n(NPRM proposal) and the No Action alternative. The analysis behind the information in\nTable 2-1 is presented in Chapter 3.\nTable 2-1 presents a tabular comparison of the environmental and socioeconomic\nconsequences (listed by impact category). Due to data availability and the scope of this\nassessment, the information detailed below concentrates on qualitative rather than\nquantitative analyses. Nevertheless, it is evident from Table 2-1 that implementation of\nthe final rule is expected to result in beneficial impacts - most importantly, the positive\nimpacts to public health and safety, in addition to positive indirect impacts to aspects of\nthe physical and human environment.\nTable 2-1. Environmental Consequences - Comparison of Alternatives\nImpact\nCategory\nNo Action\nProposed Action\nAlternative A\nPotential minor benefits due\nWould not change the\nPublic Health\nof public health and safety.\ncurrent and projected status\nto increased information\nto increased information\nPotential minor benefits due\ngathering/formula\nand Safety\nIncorrect pressure formula\ncorrections; potential\ngathering/formula correction ;\nnegative impacts.\nmay pose small risk of\nnegligible increased risk of\nnegative impacts of\npotential negative impacts of\nincident due to increased\nnegligible increased risk of\nreassessment time window\nincident due to increased\nreassessment time window\nWould not change the\nThere is a minimal risk of\ncurrent and projected status\nincreased incidents, and\nThere is a minimal risk of\nHazardous\nof hazardous materials\nthereby additional\nthereby additional hazardous\nincreased incidents, and\nTransportation\nMaterials\ntransportation. Potential\nhazardous materials\nimpacts to the natural and\ntransportation due to an\nmaterials transportation due\nhuman environment would\nincreased reassessment time\ntime window. The impact of\nto an increased reassessment\ncontinue to occur.\nwindow. The impact of this\nthis is expected to be minor.\nThe No Action alternative\nis expected to be minor\nwould not change the costs\nproposed modifications to\nThe combination of\nThe combination of proposed\nsafety and incidents, as there\nassociated with pipeline\nthe IMP for hazardous\nmodifications to the IMP for\nSocioeconomics\nhazardous liquid and gas\nliquid and gas transmission\ntransmission pipelines are\npipelines are expected to\nexpected to create positive\ncreate positive net benefits.\nImpacts are not expected to\nbe significantly different\nEndangered\nfrom the No Action.\nImpacts are not expected to\nSpecies\nbe significantly different\nfrom the No Action.\notential impacts to NHPA\nxpected to be minor.\nResources\nresources would continue to\nprotected by the\noccur. However, since the\nImpacts are not expected to\nNHPA\nrate of pipeline incidents is\nbe significantly different\nsmall, these impacts are\nImpacts are not expected to\nfrom the No Action.\nbe significantly different\nAugust 2006\n2-4\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nHowever, based on the lack\nfrom the No Action.\nf national data on pipeline\nn the vicinity of historica\nproperties, it is impossible to\nstimate the extent of\nPotential impacts to wetlands\nwould continue to occur.\nImpacts are not expected to\nWetlands\npipeline incidents is small,\nHowever, since the rate of\nbe significantly different\nImpacts are not expected to\nthese impacts are expected to\nfrom the No Action.\nbe significantly different\nfrom the No Action.\nbe minor.\nPotential impacts to Section\ncontinue to occur. However,\n4(f) resources would\nincidens is mail, eise\nSection 4(f)\nimpacts are expected to be\nImpacts are not expected to\nbe significantly different\nImpacts are not expected to\nresources\nminor. However, based on\nfrom the No Action.\nbe significantly different\nthe lack of national data on\nfrom the No Action.\npipelines in the vicinity of\n4(f) resources, it is\nimpossible to estimate the\nextent of potential impacts.\nBoth the Proposed Action and Alternative A involve assessment scheduling, as well a\nnotification requirement to PHMSA with reasons for repair delays when pressure\nreduction exceeds 365 days, and are unlikely to significantly affect the quality of the\nhuman environment. The primary benefit of the Proposed Action and Alternative A\nwould be to add flexibility to the scheduling of assessments that would allow for more\ncontinuous operations. The notification requirements (>365 days) would allow PHMSA\nto become aware of situations in which delays to required repairs extend for long periods\nof time. Lastly, the Proposed Action and Alternative A would allow PHMSA to also\ncorrect the method whereby pipeline pressure is calculated, which improves safety.\nPHMSA agreed with numerous comments from the pipeline industry in response to the\nNPRM (Alternative A) that requiring operators to notify PHMSA every time they\nreduced pressure for a repair under the IMP would add a significant burden and likely not\nresult in commensurate useful information regarding the impact on energy supply, which\nwas one of the initial goals for information collection as stated in the NPRM..