U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Draft Environmental Assessment: Low-Stress SNPRM

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROTECTING UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS FROM RURAL LOW-STRESS HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINES Draft Environmental Assessment Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864; Notice 4 April 2007 Prepared for: Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Prepared by: John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Research and Innovative Technology Administration#

Page 2DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I LIST OF ACRONYMS IIIII 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.1.1 Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 1 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 2 1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 2 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 3 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4 2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 4 2.1.1 No Action 4 2.1.2 Complete the currently outstanding rulemaking relating to low-stress pipelines and then apply Part 195 to all rural onshore low-stress lines at the same time. 4 2.1.3 Apply Part 195 to the rural onshore low-stress lines in two phases, with the initial phase covering those lines posing the greatest risk to the environment. 5 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5 2.3 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 6 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 7 3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 7 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 7 3.2.1 No Action Alternative 7 3.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative 8 4.0 PREPARERS 12 April 2007 i#

Page 3DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines LIST OF ACRONYMS CFR Code of Federal Regulations DMS Docket Management System DOT United States Department of Transportation EFRD Emergency flow restriction devices EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration SMYS Specified minimum yield strength U.S. United States April 2007 ii#

Page 4DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 BACKGROUND PHMSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on September 6, 2006, (71 FR 52504) proposing to apply limited pipeline safety regulations to rural onshore low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines within a defined buffer of previously-defined “unusually sensitive areas” (USAs). Low-stress lines generally transport hazardous liquid at low- stress levels for relatively short distances to and from refineries and terminals. Safety regulations for hazardous liquid pipelines, contained in 49 CFR Part 195, had not previously been applicable to pipelines operating at low-stress outside of populated areas, except for those that cross navigable waterways.1 USAs are non-populated areas requiring extra protection because of the presence of sole-source drinking water resources, endangered species, or other ecological resources that could be adversely affected by accidents/leaks occurring on hazardous liquid pipelines. The proposed rule would define a category of “regulated rural onshore low-stress lines” and would require operators to comply with a limited set of requirements in Part 195.. The safety requirements proposed to be applied addressed the most common threat to the integrity of these rural lines: corrosion and third party damage. The proposal was intended to provide additional integrity protection, to avoid significant adverse environmental consequences and to improve public confidence in the safety of hazardous liquid rural onshore low-stress lines. 1.1.1 Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act) was signed into law by the President on December 29, 2006 (Pub. Law No. 109-468). The PIPES Act includes provisions affecting hazardous liquid pipelines operating at low- stress (i.e., hoop stress of 20% or less of specified minimum yield strength, SMYS). Specifically, section 4 of the PIPES Act requires that PHMSA “issue regulations subjecting low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines to the same standards and regulations as other hazardous liquid pipelines” with some limited exceptions. The Act allows the new regulations to be phased in. The NPRM’s proposal for limited requirements on rural onshore low-stress lines are less than “the same standards and regulations as [apply to] other hazardous liquid pipelines” as required by the PIPES Act. Finalizing that proposal without change would thus impose some requirements on affected pipelines, only to be followed by additional regulations imposing further requirements. PHMSA considers that such sequential application of requirements would be inefficient and would pose an unnecessary additional burden on pipeline operators. Further, PHMSA notes that the low-stress pipelines that would be affected by the proposed rule are those where additional safety 1 For a full discussion of the background concerning historical treatment of low-stress rural pipelines and the decision to apply safety regulations at this time, see the September 6, 2006, notice. May 2007 1#

