{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e85094","title":"U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Draft Environmental Assessment: Low-Stress SNPRM","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 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... DRAFT 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...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e85094.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e85094.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e85094","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-2003-15864-0073/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nPROTECTING UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS\nFROM RURAL LOW-STRESS HAZARDOUS LIQUID\nPIPELINES\nDraft Environmental Assessment\nDocket No. PHMSA-2003-15864; Notice 4\nApril 2007\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\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nTABLE OF CONTENTS I\nLIST OF ACRONYMS IIIII\n1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1\n1.1 BACKGROUND 1\n1.1.1 Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 1\n1.2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 2\n1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 2\n1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 3\n2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4\n2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 4\n2.1.1 No Action 4\n2.1.2 Complete the currently outstanding rulemaking relating to low-stress pipelines and then\napply Part 195 to all rural onshore low-stress lines at the same time. 4\n2.1.3 Apply Part 195 to the rural onshore low-stress lines in two phases, with the initial phase\ncovering those lines posing the greatest risk to the environment. 5\n2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5\n2.3 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 6\n3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 7\n3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 7\n3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 7\n3.2.1 No Action Alternative 7\n3.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative 8\n4.0 PREPARERS 12\nApril 2007 i\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nLIST OF ACRONYMS\nCFR Code of Federal Regulations\nDMS Docket Management System\nDOT United States Department of Transportation\nEFRD Emergency flow restriction devices\nEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency\nNEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969\nNPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking\nPHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nSMYS Specified minimum yield strength\nU.S. United States\nApril 2007 ii\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\n1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION\n1.1 BACKGROUND\nPHMSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on September 6, 2006, (71 FR\n52504) proposing to apply limited pipeline safety regulations to rural onshore low-stress\nhazardous liquid pipelines within a defined buffer of previously-defined “unusually\nsensitive areas” (USAs). Low-stress lines generally transport hazardous liquid at low-\nstress levels for relatively short distances to and from refineries and terminals. Safety\nregulations for hazardous liquid pipelines, contained in 49 CFR Part 195, had not\npreviously been applicable to pipelines operating at low-stress outside of populated areas,\nexcept for those that cross navigable waterways.1 USAs are non-populated areas\nrequiring extra protection because of the presence of sole-source drinking water\nresources, endangered species, or other ecological resources that could be adversely\naffected by accidents/leaks occurring on hazardous liquid pipelines.\nThe proposed rule would define a category of “regulated rural onshore low-stress lines”\nand would require operators to comply with a limited set of requirements in Part 195..\nThe safety requirements proposed to be applied addressed the most common threat to the\nintegrity of these rural lines: corrosion and third party damage. The proposal was\nintended to provide additional integrity protection, to avoid significant adverse\nenvironmental consequences and to improve public confidence in the safety of hazardous\nliquid rural onshore low-stress lines.\n1.1.1 Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006\nThe Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act)\nwas signed into law by the President on December 29, 2006 (Pub. Law No. 109-468).\nThe PIPES Act includes provisions affecting hazardous liquid pipelines operating at low-\nstress (i.e., hoop stress of 20% or less of specified minimum yield strength, SMYS).\nSpecifically, section 4 of the PIPES Act requires that PHMSA “issue regulations\nsubjecting low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines to the same standards and regulations as\nother hazardous liquid pipelines” with some limited exceptions. The Act allows the new\nregulations to be phased in.\nThe NPRM’s proposal for limited requirements on rural onshore low-stress lines are less\nthan “the same standards and regulations as [apply to] other hazardous liquid pipelines”\nas required by the PIPES Act. Finalizing that proposal without change would thus\nimpose some requirements on affected pipelines, only to be followed by additional\nregulations imposing further requirements. PHMSA considers that such sequential\napplication of requirements would be inefficient and would pose an unnecessary\nadditional burden on pipeline operators. Further, PHMSA notes that the low-stress\npipelines that would be affected by the proposed rule are those where additional safety\n1 For a full discussion of the background concerning historical treatment of low-stress rural pipelines and\nthe decision to apply safety regulations at this time, see the September 6, 2006, notice.