{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e84e4c","title":"U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Direct Assessment Final Rule Environmental Assessment","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"Final Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration FINAL RULE PIPELINE SAFETY: STANDARDS FOR DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINES Final Environmental Assessment August 2005 Prepared for: Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline... Final Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines standards and other policies concerning gas pipelines. The THLPSSC is a similar committee that provides advice about hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. Each committee has an authorized membership of 15...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e84e4c.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e84e4c.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e84e4c","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-2004-16855-0026/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nFINAL RULE\nPIPELINE SAFETY: STANDARDS FOR DIRECT\nASSESSMENT OF GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID\nPIPELINES\nFinal Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2005\nPrepared for:\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nPrepared by:\nJohn A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center\nResearch and Innovative Technology Administration\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nTABLE OF CONTENTS I\nLIST OF ACRONYMS II\n1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1\n1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1\n1.2 BACKGROUND 1-2\n1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-3\n1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1-4\n1.5 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 1-5\n2.0 ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE 2-1\n2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 2-1\n2.2 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 2-1\n2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-1\n2.4 ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-1\n2.5 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 2-2\n3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-1\n3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1\n3.1.1 Physical Environment Affected 3-1\n3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-2\n3.2.1 Public Health and Safety 3-2\n3.2.2 Hazardous Materials Transportation 3-2\n3.2.3 Socioeconomics 3-3\n3.2.4 Special Areas of Consideration 3-5\n3.2.5 Additional Benefits of the Action Alternative 3-6\n4.0 LIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED 4-1\n5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS 5-1\n6.0 REFERENCES 6-1\ni\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nLIST OF ACRONYMS\nFR Federal Register\nNEPA National Environmental Policy Act\nNHPA National Historic Preservation Act\nOPS Office of Pipeline Safety\nU.S. United States\nU.S.C. United States Code\nDOT United States Department of Transportation\nPHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nRPSA Research and Special Programs Administration\nii\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\n1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION\n1.1 INTRODUCTION\nThe nation's pipelines are a transportation system that enables the safe movement of\nenergy products to industry and consumers. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration’s (PHMSA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is the federal safety\nauthority for the nation's natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The primary mission\nof OPS is to ensure the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation's\npipeline transportation system (OPS 2005).\nIn response to a statutory directive, OPS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking\n(NPRM) concerning standards that would apply to the use of direct assessment on any\nregulated onshore ferrous pipeline (69 FR 61771; Oct. 21, 2004). The proposed\nstandards were the same as those in effect for gas transmission lines under OPS’ integrity\nmanagement regulations. In consideration of public comments and advisory committee\nrecommendations, OPS has prepared a Final Rule document. The standards included in\nthe Final Rule are similar to the proposed standards, but they do not apply to gas\ndistribution lines.\nDirect assessment is a process of managing the effects of external corrosion, internal\ncorrosion, or stress-corrosion cracking on ferrous pipelines. Operators use direct\nassessment to evaluate the risks to their pipeline that are associated with corrosion. The\nprocess involves data collection, indirect inspection, direct examination, and evaluation.\nOperators use direct assessment not only to find existing corrosion defects but also to\nprevent future corrosion problems. Broader application of direct assessment standards\nshould enhance public confidence in the use of direct assessment to assure pipeline\nsafety.