Page 5DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines regulation is most important – larger-diameter pipelines that can have adverse impacts on USAs. PHMSA therefore concludes that the most appropriate and expeditious means of implementing the PIPES Act mandate is to act in phases. In phase 1, PHMSA is modifying the current proposed rule via this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to add to the requirements to be applied to the low-stress pipelines covered by the current proposed rule. (The PIPES Act explicitly states that the regulations issued under it shall not apply to gathering lines. Gathering lines are not addressed in this supplemental notice, and the requirements proposed for those lines remain as described in the September 6, 2006, NPRM). In Phase 2, PHMSA will initiate a separate rulemaking to make safety standards applicable to all low-stress pipelines. Pipelines affected by the phase 1 rulemaking are those low-stress pipelines greater than 8 5/8 inches in diameter. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION PHMSA proposes to modify its approach to extending pipeline safety regulations to rural low-stress lines within a defined buffer of previously-defined “unusually sensitive areas.” This modification incorporates changes required by the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006. The changes would apply all remaining requirements from 49 CFR Part 195 to the limited set of requirements originally proposed for applicability to these pipelines. This action will improve the protection of environmentally-sensitive rural areas from the potential adverse impacts of hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. 1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The need for the action stems from safety concerns expressed by Congress (including the PIPES Act of 2006), as well as public comments gathered over the past several years and available spill data that show accidents are occurring on unregulated low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines in rural areas. These accidents have the same leading causes as accidents on regulated non-rural lines, namely corrosion and excavation damage and have demonstrated the need to regulate low-stress pipelines near USAs. For instance, on March 2, 2006, a spill from BP’s 34-inch unregulated low-stress pipeline in North Slope Borough, Alaska, released 5,000 barrels of crude oil, impacting the artic tundra and covering approximately 2 acres of permafrost. On March 23, 2006, a spill from BP’s 36-inch low-stress pipeline in Toledo, Ohio, released 200 barrels of unleaded gasoline, some of which found its way into Shantee Creek, which flows to Lake Erie. On August 6, 2006, BP found corrosion and leaks in its unregulated low-stress pipeline in North Slope Borough, Alaska. The discovery of severe corrosion and the leaks caused BP to shut the pipeline down. As a consequence of these discoveries, part of the massive Prudhoe Bay oilfield had to be shutdown. These and previous accidents on low-stress lines and recent Congressional action have prompted PHMSA to take regulatory action to address rural onshore low-stress lines. May 2007 2#

Page 6DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines These unregulated lines may pose a serious risk, especially where the potential exists for a spill to cause substantial harm to an unusually sensitive area. PHMSA thus recognizes that it is no longer appropriate to continue to exempt rural onshore low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines from safety requirements in Part 195, and that rather, a safety rule to address this concern is needed. 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT In 2006, PHMSA held a public workshop in Alexandria, Virginia, to discuss the need to regulate rural low-stress lines (the notice for this workshop was published on May 1, 2006 (71 FR 25640)). On June 26, 2006, PHMSA held both the public workshop and a meeting of the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee to discuss how best to regulate low-stress lines to better protect USAs from spills. The notice for the meeting, as well as comments regarding the regulation of rural low-stress lines, can be found on the DMS, in Docket No.PHMSA-2004-18938; further comments can also be found in Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864. During the development of this rulemaking, PHMSA consulted with the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, and the Association of Oil Pipelines. May 2007 3#

Page 7DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES PHMSA considered three alternatives to assure the necessary protection from potential incidents on rural onshore low-stress lines. These alternatives were: No action, Complete the outstanding rulemaking relating to low-stress pipelines and then apply Part 195 to all rural onshore low-stress lines at the same time, and Apply Part 195 to rural onshore low-stress lines in two phases, with the initial phase covering those lines posing the greatest risk to the environment. Evaluations of these alternatives are presented below. 2.1.1 No Action Section 4 of the PIPES Act of 2006 requires bringing all rural low-stress pipelines, with certain limited exceptions, under Part 195. This alternative would not be responsive to the Congressional mandate. For that reason, this alternative is not considered any further in this analysis. 2.1.2 Complete the currently outstanding rulemaking relating to low-stress pipelines and then apply Part 195 to all rural onshore low-stress lines at the same time. As mentioned above, on September 6, 2006, PHMSA published a proposed rule that would extend pipeline safety regulations to certain rural onshore low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines within a defined buffer of USAs. The limited requirements applicable to rural onshore low-stress lines in the original notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) are less than “the same standards and regulations as [apply to] other hazardous liquid pipelines” as required by the PIPES Act. Finalizing that proposal without change would impose some requirements on affected pipelines, only to be followed by additional regulations imposing further requirements. PHMSA considers such sequential application of requirements to be inefficient and to pose an unnecessary additional burden on pipeline operators. For this reason, this alternative is not considered any further in this analysis. May 2007 4#