\nMay 2007 1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nregulation is most important – larger-diameter pipelines that can have adverse impacts on\nUSAs. PHMSA therefore concludes that the most appropriate and expeditious means of\nimplementing the PIPES Act mandate is to act in phases.\nIn phase 1, PHMSA is modifying the current proposed rule via this supplemental notice\nof proposed rulemaking to add to the requirements to be applied to the low-stress\npipelines covered by the current proposed rule. (The PIPES Act explicitly states that the\nregulations issued under it shall not apply to gathering lines. Gathering lines are not\naddressed in this supplemental notice, and the requirements proposed for those lines\nremain as described in the September 6, 2006, NPRM). In Phase 2, PHMSA will initiate\na separate rulemaking to make safety standards applicable to all low-stress pipelines.\nPipelines affected by the phase 1 rulemaking are those low-stress pipelines greater than 8\n5/8 inches in diameter.\n1.2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION\nPHMSA proposes to modify its approach to extending pipeline safety regulations to rural\nlow-stress lines within a defined buffer of previously-defined “unusually sensitive areas.”\nThis modification incorporates changes required by the Pipeline Inspection, Protection,\nEnforcement, and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006. The changes would apply all remaining\nrequirements from 49 CFR Part 195 to the limited set of requirements originally proposed\nfor applicability to these pipelines. This action will improve the protection of\nenvironmentally-sensitive rural areas from the potential adverse impacts of hazardous\nliquid pipeline accidents.\n1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION\nThe need for the action stems from safety concerns expressed by Congress (including the\nPIPES Act of 2006), as well as public comments gathered over the past several years and\navailable spill data that show accidents are occurring on unregulated low-stress hazardous\nliquid pipelines in rural areas. These accidents have the same leading causes as accidents\non regulated non-rural lines, namely corrosion and excavation damage and have\ndemonstrated the need to regulate low-stress pipelines near USAs.\nFor instance, on March 2, 2006, a spill from BP’s 34-inch unregulated low-stress pipeline\nin North Slope Borough, Alaska, released 5,000 barrels of crude oil, impacting the artic\ntundra and covering approximately 2 acres of permafrost. On March 23, 2006, a spill\nfrom BP’s 36-inch low-stress pipeline in Toledo, Ohio, released 200 barrels of unleaded\ngasoline, some of which found its way into Shantee Creek, which flows to Lake Erie. On\nAugust 6, 2006, BP found corrosion and leaks in its unregulated low-stress pipeline in\nNorth Slope Borough, Alaska. The discovery of severe corrosion and the leaks caused\nBP to shut the pipeline down. As a consequence of these discoveries, part of the massive\nPrudhoe Bay oilfield had to be shutdown.\nThese and previous accidents on low-stress lines and recent Congressional action have\nprompted PHMSA to take regulatory action to address rural onshore low-stress lines.\nMay 2007 2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nThese unregulated lines may pose a serious risk, especially where the potential exists for\na spill to cause substantial harm to an unusually sensitive area. PHMSA thus recognizes\nthat it is no longer appropriate to continue to exempt rural onshore low-stress hazardous\nliquid pipelines from safety requirements in Part 195, and that rather, a safety rule to\naddress this concern is needed.\n1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT\nIn 2006, PHMSA held a public workshop in Alexandria, Virginia, to discuss the need to\nregulate rural low-stress lines (the notice for this workshop was published on May 1,\n2006 (71 FR 25640)). On June 26, 2006, PHMSA held both the public workshop and a\nmeeting of the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee to\ndiscuss how best to regulate low-stress lines to better protect USAs from spills. The\nnotice for the meeting, as well as comments regarding the regulation of rural low-stress\nlines, can be found on the DMS, in Docket No.PHMSA-2004-18938; further comments\ncan also be found in Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864.\nDuring the development of this rulemaking, PHMSA consulted with the National\nAssociation of Pipeline Safety Representatives, the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline\nSafety Standards Committee, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, and the\nAssociation of Oil Pipelines.\nMay 2007 3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\n2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES\n2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES\nPHMSA considered three alternatives to assure the necessary protection from potential\nincidents on rural onshore low-stress lines. These alternatives were:\nNo action,\nComplete the outstanding rulemaking relating to low-stress pipelines and then\napply Part 195 to all rural onshore low-stress lines at the same time, and\nApply Part 195 to rural onshore low-stress lines in two phases, with the initial\nphase covering those lines posing the greatest risk to the environment.