\nThe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)1 and the Council on\nEnvironmental Quality’s (CEQ) implementing regulations2 establish policies and\nprocedures that ensure environmental information is available to decision makers,\nregulatory agencies, and the public before Federal actions are implemented. OPS, with\nthe cooperation of the U.S. Department of Transportation John A. Volpe National\nTransportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), prepared this Final Environmental\nAssessment (EA) for the purpose of analyzing the potential environmental impacts\nassociated with the Final Rule prepared by OPS. This EA follows the procedures\nestablished by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT)3 to implement\nNEPA, pursuant to the CEQ regulations.\nOPS prepared a Draft EA for the NPRM in September 2004 (OPS 2004a). The\n1 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.\n2 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq.\n3 DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 9/18/79, as amended 7/13/82,\n7/30/85.\n1-1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\ninformation presented in the Draft EA shows that the proposed direct assessment\nstandards are not expected to have significant environmental impacts. OPS received no\ncomments on the Draft EA from the public or its pipeline safety advisory committees.\nThe information presented in this Final EA also shows that the Final Rule is not expected\nto have significant environmental impacts.\n1.2 BACKGROUND\nCurrent regulations governing integrity management of gas transmission lines require that\noperators using direct assessment to evaluate corrosion risks must carry out that direct\nassessment according to particular standards. Congress has recognized the advantages of\nusing direct assessment on DOT regulated gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide\npipeline facilities. Section 14 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L.\n107-355; Dec. 17, 2002) directs DOT to issue regulations on using internal inspection,\npressure testing, and direct assessment to manage the risks to gas pipeline facilities in\nhigh-consequence areas. In addition, Section 23 of that statute directs DOT to issue\nregulations prescribing standards for inspecting pipeline facilities by direct assessment.\nIn response to the first statutory directive, DOT’s Research and Special Programs\nAdministration (RSPA)4 published regulations in 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart O, that\nrequire operators to follow detailed programs to manage the integrity of gas transmission\nline segments in high-consequence areas. These regulations also require that if operators\nuse direct assessment in their integrity management programs, they must carry out the\ndirect assessment according to the standards in §§ 192.925, 192.927, and 192.929, as\nappropriate.5\nEach of these standards includes cross-references to the American Society of Mechanical\nEngineers’ document, ASME B31.8S-2001, “Managing System Integrity of Gas\nPipelines.” This document describes a comprehensive process to assess and mitigate the\nlikelihood and consequences of gas pipeline risks. In addition, § 192.925 cross-\nreferences a document published by NACE International, titled NACE Standard\nRP0502–2002, “Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology.” The\nNACE document describes a step-by-step process for identifying and addressing external\ncorrosion activity, repairing defects, and taking remedial action. Other provisions of the\n4 The Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Pub. L. 108–426, 118;\nNovember 30, 2004) reorganized RSPA into two new DOT administrations: PHMSA and the Research and\nInnovative Technology Administration. RSPA’s regulatory authority over pipeline and hazardous\nmaterials safety was transferred to PHMSA.\n5 The standard on external corrosion direct assessment (§ 192.925) requires operators to integrate data on\nphysical characteristics and operating history, conduct indirect aboveground inspections, directly examine\npipe surfaces, and evaluate the effectiveness of the assessment process. Under the standard for direct\nassessment of internal corrosion (§ 192.927), operators must predict locations where electrolytes may\naccumulate in normally dry-gas pipelines, examine those locations, and validate the assessment process.\nThe standard for direct assessment of stress-corrosion cracking (§ 192.929) involves collecting data\nrelevant to stress-corrosion cracking, assessing the risk of pipeline segments, and examining and evaluating\nsegments at risk.\n1-2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nPart 192 standards ensure that operators use appropriate criteria in making direct\nassessment decisions.