Page 8DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines 2.1.3 Apply Part 195 to the rural onshore low-stress lines in two phases, with the initial phase covering those lines posing the greatest risk to the environment. PHMSA currently has a proposed rule outstanding that would apply limited pipeline safety regulations to certain rural onshore low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines within a defined buffer of USAs. The low-stress pipelines that would be affected by the proposed rule are those where additional safety regulation is most important – larger-diameter pipelines that can have adverse impacts on USAs. PHMSA believes that the most appropriate and expeditious means of implementing the PIPES Act mandate is to act in phases. In phase 1, PHMSA will modify the current proposed rule via the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to add to the requirements to be applied to the low-stress pipelines covered by the NPRM’s proposal. In phase 2, PHMSA will initiate a separate rulemaking to make safety standards applicable to all low-stress pipelines. Pipelines affected by the phase 1 rulemaking are those low-stress pipelines greater than 8 5/8 inches in diameter. PHMSA believes that most operators of these larger low-stress pipelines also operate pipeline at higher stresses or operate low-stress pipe within populated areas that are currently subject to pipeline safety regulations. PHMSA already has a regulatory relationship with those operators. Operators with only rural low-stress pipelines smaller than 8 5/8 inches in diameter are not now subject to pipeline safety regulations. For the reasons mentioned above, this alternative was selected. 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE The Proposed Action Alternative would ultimately apply Part 195 rules to rural onshore low-stress lines in two phases, with the initial phase covering those lines posing the greatest risk to the environment. The proposed rules would require operators of rural onshore low-stress lines to identify all segments of such lines, report accidents and safety-related conditions, establish a public education program, establish a damage prevention program, control corrosion for steel pipelines, and establish an operator qualification program. The Proposed Action Alternative also requires that operators of rural onshore low-stress lines follow safety rules for design, construction, initial inspection, and testing of new, relocated, or otherwise changed lines, establish the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline, and install and maintain line markers. Finally, the Proposed Action Alternative would additionally require operators of rural onshore low-stress lines to establish integrity assessment programs. PHMSA recently proposed similar rules on line markers, operating pressure, and design and construction standards for rural gas gathering lines. Similar safety requirements are also included in a consensus standard (ASME B31.4) followed widely throughout the hazardous liquid pipeline industry. As such, the approach described in the Proposed Action Alternative is not expected to be excessively burdensome to affected pipeline operators. May 2007 5#

Page 9DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines The Proposed Action Alternative was selected by PHMSA for all the aforementioned reasons and because it satisfies the need for action. 2.3 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES Based on the analysis presented in this document (see especially Chapter 3), PHMSA believes no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed rules (i.e., the Proposed Action Alternative). Minor environmental impacts from line marking, cathodic protection, and integrity assessment measures would be offset by the reduction in the likelihood of spills and environmental damage. The Proposed Action Alternative may result in improved protection of USAs from the threats posed by onshore hazardous liquid low-stress lines in rural areas. As mentioned in this chapter, the No Action Alternative would not be responsive to the serious risk that unregulated lines may pose, especially to USAs, and would also not be responsive to the Congressional mandate to regulate the safety of low-stress lines. This alternative would ignore the harm to people and the environment that Federal safety regulations could potentially prevent. Under the No Action Alternative, the threats posed by onshore hazardous liquid low-stress lines in rural areas to USAs would continue to increase. May 2007 6#

Page 10DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The affected environment would be the land area in the United States in which rural onshore low-stress lines exist. Low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines are usually short- distance pipelines, such as those associated with petrochemical complexes, refineries, and terminals, where high pressures to move relatively small quantities of liquids are not required. Major pipeline firms operate the rural onshore low-stress lines that might be impacted by the proposed rule. The proposed safety rules could potentially result in improved protection of USAs in the vicinity of rural onshore low-stress lines. The proposed safety rules would also require pipeline operators to perform physical work along the pipeline rights of way with environmental consequences as discussed below. NEPA also requires analysis of socioeconomic consequences; thus, the primary stakeholder group potentially affected by the rulemaking – entities that operate rural onshore low-stress lines – may be considered an important part of the “affected environment.” The proposed safety rules could potentially result in placing a disproportionate burden on certain pipeline operators. The pipeline operators impacted by the proposed regulations are expected to be major pipeline firms. Those firms are already performing the actions required by the proposed regulations on their currently regulated lines. They know what is required and how to meet those requirements. Additionally, many of the requirements are good business practice that the operators are likely to be following even in the absence of regulations. Consequently, the additional burden on the operators is expected to be small. The associated environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the alternatives are discussed in this chapter. 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.2.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any direct consequences to the immediate affected environment around rural onshore low-stress lines as a result of ground disturbing activities. This includes activities associated with field verification of pipeline segments, inspection and testing activities, the installation and maintenance of line markers, the installation and maintenance of cathodic protection systems, and the activities associated with establishing an integrity assessment program. May 2007 7#