\nEvaluations of these alternatives are presented below.\n2.1.1 No Action\nSection 4 of the PIPES Act of 2006 requires bringing all rural low-stress pipelines, with\ncertain limited exceptions, under Part 195. This alternative would not be responsive to\nthe Congressional mandate. For that reason, this alternative is not considered any further\nin this analysis.\n2.1.2 Complete the currently outstanding rulemaking relating to low-stress\npipelines and then apply Part 195 to all rural onshore low-stress lines at the\nsame time.\nAs mentioned above, on September 6, 2006, PHMSA published a proposed rule that\nwould extend pipeline safety regulations to certain rural onshore low-stress hazardous\nliquid pipelines within a defined buffer of USAs. The limited requirements applicable to\nrural onshore low-stress lines in the original notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) are\nless than “the same standards and regulations as [apply to] other hazardous liquid\npipelines” as required by the PIPES Act. Finalizing that proposal without change would\nimpose some requirements on affected pipelines, only to be followed by additional\nregulations imposing further requirements. PHMSA considers such sequential\napplication of requirements to be inefficient and to pose an unnecessary additional burden\non pipeline operators. For this reason, this alternative is not considered any further in this\nanalysis.\nMay 2007 4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\n2.1.3 Apply Part 195 to the rural onshore low-stress lines in two phases, with the\ninitial phase covering those lines posing the greatest risk to the\nenvironment.\nPHMSA currently has a proposed rule outstanding that would apply limited pipeline\nsafety regulations to certain rural onshore low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines within a\ndefined buffer of USAs. The low-stress pipelines that would be affected by the proposed\nrule are those where additional safety regulation is most important – larger-diameter\npipelines that can have adverse impacts on USAs. PHMSA believes that the most\nappropriate and expeditious means of implementing the PIPES Act mandate is to act in\nphases. In phase 1, PHMSA will modify the current proposed rule via the supplemental\nnotice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to add to the requirements to be applied to the\nlow-stress pipelines covered by the NPRM’s proposal.\nIn phase 2, PHMSA will initiate a separate rulemaking to make safety standards\napplicable to all low-stress pipelines. Pipelines affected by the phase 1 rulemaking are\nthose low-stress pipelines greater than 8 5/8 inches in diameter. PHMSA believes that\nmost operators of these larger low-stress pipelines also operate pipeline at higher stresses\nor operate low-stress pipe within populated areas that are currently subject to pipeline\nsafety regulations. PHMSA already has a regulatory relationship with those operators.\nOperators with only rural low-stress pipelines smaller than 8 5/8 inches in diameter are\nnot now subject to pipeline safety regulations.\nFor the reasons mentioned above, this alternative was selected.\n2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE\nThe Proposed Action Alternative would ultimately apply Part 195 rules to rural onshore\nlow-stress lines in two phases, with the initial phase covering those lines posing the\ngreatest risk to the environment. The proposed rules would require operators of rural\nonshore low-stress lines to identify all segments of such lines, report accidents and\nsafety-related conditions, establish a public education program, establish a damage\nprevention program, control corrosion for steel pipelines, and establish an operator\nqualification program. The Proposed Action Alternative also requires that operators of\nrural onshore low-stress lines follow safety rules for design, construction, initial\ninspection, and testing of new, relocated, or otherwise changed lines, establish the\nmaximum operating pressure of the pipeline, and install and maintain line markers.\nFinally, the Proposed Action Alternative would additionally require operators of rural\nonshore low-stress lines to establish integrity assessment programs.\nPHMSA recently proposed similar rules on line markers, operating pressure, and design\nand construction standards for rural gas gathering lines. Similar safety requirements are\nalso included in a consensus standard (ASME B31.4) followed widely throughout the\nhazardous liquid pipeline industry. As such, the approach described in the Proposed\nAction Alternative is not expected to be excessively burdensome to affected pipeline\noperators.\nMay 2007 5\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nThe Proposed Action Alternative was selected by PHMSA for all the aforementioned\nreasons and because it satisfies the need for action.\n2.3 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES\nBased on the analysis presented in this document (see especially Chapter 3), PHMSA\nbelieves no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed rules (i.e.,\nthe Proposed Action Alternative). Minor environmental impacts from line marking,\ncathodic protection, and integrity assessment measures would be offset by the reduction\nin the likelihood of spills and environmental damage. The Proposed Action Alternative\nmay result in improved protection of USAs from the threats posed by onshore hazardous\nliquid low-stress lines in rural areas.