\nIn response to the second statutory directive, RSPA published a notice of proposed\nrulemaking (NPRM)(69 FR 61771; Oct. 21, 2004). The NPRM proposed standards for\nusing direct assessment on any onshore ferrous gas pipeline regulated by 49 CFR Part\n192 or onshore ferrous hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline regulated by 49 CFR\nPart 195. Under proposed § 192.490, if an operator chooses to use direct assessment to\nevaluate the threat of external corrosion, internal corrosion, or stress-corrosion cracking\non a regulated onshore gas pipeline, the direct assessment would have to be done\naccording to the standards in § 192.925, § 192.927, or § 192.929, as appropriate. For\nregulated hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines, proposed § 195.588 would\nrequire similar action, except compliance with § 192.927, because this internal corrosion\nDirect Assessment standard is only suitable for dry gas pipelines.\nIn § 192.903, PHMSA defines direct assessment as:\n…an integrity assessment method that utilizes a process to evaluate certain threats (i.e.,\nexternal corrosion, internal corrosion and stress corrosion cracking) to a covered pipeline\nsegment’s integrity. The process includes the gathering and integration of risk factor\ndata, indirect examination or analysis to identify areas of suspected corrosion, direct\nexamination of the pipeline in these areas, and post assessment evaluation\nDirect assessment is a new process. Currently, direct assessment is applied mainly to gas\ntransmission lines subject to Subpart O of Part 192. However, a few operators have used\ndirect assessment on hazardous liquid pipelines to meet integrity management\nrequirements in 49 CFR 195.452. Tests of direct assessment indicate that it is reasonably\nreliable. It is reported that those tests have found that direct assessment produces\n“…reliable results with a 70 to 80 percent positive predictive capability.”6 In addition to\ncorrosion, it might be noted, operators can also use direct assessment to evaluate\nmechanical damage to pipelines.7\n1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION\nThe purpose of the Final Rule is to increase pipeline safety through broader application of\ndirect assessment standards currently applicable only to gas transmission lines in high\nconsequence areas. Congress has recognized the advantages of using direct assessment\non DOT regulated gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline facilities and\ndirected DOT to prescribe standards for its use. Thus, the Final Rule contains standards\nthat operators must meet if they use direct assessment on certain onshore gas, hazardous\n6 Neil G. Thompson, “Appendix E, Gas and Liquid Transmission Pipelines,” Cost of Corrosion, FHWA\nReport FHWA-01-156, April 2005, p. E-36, www.corrosioncost.com/home.html.\n7 Neil G. Thompson, “Appendix E, Gas and Liquid Transmission Pipelines,” Cost of Corrosion, FHWA\nReport FHWA-01-156, April 2005, p. E-35, www.corrosioncost.com/home.html.\n1-3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nliquid, or carbon dioxide pipelines, thereby enhancing the overall safety of pipelines. The\nFinal Rule amends the Federal pipeline safety regulations by requiring operators using\ndirect assessment for evaluating corrosion risks to perform that direct assessment\naccording to particular standards. For gas transmission pipelines, standards are specified\nfor internal corrosion, external corrosion, and stress-corrosion cracking. For hazardous\nliquid pipelines, standards are specified for external corrosion only. These standards are\nsimilar to the standards currently in effect for gas transmission lines in high consequence\nareas under the integrity management regulations in 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart O.\nThe need for this action is derived from the fact that OPS presently has regulations\ngoverning integrity management of gas transmission lines requiring that operators using\ndirect assessment to evaluate corrosion risks must carry out that direct assessment\naccording to particular standards. Those regulations are found in 49 CFR Part192. In\nresponse to a statutory directive, OPS is proposing that DOT prescribe similar standards\nthat operators must meet if they use direct assessment on certain other onshore gas,\nhazardous liquid, or carbon dioxide pipelines. Broader application of direct assessment\nstandards currently in effect should enhance public confidence in the use of direct\nassessment to assure pipeline safety, control pipeline corrosion, and possibly reduce the\nnumber of corrosion-caused accidents.\nCurrent standards for gas transmission pipelines are not inherently appropriate only for\ngas transmission lines in high consequence areas and the selected standard for hazardous\nliquid and carbon dioxide pipelines is needed to provide guidance to operators of these\ntypes of pipelines, since direct assessment is a new process and its use is so far limited\nprimarily to gas transmission lines subject to Subpart O of Part 192. A further reason for\nthe Action is that the proposed standards have already undergone public notice and\ncomment in the gas transmission integrity management proceeding, and they were\ngenerally well received by the gas transmission industry. Finally, the proposed standards\nrely heavily on consensus standards published by NACE International and the American\nSociety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), two organizations whose standards are widely\nused and highly regarded in the pipeline industry.