\nAugust 2006\n2-5\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\n3.0\nAFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL\nCONSEQUENCES\nThe alternatives considered in this document relate to pipeline assessments, pressure\nreductions, and reporting. To assist PHMSA in understanding the potential\nenvironmental impacts of the alternatives, this chapter describes the environmental\nresources of the U.S. particular to the alternatives. The resources that may be affected by\nthe alternatives are presented and described, along with a description of the regulatory\nframework where relevant. This chapter also addresses the potential environmental\nconsequences associated with the No Action, Proposed Action and Alternative A. In\ngeneral, transportation affects a range of environmental resources through the\nconstruction of the transportation network, the improvement of facilities and\ninfrastructure, and their operation.\nThe alternatives would affect all hazardous liquid pipeline operators and gas transmission\noperators. Natural gas transmission pipelines are those lines that connect gas production\nsources with gas consumers. Hazardous liquid pipelines are those that deliver hazardous\nliquids, as defined by Federal pipeline safety regulations, from production or processing\nfacilities to terminals and final consumers. Therefore, the affected environment is the\nland area in the U.S. in which these pipelines are located. This final EA will focus only\non those resource categories that are potentially impacted by the alternatives, those that\nare of interest to the public, and/or important to the decision. The resource categories to\nbe analyzed in this final EA are: public health and safety, hazardous materials\ntransportation, socioeconomics, and other special areas of consideration.\n3.1\nAFFECTED ENVIRONMENT\nAs the alternatives relate to the regulation of the safety of about two million miles of gas\nand hazardous liquid pipelines, the actual physical environment that may be affected\nincludes the environmental and socioeconomic resources in the vicinity of those\npipelines.\nPipelines are located throughout the U.S., and most hazardous liquid and gas pipelines\nare buried underground. The physical environment potentially affected by the proposed\naction includes the surrounding air, water resources (e.g., oceans, streams, lakes), cultural\nand historical resources (e.g., properties listed on or eligible for listing in the National\nRegister of Historic Places), biological and ecological resources (e.g., coastal zones,\nwetlands, plant and animal species and their habitat, forests, grasslands, offshore marine\necosystems), and special ecological resources (e.g., threatened and endangered plant and\nanimal species and their habitat, national, state and local parklands, biological reserves,\nWild and Scenic Rivers) that exist directly adjacent to and within the vicinity of\npipelines.\nAugust 2006\n3-6\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nBecause the pipelines subject to the proposed rulemaking may contain hazardous\nmaterials, the resources within the physical affected environment, as well as public health\nand safety, may be affected by gas and hazardous pipeline incidents such as spills and\nleaks. Depending on the size of the spill or gas leak, and the nature of the impact zone,\nthe environmental impacts vary from property damage and environmental damage to\ninjuries or fatalities. Incidents on pipelines can result in fires and explosions, with\nresulting damage to the local environment.\nIn addition, since pipelines often contain gas streams laden with condensates and natural\ngas liquids (NGLs), failures also result in spills of these liquids, which can cause\nenvironmental harm. In the past 10 years there have been 1668 hazardous liquid pipeline\nincidents and 795 gas transmission line incidents. These incidents resulted in17 and 26\nfatalities respectively over the 10 years. Environmental consequences of the alternatives\nto the physical environment are examined in Section 3.2.\n3.2\nENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES\n3.2.1 Public Health and Safety\nNo Action Alternative\nUnder the No Action alternative, PHMSA would not add to or revise the current\nregulations that prescribe standards for HCAs. The current five-year limit established by\nPHMSA was formulated on the basis for effectively protecting the public and\nenvironment. The pressure calculation formula would continue without correction,\nsometimes leading operators to inaccurate calculations. Therefore, the No Action\nalternative would not change the current and projected status of public health and safety,\nbut there is a potential for minor negative impacts without correcting the pressure\ncalculation formula.