\nAs mentioned in this chapter, the No Action Alternative would not be responsive to the\nserious risk that unregulated lines may pose, especially to USAs, and would also not be\nresponsive to the Congressional mandate to regulate the safety of low-stress lines. This\nalternative would ignore the harm to people and the environment that Federal safety\nregulations could potentially prevent. Under the No Action Alternative, the threats posed\nby onshore hazardous liquid low-stress lines in rural areas to USAs would continue to\nincrease.\nMay 2007 6\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\n3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL\nCONSEQUENCES\n3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT\nThe affected environment would be the land area in the United States in which rural\nonshore low-stress lines exist. Low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines are usually short-\ndistance pipelines, such as those associated with petrochemical complexes, refineries, and\nterminals, where high pressures to move relatively small quantities of liquids are not\nrequired. Major pipeline firms operate the rural onshore low-stress lines that might be\nimpacted by the proposed rule.\nThe proposed safety rules could potentially result in improved protection of USAs in the\nvicinity of rural onshore low-stress lines. The proposed safety rules would also require\npipeline operators to perform physical work along the pipeline rights of way with\nenvironmental consequences as discussed below.\nNEPA also requires analysis of socioeconomic consequences; thus, the primary\nstakeholder group potentially affected by the rulemaking – entities that operate rural\nonshore low-stress lines – may be considered an important part of the “affected\nenvironment.” The proposed safety rules could potentially result in placing a\ndisproportionate burden on certain pipeline operators.\nThe pipeline operators impacted by the proposed regulations are expected to be major\npipeline firms. Those firms are already performing the actions required by the proposed\nregulations on their currently regulated lines. They know what is required and how to\nmeet those requirements. Additionally, many of the requirements are good business\npractice that the operators are likely to be following even in the absence of regulations.\nConsequently, the additional burden on the operators is expected to be small.\nThe associated environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the alternatives are\ndiscussed in this chapter.\n3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES\n3.2.1 No Action Alternative\nThe No Action Alternative would not result in any direct consequences to the immediate\naffected environment around rural onshore low-stress lines as a result of ground\ndisturbing activities. This includes activities associated with field verification of pipeline\nsegments, inspection and testing activities, the installation and maintenance of line\nmarkers, the installation and maintenance of cathodic protection systems, and the\nactivities associated with establishing an integrity assessment program.\nMay 2007 7\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nHowever, the No Action Alternative would do nothing to alleviate the serious risk of a\nhazardous liquid spill posed by unregulated lines to the affected environment and would\nnot be responsive to the Congressional mandate concerning low-stress pipelines\ncontained in Section 4 of the PIPES Act of 2006. The likelihood of a hazardous liquid\nspill affecting an unusually sensitive area remains the same and may increase as no new\ninspection and testing efforts would be conducted to help ensure pipelines are in a\nsatisfactory condition prior to being placed in service. No information on accidents and\nsafety-related conditions would need to be reported; no public education programs would\nbe implemented; no damage prevention program to reduce the likelihood of an incident\narising from excavation damage would be required; no control corrosion requirement for\nsteel pipelines would be imposed; no operator qualification program would be\nestablished; and, no integrity assessment program would be established.\nThe No Action Alternative will not result in any socioeconomic impact, as it will no\nimpose any new requirements on operators of rural onshore low-stress lines.\nIn summary, the No Action Alternative will not result in any significant adverse\nenvironmental impact, though it has the potential to result in minor to moderate negative\nenvironmental impact.\n3.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative\nIn this section, environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the Proposed Action\nAlternative to the affected environment are examined for each component of the\nproposed rulemaking, as described in section 1.2. Environmental justice considerations\nare also discussed as part of the socioeconomic consequence analysis.\nEnvironmental Consequences\nThe proposed rules would require operators to identify all segments of their onshore rural\nlow-stress pipelines that would become regulated. This will largely be an administrative\nexercise. However, some field verification work may be required to confirm line sizes,\noperating conditions, and proximity to USAs. This could result in minor ground\ndisturbances through USAs to access pipelines. However, these impacts are expected to\nbe negligible since the operator likely maintains regular access to such areas already for\nroutine operation and maintenance activities.