\n1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT\nPublic involvement is a critical aspect of the NEPA process. As such, OPS must consider\nany comments received from the public and any comments and recommendations of\nrelevant stakeholders. Public comments and advisory committee recommendations have\nbeen addressed in the development of the Final Rule. However, none of the commenters\nor committee members spoke directly about the Draft EA that OPS prepared for the\nNPRM.\nThe Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the Technical\nHazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) considered the\nNPRM at meetings in Washington, D.C. on December 14 and 15, 2004. The TPSSC is a\nstatutorily mandated advisory committee that advises PHMSA on proposed safety\n1-4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nstandards and other policies concerning gas pipelines. The THLPSSC is a similar\ncommittee that provides advice about hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines.\nEach committee has an authorized membership of 15 persons, five each representing\ngovernment, industry, and the public. Each member is qualified to consider the technical\nfeasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of proposed pipeline\nsafety standards. A transcript of each committee’s meeting is available in Docket No.\nPHMSA-98-4470.\nAfter careful consideration of the NPRM, the THLPSSC voted unanimously to\nrecommend the following: (1) adopt a single definition of direct assessment for use inside\nand outside high-consequence areas; (2) state direct assessment standards directly in Part\n195, rather than by cross-referencing Part 192 standards; (3) for direct assessment of\nstress corrosion cracking, consider adopting the NACE consensus standard currently\nunder development; and (4) amend the integrity management rule (§ 195.452) to allow\nuse of direct assessment without prior notice.\nAs a result of its deliberation, the TPSSC voted unanimously that proposed § 192.490\nshould not be applied to gas distribution lines. It also voted unanimously that the final\nrule should distinguish direct assessment from similar methods of assessing corrosion.\nThis latter recommendation was intended to clarify situations in which operators could\nuse similar methods without incurring the proposed direct assessment standards.\nComments in response to the NPRM where received from 19 different sources. Only one\ncommenter, the Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council, a monitor of oil terminal\noperations, supported the proposed rules without change. The Council welcomed the\nadditional federal standards because of the need to control pipeline corrosion. The\nremaining commenters were primarily concerned about specific issues. Those issues are\npresented in the Final Rule, along with OPS’ disposition of the issues and the advisory\ncommittees’ recommendations.\n1.5 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS\nThis Final EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences associated with\nimplementing the Final Rule. Chapter 1 provides background information regarding the\npurpose of and need for the rulemaking. Chapter 2 describes OPS’ federal action and the\nNo-Action Alternative. Chapter 3 describes the environment affected by the rulemaking,\nas well as potential environmental consequences to that affected environment from the\nalternatives. This EA will focus only on those resource categories that are of interest to\nthe public and/or important to the decision: Public Health and Safety, Hazardous\nMaterials Transportation, Socioeconomics, and other Special Areas of Consideration.\nChapter 4 lists those agencies and persons with whom OPS consulted during this NEPA\ncompliance process. Chapter 5 lists the preparers and reviewers of this document.\nFinally, Chapter 6 lists references consulted during the development of this document.\n1-5\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\n2.0 ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE\n2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES\nThis Chapter presents the NEPA alternatives for the proposed regulations. The No\nAction alternative is used in the NEPA analysis to define existing conditions of the\nnatural and man-made environments. The Action Alternatives define those alternative\napproaches that the federal agency is considering for an agency action.\n2.2 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS\nOPS’ authority to issue safety standards for the design, construction, operation,\nreplacement, and maintenance of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines is found in 49 U.S.C.\n60102(a). OPS considered two alternatives to respond to Section 23 of the Pipeline\nSafety Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-355; Dec. 17, 2002), Congress’ second\ndirective in that Act relating to direct assessment: (1) No Action, and (2) Action – apply\nexisting direct assessment standards to certain other regulated pipelines besides gas\ntransmission pipelines in high consequence areas.