Page 11DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines However, the No Action Alternative would do nothing to alleviate the serious risk of a hazardous liquid spill posed by unregulated lines to the affected environment and would not be responsive to the Congressional mandate concerning low-stress pipelines contained in Section 4 of the PIPES Act of 2006. The likelihood of a hazardous liquid spill affecting an unusually sensitive area remains the same and may increase as no new inspection and testing efforts would be conducted to help ensure pipelines are in a satisfactory condition prior to being placed in service. No information on accidents and safety-related conditions would need to be reported; no public education programs would be implemented; no damage prevention program to reduce the likelihood of an incident arising from excavation damage would be required; no control corrosion requirement for steel pipelines would be imposed; no operator qualification program would be established; and, no integrity assessment program would be established. The No Action Alternative will not result in any socioeconomic impact, as it will no impose any new requirements on operators of rural onshore low-stress lines. In summary, the No Action Alternative will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact, though it has the potential to result in minor to moderate negative environmental impact. 3.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative In this section, environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the Proposed Action Alternative to the affected environment are examined for each component of the proposed rulemaking, as described in section 1.2. Environmental justice considerations are also discussed as part of the socioeconomic consequence analysis. Environmental Consequences The proposed rules would require operators to identify all segments of their onshore rural low-stress pipelines that would become regulated. This will largely be an administrative exercise. However, some field verification work may be required to confirm line sizes, operating conditions, and proximity to USAs. This could result in minor ground disturbances through USAs to access pipelines. However, these impacts are expected to be negligible since the operator likely maintains regular access to such areas already for routine operation and maintenance activities. Under the proposed rules, operators will be required to follow safety rules in 49 CFR Part 195 for design, construction, initial inspection, and testing for regulated steel pipelines that are constructed, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed. However, inspection and testing activities are expected to have negligible environmental consequences compared to the impact of pipeline construction, replacement, or relocation activities that would trigger the compliance activity. Furthermore, inspection and testing efforts would be expected to help ensure pipelines are in a satisfactory condition prior to being placed in service, thereby reducing the likelihood of an incident and having a net positive impact on the environment. May 2007 8#

Page 12DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Operators would also be required to report accidents and safety-related conditions. This is an administrative activity with no negative environmental consequences. In fact, such reporting would have a positive impact on the environment since the information on accident and safety-related conditions could be used to prevent future incidents and spills. Under the proposed rules, operators would have to install and maintain line markers at various places along newly regulated pipelines in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195.410, unless markers are already in place in those locations. Also, some changes to existing markers may be necessary to meet Part 195 standards. PHMSA assumes most operators have already installed line markers on their higher risk rural pipelines. A widely followed consensus standard (ASME B31.4) calls for installation and maintenance of markers to prevent excavation damage. Also, since excavation damage is a leading cause of pipeline accidents, it is reasonable to assume operators would already have installed markers to help prevent such damage. In any event, the ground disturbances from digging to install new markers or to maintain existing markers are expected to be small and localized. Typically, such disturbances do not affect areas beyond the pipeline right of way. Implementation of public education programs in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195.440 does not require any physical work along the pipeline. Public education programs are expected to help reduce the likelihood of an incident or spill and therefore would have a positive impact on the environment. Operators of rural onshore low-stress lines would be required to implement a damage prevention program in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195.442. This involves membership in a one-call program and would not require any intrusive work along the pipeline. This requirement would also have a net positive impact on the environment since it is intended to reduce the likelihood of incidents arising from excavation damage. Under the proposed rules, operators of rural onshore low-stress lines would be required to meet the control corrosion requirements for steel pipelines contained in 49 CFR Part 195 Subpart H. This involves the installation and maintenance of cathodic protection systems. Many operators of steel lines not currently subject to regulation have already installed cathodic protection systems. These systems provide protection against external corrosion, a predominant cause of pipeline leaks and failures. Operators have an economic incentive to install such systems, to protect the valuable assets represented by their pipelines; PHMSA believes many pipeline operators installed such systems when their pipelines were installed. For pipelines that will become newly regulated, but for which cathodic protection systems were not previously installed, such systems may need to be retrofitted. Installation of these systems involves excavating predetermined locations along the rights of way to install sacrificial anodes and the installation of current rectifiers to impose an electrical current on the pipeline. The type of localized ground disturbance associated with these installations is typically minimal and does not affect the environment beyond the immediate vicinity of the pipeline. These disturbances would have far less impact than the potential consequences of a pipeline accident (especially to threatened and endangered species and drinking water resources) that could May 2007 9#