\nUnder the proposed rules, operators will be required to follow safety rules in 49 CFR Part\n195 for design, construction, initial inspection, and testing for regulated steel pipelines\nthat are constructed, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed. However, inspection and\ntesting activities are expected to have negligible environmental consequences compared\nto the impact of pipeline construction, replacement, or relocation activities that would\ntrigger the compliance activity. Furthermore, inspection and testing efforts would be\nexpected to help ensure pipelines are in a satisfactory condition prior to being placed in\nservice, thereby reducing the likelihood of an incident and having a net positive impact\non the environment.\nMay 2007 8\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nOperators would also be required to report accidents and safety-related conditions. This\nis an administrative activity with no negative environmental consequences. In fact, such\nreporting would have a positive impact on the environment since the information on\naccident and safety-related conditions could be used to prevent future incidents and spills.\nUnder the proposed rules, operators would have to install and maintain line markers at\nvarious places along newly regulated pipelines in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195.410,\nunless markers are already in place in those locations. Also, some changes to existing\nmarkers may be necessary to meet Part 195 standards. PHMSA assumes most operators\nhave already installed line markers on their higher risk rural pipelines. A widely\nfollowed consensus standard (ASME B31.4) calls for installation and maintenance of\nmarkers to prevent excavation damage. Also, since excavation damage is a leading cause\nof pipeline accidents, it is reasonable to assume operators would already have installed\nmarkers to help prevent such damage. In any event, the ground disturbances from\ndigging to install new markers or to maintain existing markers are expected to be small\nand localized. Typically, such disturbances do not affect areas beyond the pipeline right\nof way.\nImplementation of public education programs in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195.440\ndoes not require any physical work along the pipeline. Public education programs are\nexpected to help reduce the likelihood of an incident or spill and therefore would have a\npositive impact on the environment.\nOperators of rural onshore low-stress lines would be required to implement a damage\nprevention program in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195.442. This involves membership\nin a one-call program and would not require any intrusive work along the pipeline. This\nrequirement would also have a net positive impact on the environment since it is intended\nto reduce the likelihood of incidents arising from excavation damage.\nUnder the proposed rules, operators of rural onshore low-stress lines would be required to\nmeet the control corrosion requirements for steel pipelines contained in 49 CFR Part 195\nSubpart H. This involves the installation and maintenance of cathodic protection\nsystems. Many operators of steel lines not currently subject to regulation have already\ninstalled cathodic protection systems. These systems provide protection against external\ncorrosion, a predominant cause of pipeline leaks and failures. Operators have an\neconomic incentive to install such systems, to protect the valuable assets represented by\ntheir pipelines; PHMSA believes many pipeline operators installed such systems when\ntheir pipelines were installed. For pipelines that will become newly regulated, but for\nwhich cathodic protection systems were not previously installed, such systems may need\nto be retrofitted. Installation of these systems involves excavating predetermined\nlocations along the rights of way to install sacrificial anodes and the installation of\ncurrent rectifiers to impose an electrical current on the pipeline. The type of localized\nground disturbance associated with these installations is typically minimal and does not\naffect the environment beyond the immediate vicinity of the pipeline. These disturbances\nwould have far less impact than the potential consequences of a pipeline accident\n(especially to threatened and endangered species and drinking water resources) that could\nMay 2007 9\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\noccur if corrosion caused a failure of the pipeline. In PHMSA’s experience, the benefits\nof installing cathodic protection to prevent corrosion would offset the minor adverse\nimpacts of localized ground disturbances.\nOperators of rural onshore low-stress lines would also be required to establish an operator\nqualification program in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195 Subpart G. This is an\nadministrative requirement that would have no negative environmental consequences. It\ncould have a positive impact on the environment assuming the likelihood of an incident is\nreduced with improved operator qualifications.\nUnder the proposed rules, operators of rural onshore low-stress lines would be required to\nestablish an integrity assessment program using in-line inspection tools, direct\nassessment, pressure testing, or other appropriate technology to assess the integrity of the\nregulated pipeline segments. This includes both initial and periodic assessments.\nLaunchers and receivers are required to allow for the insertion and removal of in-line\ninspection tools. If operators choose to use in-line inspection tools to comply with this\nrequirement in pipeline segments where launchers and receivers do not exist, they will\nhave to be installed. Operators may also choose to install other devices as part of their\nintegrity management program, such as emergency flow restriction devices (EFRD).