\n2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE\nUnder the No Action alternative the existing regulations would remain in place. Thus, no\nadditional regulations are needed given that OPS has already issued regulations that\nprescribe standards for the use of direct assessment. This alternative was rejected,\nhowever, because the existing regulations are limited to gas transmission lines in high\nconsequence areas. They do not cover all pipelines that fall under Congress’ second\ndirective. Therefore, the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of\nthe regulation. However, as the No Action Alternative represents the current conditions,\nit will be used as the baseline for analyzing the implications of the Action.\n2.4 ACTION ALTERNATIVE\nThe Action alternative was selected because (1) the existing standards for gas\ntransmission pipelines are not inherently appropriate only for gas transmission lines in\nhigh consequence areas and (2) the existing standards have proved satisfactory in\npractice. A further reason for choosing the second alternative is that the existing\nstandards have already undergone public notice and comment in the gas transmission\nintegrity management proceeding, and they were generally well received by the gas\ntransmission industry. Finally, the existing standards rely heavily on consensus standards\npublished by NACE International and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers\n(ASME), two organizations whose standards are widely used and highly regarded in the\npipeline industry.\nThe Action alternative covers gas transmission pipelines (including those gas gathering\nlines subject to Federal safety regulation) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide\n2-1\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\npipelines. Although in the NPRM this alternative covered gas distribution pipelines,\nthese lines are excluded from the Final Rule. The principal features of the Final Rule\ninclude (1) incorporating by reference NACE Standard RP0502-2002 “Pipeline External\nCorrosion Direct Assessment Methodology” (2002); (2) adding a new § 192.490, which\ncovers direct assessment for gas transmission and gathering lines; (3) adding a new\n§ 192.588, which covers direct assessment for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide\npipelines; and (4) amending § 192.452 to remove the requirement that operators give\nOPS 90 days’ notice before using direct assessment to assess the integrity of hazardous\nliquid and carbon dioxide pipelines.\nUnder the Final Rule, if an operator chooses to use direct assessment to evaluate the\nthreat of external corrosion, internal corrosion, or stress-corrosion cracking on a regulated\nonshore ferrous gas transmission line, the direct assessment would have to be done\naccording to the existing standards in §§ 192.925, 192.927, or 192.929, as appropriate.\nThese standards do not apply to methods associated with direct assessment, such as close\ninterval surveys, voltage gradient surveys, or examination of exposed pipelines, when\nused separately from the direct assessment process.\nOnshore hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines are covered by § 195.588. That\nsection focuses exclusively on direct assessment for external corrosion. Operators\nundertaking direct assessment for external corrosion must follow the requirements of\nNACE Standard RP0502-2002. Under § 195.588, operators must develop and implement\nan external corrosion direct assessment (ECDA) plan that covers pre-assessment, indirect\nexamination, direct examination, and post assessment. The requirement specified in\n§ 195.588 does not apply to methods associated with direct assessment, such as close\ninterval surveys, voltage gradient surveys, or examination of exposed pipelines, when\nused separately from the direct assessment process.\n2.5 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES\nThis section compares the potential consequences of the Action Alternative and the No\nAction Alternative. Even though the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose\nand need established by OPS for this regulation, it was analyzed to provide a baseline\nagainst which to compare the Action Alternative.\nTable 2-1 presents a comparison of the environmental and socioeconomic consequences\nof the Action Alternative and No-Action Alternative. It lists several impact categories for\nwhich there exists a potential for a positive or negative indirect impact from the\nalternatives. Without certain key pieces of information and a costly quantitative analysis,\nit is impossible to accurately quantify most of these impacts, though qualitative rationale\nis offered in this document. Nevertheless, it is evident from Table 2-1 that the\nrulemaking may result in beneficial impacts – most importantly, the positive impacts to\npublic health and safety, in addition to positive indirect impacts to aspects of the physical\nand human environment.