\nProposed Action and Alternative A\nThe Proposed Action and Alternative A are expected to allow operators flexibility in\nreassessment by adding an additional eight month window beyond the current five years\nreassessment interval. There is a small chance for an increased risk of pipeline incidents\ndue to the increased time interval. However, because the modifications are aiming to\nallow operators to use their engineering judgment, the risk is small and no significant\nimpacts are expected. The increased window may also result in additional benefits, such\nas making future maintenance easier. Both alternatives also correct the pressure\nreduction calculation formula used by hazardous liquid operators when making repairs\nand require notification to PHMSA of repair delays when a pressure reduction exceeds\n365 days. These actions both result in a benefit to public health and safety, by\nminimizing pressure reduction errors and allowing PHMSA to become aware of\nsituations in which delays to repair occur. Alternative A also includes a notification\nAugust 2006\n3-7\n\n<<<PAGE 17>>>\n\nrequirement for pipeline operators to notify PHMSA any time pressure is reduced under\nthe IMP. With the additional reporting requirements, PHMSA would have more\ninformation about the reasons for a pressure reduction. PHMSA maintains however, that\nthe current notification requirement addresses those situations of most importance to\nsafety - instances in which an operator is unable to make repairs within the required\ntimeframes and also cannot reduce pressure. Therefore, adding this notification\n' requirement would not necessarily substantially improve public health and safety. In\naddition, PHMSA agrees that this data can be collected periodically as part of annual\nreports. PHMSA is currently in the process of revising the annual report requirements to\ncollect this information.\n3.2.2 Hazardous Materials Transportation\nPipeline incidents can result in fatalities and injuries, as well as lost condensates and\nNGLs. Such incidents can impact the physical environment (i.e., the air, water,\nbiological, ecological, and historical resources) around the pipeline if the material being\ntransported within the pipelines leaks or spills into that environment.\nNo Action Alternative\nUnder the No Action alternative, the rate of pipeline incidents will not change, as no new\nregulations would be implemented. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not\nchange the current and projected status of hazardous materials transportation. Potential\nimpacts to the natural and human environment would continue to occur.\nProposed Action and Alternative A\nThe Proposed Action and Alternative A are not expected to have a measurable effect on\nhazardous materials transportation. The modifications deal mostly with timeframes for\nassessment and will not affect hazardous material transportation directly. There is a\nsmall risk of increased incidents over the eight-month increase to the reassessment time\nwindow. This time frame is consistent with other PHMSA requirements; therefore, it is\nexpected that the rate of pipeline incidents will not change. The impact of this is\nexpected to be minor. Pressure reduction notifications or calculations will not have an\nimpact on hazardous materials transportation.\n3.2.3\nSocioeconomics\nAs part of the rulemaking action and in this EA, the costs and benefits of implementation\nof the final rule have been assessed. The detailed economic analysis is presented in the\nfinal Regulatory Assessment contained in the docket (PHMSA 2006c).\nNo Action Alternative\nUnder the No Action alternative, no change in the costs resulting from pipeline incidents\nwould occur, as there would be no changes to the existing regulations.\nAugust 2006\n3-8\n\n<<<PAGE 18>>>\n\nProposed Action and Alternative A\nBoth gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline operators are generally large firms.\nTherefore, no small entities are affected by the changes in the final rule. A total of 1,166\nentities or operators would be affected by the final rulel' (see Table 3-1).\nAll proposed changes to the IMP from both the Proposed Action and Alternative A are\ncost-effective. The proposed changes to 49 CFR 195.452 and 195.3 would create benefits\nthrough added flexibility for liquid pipeline operators without raising the costs of\ncompliance with reassessment and remediation regulation. The operators would conduct\nthe same number of inspections and repairs as under existing regulations.\nTable 3-1. Numbers of Operators by Pipeline Type\nEstimated\nPipeline Type\nNumber of Operators\nHazardous liquid transmission pipelines\n263\nNatural gas transmission pipelines (includes\n903\ngathering lines)\nTOTAL\n1,166\nSource: PHMSA Hazardous Liquid Annual Reports and Gas Transmission Annual Reports as pf 10/2005\nThe change to notify PHMSA of repair delays when pressure reduction exceeds 365 days\nwill have minimal cost effect if any.\nThe changes to notification requirements for pressure reduction for Alternative A would\ncreate some additional costs. PHMSA had originally hoped to work with the US\nDepartment of Energy to analyze whether prolonged pressure reductions have an impact\nonly one factor in estimating supply impact and it would be difficult, at best, to estimate\non the Nations energy supply. PHMSA maintains however, that pressure reduction is\nsuch impact knowing only that pressure had been reduced. As stated above, PHMSA\nagrees with industry comment, that this data can be collected periodically as part of\nannual reports, which will reduce the added burden on industry. PHMSA is currently in\nthe process of revising the annual report requirements.\n3.2.4\nSpecial Areas of Consideration\nSpecific resources and impact categories that ","truncated":true,"body_characters":45246}