\nThese actions may require excavation and reconfiguration pipelines at selected points to\nfacilitate the installation of launchers, receivers, EFRDs, or other devices. This activity\nwill cause localized ground disturbances where such devices are installed. If operators\nchoose to use hydrotesting, wastewater from the testing is considered contaminated and is\ntypically transported to and treated at a wastewater facility. As EPA already regulates the\ntreatment of wastewater, the environmental impact is expected to be minor. The benefits\nof performing integrity assessments would offset these minor adverse impacts since the\nnet effect would be a reduction in the number of incidents and potential environmental\ndamage.\nIn summary, the Proposed Action Alternative will not result in any significant adverse\nenvironmental impact.\nThe proposed rulemaking would require only limited physical modification or other work\nthat would disturb pipeline rights-of-way resulting in negligible to minor negative\nenvironmental impact from activities such as identifying segments of pipelines meeting\nthe regulatory definitions, inspection and testing, installing and maintaining line markers,\nimplementing corrosion controls, pipeline cleaning, and establishing integrity assessment\nprograms. PHMSA also believes that many of these safety measures (for example,\nimplementing corrosion control and installing and maintaining line markers) are already\nbeing undertaken for a large portion of the pipeline mileage that would become regulated\nunder the proposed rules. Furthermore, by requiring these and other safety rules such as\naccident reporting, implementing public education and damage prevention programs, and\nestablishing operator qualification programs, it is likely the number of spills from rural\nlow-stress lines will be reduced resulting in minor to moderate positive environmental\nimpact that would offset the negative environmental impacts.\nMay 2007 10\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\nSocioeconomic Consequences and Environmental Justice\nSocioeconomic impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative may result, as the operators\nof the lines impacted by the proposed regulatory changes are expected to incur costs\nattributable to the proposed rule. As part of the rulemaking action, and in compliance\nwith Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), the costs and benefits of\nthe proposed regulations are being assessed. The resulting detailed economic analysis\nwill be presented in the Regulatory Evaluation, separate from this EA. However,\npreliminary data regarding the socioeconomic cost of the proposed action are offered\nhere. The reader is strongly encouraged to refer to the Regulatory Evaluation for final\ncost-benefit estimates as well as details about the assumptions and calculations of the\nestimates.\nThe costs of the proposed regulations incurred by low-stress line operators are expected\nto be approximately $4 million in the first year following implementation of the\nregulations, approximately $2 million annually in the second through the fifth years, and\napproximately $2 million annually thereafter. Overall, costs during the first 20 years are\nexpected to have a present value of $34 million using a 3% discount rate and $24 million\nusing a 7% discount rate. Monetized benefits during the first 20 years are expected to\nhave a present value of $58 million using a 3% discount rate and $41 million using a 7%\ndiscount rate. In addition to these monetized benefits, there are significant benefits that\ncannot currently be monetized. Since benefits exceed costs, the proposed rule will be\ncost-beneficial.\nExecutive Order 12898 (E.O. 12898), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice\nin Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires federal agencies to adopt\nstrategies to address environmental justice concerns within the context of agency\noperations. E.O. 12898 and its accompanying memorandum have the primary purpose of\nensuring that Federal agencies identify and address disproportionately high and adverse\nhuman health or environmental effects on environmental justice populations that could\nresult from federal projects and programs. Environmental justice populations are low\nincome and minority populations, and Indian tribes. It is possible that environmental\njustice populations exist in areas subject to the proposed rules (for example, Indian tribes\nare often located in rural areas). However, the environmental analysis concludes that the\nProposed Action Alternative will not result in any significant adverse environmental\nimpact, though it has the potential to result in negligible to minor negative impact as well\nas minor to moderate positive impact. Therefore, in the absence of more detailed\nquantitative analysis, PHMSA believes the proposed rules will not have a\ndisproportionate negative impact on environmental justice populations.\nIn summary, the Proposed Action Alternative will not result in any significant adverse\nsocioeconomic or environmental justice impact.\nMay 2007 11\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\n4.0 PREPARERS\nThis EA was prepared by DOT staff from PHMSA and Volpe National Transportation\nSystems Center (part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration).\nMay 2007 12","truncated":false,"body_characters":32868}