\n2-2\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nTable 2-1. Environmental Consequences of Alternatives\nImpact Category No Action Alternative Action Alternative\nPublic Health and\nSafety\nThe No Action Alternative would\nnot change the current and\nprojected status of public health\nand safety.\nThe Action alternative is expected to make pipeline\noperations safer by helping to reduce the number of\nincidents due to corrosion on onshore gas and\nhazardous liquid pipelines. Therefore, the Action\nalternative would result in a net reduction in the level\nof public health and safety impacts.\nHazardous\nMaterials\nTransportation\nThe No Action Alternative would\nnot change the current and\nprojected status of hazardous\nmaterials transportation. Potential\nimpacts to the natural and human\nenvironment would continue to\noccur.\nThe Action alternative is expected to increase\npipeline safety through the broader application of\ndirect assessment standards, potentially resulting in a\nreduction in corrosion-caused incidents gas and\nhazardous liquid pipelines. Therefore, the Action\nwould result in a net reduction in the level of impacts\nfrom hazardous materials transportation.\nSocioeconomics\nThe No Action Alternative would\nnot change the costs associated\nwith pipeline safety and incidents,\nas there would be no changes to\nexisting regulations.\nThe Action alternative would result in a benefit to\nsocioeconomic resources from increased pipeline\nsafety, and associated reductions in incident property\ndamage and public health and safety related costs.\nAdditional “Special Areas of Consideration”\nEndangered\nSpecies\nPotential impacts to endangered\nspecies would continue to occur.\nHowever, since the rate of pipeline\nincidents is small, these impacts\nare expected to be minor.\nSince the Action alternative could reduce the\nlikelihood of hazardous liquid spills or natural gas\nleaks related to pipeline incidents, it may result in a\nminor benefit to endangered species that could be\nnegatively impacted by spills or leaks if they were\nlocated in areas in the vicinity of a pipeline.\nResources\nprotected by the\nNHPA\nPotential impacts to NHPA\nresources would continue to occur.\nHowever, since the rate of pipeline\nincidents is small, these impacts\nare expected to be minor.\nHowever, based on the lack of\nnational data on pipelines in the\nvicinity of historical structures, it is\nimpossible to estimate the extent of\npotential impacts.\nSince the Action alternative could reduce the\nlikelihood of hazardous liquid spills or natural gas\nleaks related to pipeline incidents, it may result in a\nminor benefit to historical and cultural resources that\ncould be negatively impacted by spills or leaks if\nthey were located in areas in the vicinity of a\npipeline. However, based on the lack of national\ndata on pipelines in the vicinity of historical\nstructures, it is impossible to estimate the extent of\npotential benefits.\nWetlands\nPotential impacts to wetlands\nwould continue to occur.\nHowever, since the rate of pipeline\nincidents is small, these impacts\nare expected to be minor.\nSince the Action alternative could reduce the\nlikelihood of hazardous liquid spills or natural gas\nleaks related to pipeline incidents, it may result in a\nminor benefit to wetlands that could be negatively\nimpacted by spills or leaks if they were located in\nareas in the vicinity of a pipeline.\nSection 4(f)\nresources\nPotential impacts to Section 4(f)\nresources would continue to occur.\nHowever, since the rate of pipeline\nincidents is small, these impacts\nare expected to be minor.\nHowever, based on the lack of\nnational data on pipelines in the\nvicinity of 4(f) resources, it is\nimpossible to estimate the extent of\npotential impacts\nSince the Action alternative could reduce the\nlikelihood of hazardous liquid spills or natural gas\nleaks related to pipeline incidents, it may result in a\nminor benefit to Section 4(f) resources that could be\nnegatively impacted by spills or leaks if they were\nlocated in areas in the vicinity of a pipeline.\nHowever, based on the lack of national data on\npipelines in the vicinity of 4(f) resources, it is\nimpossible to estimate the extent of potential\nbenefits.\n2-3\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nSince the Action alternative affects only those operators that voluntarily use direct\nassessment and because it largely involves processes of data collection and evaluation,\nOPS has determined that it is unlikely to significantly affect the quality of the human\nenvironment. The primary benefit of the Final Rule is to promote acceptable, reliable,\nand uniform practices for using direct assessment to evaluate the threat of corrosion on\nonshore gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. Such practices have the potential to reduce\nincidents due to corrosion and to increase the public’s confidence in operators’ safety\nprograms. Thus, the benefits of the Action alternative will include a potential reduction\nin the consequences of pipeline incidents (i.e., a reduction in the deaths, injuries, property\ndamage, and lost product directly attributable to pipeline incidents). It will also include\nother savings, such as those related to increasing the operational life of pipe, and avoiding\neconomic consequences of accident-induced supply restrictions, legal costs, and reduced\nemergency response costs.