Page 13DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines occur if corrosion caused a failure of the pipeline. In PHMSA’s experience, the benefits of installing cathodic protection to prevent corrosion would offset the minor adverse impacts of localized ground disturbances. Operators of rural onshore low-stress lines would also be required to establish an operator qualification program in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195 Subpart G. This is an administrative requirement that would have no negative environmental consequences. It could have a positive impact on the environment assuming the likelihood of an incident is reduced with improved operator qualifications. Under the proposed rules, operators of rural onshore low-stress lines would be required to establish an integrity assessment program using in-line inspection tools, direct assessment, pressure testing, or other appropriate technology to assess the integrity of the regulated pipeline segments. This includes both initial and periodic assessments. Launchers and receivers are required to allow for the insertion and removal of in-line inspection tools. If operators choose to use in-line inspection tools to comply with this requirement in pipeline segments where launchers and receivers do not exist, they will have to be installed. Operators may also choose to install other devices as part of their integrity management program, such as emergency flow restriction devices (EFRD). These actions may require excavation and reconfiguration pipelines at selected points to facilitate the installation of launchers, receivers, EFRDs, or other devices. This activity will cause localized ground disturbances where such devices are installed. If operators choose to use hydrotesting, wastewater from the testing is considered contaminated and is typically transported to and treated at a wastewater facility. As EPA already regulates the treatment of wastewater, the environmental impact is expected to be minor. The benefits of performing integrity assessments would offset these minor adverse impacts since the net effect would be a reduction in the number of incidents and potential environmental damage. In summary, the Proposed Action Alternative will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. The proposed rulemaking would require only limited physical modification or other work that would disturb pipeline rights-of-way resulting in negligible to minor negative environmental impact from activities such as identifying segments of pipelines meeting the regulatory definitions, inspection and testing, installing and maintaining line markers, implementing corrosion controls, pipeline cleaning, and establishing integrity assessment programs. PHMSA also believes that many of these safety measures (for example, implementing corrosion control and installing and maintaining line markers) are already being undertaken for a large portion of the pipeline mileage that would become regulated under the proposed rules. Furthermore, by requiring these and other safety rules such as accident reporting, implementing public education and damage prevention programs, and establishing operator qualification programs, it is likely the number of spills from rural low-stress lines will be reduced resulting in minor to moderate positive environmental impact that would offset the negative environmental impacts. May 2007 10#

Page 14DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Socioeconomic Consequences and Environmental Justice Socioeconomic impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative may result, as the operators of the lines impacted by the proposed regulatory changes are expected to incur costs attributable to the proposed rule. As part of the rulemaking action, and in compliance with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), the costs and benefits of the proposed regulations are being assessed. The resulting detailed economic analysis will be presented in the Regulatory Evaluation, separate from this EA. However, preliminary data regarding the socioeconomic cost of the proposed action are offered here. The reader is strongly encouraged to refer to the Regulatory Evaluation for final cost-benefit estimates as well as details about the assumptions and calculations of the estimates. The costs of the proposed regulations incurred by low-stress line operators are expected to be approximately $4 million in the first year following implementation of the regulations, approximately $2 million annually in the second through the fifth years, and approximately $2 million annually thereafter. Overall, costs during the first 20 years are expected to have a present value of $34 million using a 3% discount rate and $24 million using a 7% discount rate. Monetized benefits during the first 20 years are expected to have a present value of $58 million using a 3% discount rate and $41 million using a 7% discount rate. In addition to these monetized benefits, there are significant benefits that cannot currently be monetized. Since benefits exceed costs, the proposed rule will be cost-beneficial. Executive Order 12898 (E.O. 12898), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires federal agencies to adopt strategies to address environmental justice concerns within the context of agency operations. E.O. 12898 and its accompanying memorandum have the primary purpose of ensuring that Federal agencies identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on environmental justice populations that could result from federal projects and programs. Environmental justice populations are low income and minority populations, and Indian tribes. It is possible that environmental justice populations exist in areas subject to the proposed rules (for example, Indian tribes are often located in rural areas). However, the environmental analysis concludes that the Proposed Action Alternative will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact, though it has the potential to result in negligible to minor negative impact as well as minor to moderate positive impact. Therefore, in the absence of more detailed quantitative analysis, PHMSA believes the proposed rules will not have a disproportionate negative impact on environmental justice populations. In summary, the Proposed Action Alternative will not result in any significant adverse socioeconomic or environmental justice impact. May 2007 11#

Page 15DRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines 4.0 PREPARERS This EA was prepared by DOT staff from PHMSA and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration). May 2007 12#