\nA further benefit involves the Federal policy that encourages agencies to adopt consensus\nstandards that meet regulatory needs rather than develop new prescriptive Federal\nregulations. Two consensus standards form the basis for activities required by the Final\nRule. Thus, the Final Rule would benefit the public by furthering the Federal policy on\nuse of consensus standards.\nAdditional benefits could result from the Action alternative that are difficult to quantify,\nbut which OPS believes to be significant. Foremost among these is improved public\nconfidence in the use of direct assessment to assure pipeline safety. Public confidence in\npipeline safety has been shaken by major incidents in recent years. These incidents have\ngenerated concerns among public interest groups, the National Transportation Safety\nBoard, and the Congress, and have prompted OPS to issue several new regulations. The\npublic is concerned about the possibility of pipeline incidents that could cause them\nharm. OPS believes that the Action Alternative and other agency activities will continue\nto improve the confidence of the public living, working, and congregating near pipelines\nthat their safety is being assured. Furthermore, OPS expects that the Action alternative\nmay have a positive net benefit for pipeline operators, public safety, and the environment.\n2-4\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\n3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL\nCONSEQUENCES\nThe alternatives considered in this document relate to direct assessment, a process of\nmanaging the effects of external corrosion, internal corrosion, and stress-corrosion\ncracking on ferrous pipelines. To assist OPS in understanding the potential\nenvironmental impacts of the alternatives, this chapter describes the environmental\nresources of the U.S. particular to the Action alternative. The resources that may be\naffected by the alternatives are presented and described, along with a description of the\nregulatory framework where relevant. This chapter also addresses the potential\nenvironmental consequences associated with No Action (current conditions) and Action\nAlternatives. In general, transportation affects a range of environmental resources\nthrough the construction of the transportation network, the improvement of facilities and\ninfrastructure, and their operation.\nSince the proposed regulation affects all regulated natural gas transmission pipelines and\ngathering lines and regulated hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines, the affected\nenvironment is the land area in the U.S. in which these pipelines are located. This EA\nwill focus only on those resource categories that are potentially impacted by the\nalternatives, those that are of interest to the public, and/or important to the decision. The\nresource categories to be analyzed in this EA are: Public Health and Safety, Hazardous\nMaterials Transportation, Socioeconomics, and Other Special Areas of Consideration.\n3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT\nAs the Action and No Action alternatives relate to the regulation of the safety of about\ntwo million miles of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, the actual physical environment\nthat may be affected includes the environmental and socioeconomic resources in the\nvicinity of those pipelines.\n3.1.1 Physical Environment Affected\nThe physical environment potentially affected by the Final Rule includes the airspace,\nwater resources (e.g., oceans, streams, lakes), cultural and historical resources (e.g.,\nproperties listed on the National Register of Historic Places), biological and ecological\nresources (e.g., coastal zones, wetlands, plant and animal species and their habitat,\nforests, grasslands, offshore marine ecosystems), and special ecological resources (e.g.,\nthreatened and endangered plant and animal species and their habitat, national and state\nparklands, biological reserves, Wild and Scenic Rivers) that exist directly adjacent to and\nwithin the vicinity of pipelines covered by the Final Rule.\nBecause the pipelines subject to the Final Rule may contain hazardous materials, these\nresources within the physical affected environment, as well as public health and safety,\nmay be affected by gas and hazardous pipeline incidents such as spills and leaks.\n3-1\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nDepending on the size of the spill or gas leak, and the nature of the impact zone, the\nenvironmental impacts vary from deaths and injuries to property and environmental\ndamage. Incidents on pipelines often result in fires and explosions, with resulting\ndamage to the local environment. In addition, since pipelines often contain gas streams\nladen with condensates and natural gas liquids (NGL's), failures also result in spills of\nthese liquids, which can cause environmental harm. Environmental consequences to the\nphysical environment are examined in Section 3.2.\n3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES\n3.2.1 Public Health and Safety\nNo-Action Alternative\nUnder the No-Action Alternative, OPS would no additional regulations would be\nestablished given that OPS has already issued regulations that prescribe standards for the\nuse of direct assessment. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not change the\ncurrent and projected status of public health and safety.\nAction Alternative\nThe Action alternative may make pipeline operations safer by helping to reduce the\nnumber of incidents due to corrosion if operators choose to use direct assessment. In\naddition, it may increase pipeline safety through the broader application of direct\nassessment standards, potentially resulting in a reduction in fatalities and injuries\nattributable to pipeline incidents. Therefore, the Action alternative may result in a net\nreduction in the level of public health and safety impacts when compared to those under\nthe No Action alternative. It may also result in additional benefits, such as those related\nto making future maintenance easier, with potential public health and safety benefits.\nOPS cannot, however, say with certainty that implementing this Final Rule will avoid\nfatalities or injuries, but it is possible. Therefore, it is possible that the Action Alternative\nwould result in a minor positive impact to public health and safety.\n3.2.2 Hazardous Materials Transportation\nOPS recognizes that pipeline incidents can result in fatalities and injuries, and lost gas,\nhazardous liquids, and carbon dioxide. Such incidents can impact the physical\nenvironment (i.e., air, water, biological, and historical resources) around the pipeline if\nthe material being transported 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\nnew regulations 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.\n3-2\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nAction Alternative\nThe Action alternative may increase pipeline safety through the broader application of\ndirect assessment standards, potentially resulting in a reduction in fatalities and injuries\nattributable to pipeline incidents. It is possible that the Action Alternative would result in\na reduction in the number and frequency of corrosion incidents on onshore gas and\nhazardous liquid pipelines. Therefore, the Action alternative may result in a net\nreduction in the level of impacts from hazardous materials transportation when compared\nto those under the No Action alternative.\n3.2.3 Socioeconomics\nAs part of the rulemaking action, the costs and benefits of the Final Rule have been\nassessed. The economic analysis is summarized in the final Regulatory Evaluation (OPS\n2004b). This final EA will, in analyzing the alternatives, analyze the socioeconomic\nimpact of the Action.\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.\nAction Alternative\nIn its Final Rule, Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid\nPipelines, PHMSA is amending 49 CFR Part 192 by adding § 192.440 mandating direct\nassessment standards for external, internal, and stress-crack corrosion for operators of gas\ntransmission pipelines, and amending 49 CFR Part 195 by adding § 195.588 mandating a\ndirect assessment standard for external corrosion for operators of hazardous liquid and\ncarbon dioxide pipelines. In the remainder of this section, the impacted industry will be\nidentified, and then the economic impact of the rule will be considered.\nThe Final Rule applies to direct assessments for external, internal, or stress corrosion\nperformed on gas transmission and gathering pipelines subject to Federal pipeline safety\nregulation. It also applies to direct assessments for external corrosion performed on\nhazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. The operators of natural gas transmission\nand gathering pipelines are generally large firms, as are the operators of hazardous liquid\nand carbon dioxide pipelines. Table 3-1 shows the salient characteristics of the pipelines\nimpacted by the Final Rule.\nThe Action alternative will impact natural gas transmission pipeline operators choosing\ndirect assessment as their approach for evaluating corrosion and hazardous liquid pipeline\noperators choosing direct assessment as their approach for evaluating external corrosion.\nThe expected impact of direct assessment would be identification of present corrosion\nrisks and prevention of future risks. It may make pipeline operations safer by helping to\nreduce the number of incidents due to corrosion and incident consequences when\n3-3\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nFinal Environmental Assessment\nStandards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\ncorrosion incidents occur. The use of direct assessment by pipeline operators is\n1 new approach, and its use at present is limited. Since the use of direct assessment i\noluntary. Other approaches for evaluating corrosion exist. Direct assessment is, in fact\nvoluntary, the Final Rule is not expected to have any measurable costs or benefits.\nTable 3-1: ","truncated":true,"body_characters":51577}