U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROTECTING UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS FROM RURAL ONSHORE HAZARDOUS LIQUID GATHERING LINES AND LOW STRESS LINES Preliminary Environmental Assessment Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864 August 2006 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 2Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I LIST OF ACRONYMS II 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 1 1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 2 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 3 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 5 2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 5 2.2 ALTERNATIVES INITIALLY CONSIDERED 5 2.2.1 No Action Alternative 6 2.2.2 Action Alternative 1: Collect more information about the potential hazards of rural gathering lines and low stress lines before proposing any specific safety rules. 6 2.2.3 Action Alternative 2: Apply all 49 CFR Part 195 rules to “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” 6 2.2.4 Action Alternative 3: Implement limited operation and maintenance rules, along with implementing reporting rules for accidents and safety-related conditions. 7 2.2.5 Alternative 4: Develop a completely new set of safety rules for “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” 7 2.2.6 Alternative 5: Implement limited operation and maintenance rules, along with rules for reporting accidents and safety-related conditions plus rules for design, construction, initial inspection, and testing, establishment of maximum operating pressure, installation and maintenance of line markers, and establishment of integrity assessment and leak detection programs. 8 2.3 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 8 2.4 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 9 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 10 3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 10 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 11 3.2.1 No Action Alternative 11 3.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative 11 4.0 PREPARERS 17 August 2006 i#

Page 3Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines 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 August 2006 ii#

Page 4Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Low stress lines generally transport hazardous liquid at low stress levels for relatively short distances to and from refineries and terminals, while gathering lines transport petroleum products from production facilities to downstream locations, such as a refinery or processing plant. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA’s) safety rules for hazardous liquid pipelines (49 CFR Part 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) apply to both offshore and onshore gathering and low stress lines. However, some of these lines are exempt from all or portions of Part 195 regulatory requirements. Although these particular pipelines may pose little risk overall, some lines are inherently riskier than others because they could cause substantial harm to areas PHMSA has defined as needing special protection (unusually sensitive areas1)2 . Under this proposal, some of these rural lines will no longer be exempt if within a defined buffer zone (1/4 mile) of an unusually sensitive area3 . 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION PHMSA is proposing to extend certain existing safety rules for the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline to higher risk hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in onshore rural areas. With respect to hazardous liquid gathering lines, PHMSA is proposing to include higher- risk rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines in a new definition of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines”4. Similarly, with respect to rural onshore low stress lines 1 PHMSA has defined “unusually sensitive areas” in 49 CFR 195.2 and 195.6. These areas are unusually sensitive to environmental damage if a hazardous liquid pipe release were to occur because a release into these areas could substantially impact the Nation’s supply of drinking water and endanger public health, and create long-term or irrevocable damage to the habitat of threatened and endangered species. 2 PHMSA generally considers higher risk rural lines to be those rural gathering and low stress pipelines located within 1/4 mile of an unusually sensitive area (lines in non-rural areas are already regulated by PHMSA). 3 This proposal will not affect other exempt low stress lines, specifically pipelines subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard, or those pipelines that serve certain refining and terminal facilities, if the pipeline is less than 1-mile long (measured outside of facility grounds) and does not cross offshore areas or a waterway currently used for commercial navigation. 4 Certain hazardous liquid gathering lines are currently regulated. They are sometimes collectively referred to as “regulated gathering lines” (e.g., PHMSA’s 2004 annual reports for hazardous liquid pipelines at http://ops.dot.gov/stats/DT98.htm). Under the proposed rule, PHMSA would define a “regulated rural onshore gathering line” as an onshore gathering line in a rural area that: (1) has a nominal diameter of between 6 5/8 and 8 5/8 inches, (2) operates at a stress level greater than 20 percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) or, if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not constructed with steel pipe, a pressure of more than 125 psig, and (3) is located within 1/4 mile of an unusually sensitive August 2006 1#

Page 5Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines transporting hazardous liquids, PHMSA is proposing to include higher-risk rural onshore hazardous liquid low stress lines in a new definition of “regulated rural onshore low stress lines”5 . PHMSA is proposing to make changes to 49 CFR Part 195 to require operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to: Identify all segments of such lines within a specified timeframe; Follow safety rules for design, installation, construction, initial inspection, and initial testing; Report accidents and safety-related conditions, and file annual reports; Establish the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline; Install and maintain line markers; Establish a public education program; Establish a damage prevention program; Control corrosion for steel pipelines, including continuous monitoring and cleaning; and Establish an operator qualification program. Furthermore, PHMSA is proposing that operators of “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” also: Establish an integrity assessment program, and assess at regular intervals the integrity of the lines; and Establish and apply a leak detection program. The proposed rules are intended to provide additional protection for unusually sensitive areas that could be affected by these lines and improve public confidence in the safety of rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines. 1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of these proposed rules are to improve the safety of onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas. The need for the action stems from safety concerns expressed by Congress (see below), as well as public comments gathered over the past several years and available spill data that show accidents are occurring on unregulated hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas. These accidents have the same leading causes as accidents on regulated non-rural lines, namely corrosion and excavation damage. PHMSA believes area. 5 Under the proposed rule, PHMSA would define a “regulated rural onshore low stress line” as an onshore line in a rural area that: (1) has a nominal diameter of 8 5/8 inches or more, (2) operates at a stress level equal to or less than 20 percent of the SMYS or, if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not constructed with steel pipe, a pressure of less than 125 psig, and (3) is located within 1/4 mile of an unusually sensitive area. August 2006 2#

Page 6Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines 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 hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines from safety requirements in Part 195, and that rather, a safety rule to address this concern is needed. Congress realized some rural crude oil gathering lines could pose serious risks. In 1992, Congress gave the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) authority to regulate certain rural gathering lines based on consideration of risk factors, including diameter, location, line length, operating pressure, and throughput. The proposed rules also respond to this Congressional concern about the safety of higher-risk rural gathering lines. Recent accidents have also demonstrated the need to regulate low stress pipelines near unusually sensitive areas. 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 caused PHMSA to decide to take regulatory action to address rural onshore low stress lines. 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT In 2003, PHMSA invited the public to discuss oil and gas gathering line issues. PHMSA held three public meetings, one in Austin, Texas, on November 19-20, 2003 (the notice for this meeting was published on November 5, 2003 (68 FR 62555)), and two in Anchorage, Alaska, on January 16-17, 2004 (the notice for this meeting was published on December 1, 2003 (68 FR 67129). The meetings gave people an opportunity to comment on what might make regulating the safety of rural gathering lines appropriate, and what the safety rules should be. Transcripts of both meetings were made public via the DOT’s Docket Management System (DMS), in Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864. In 2004, following the public meetings, PHMSA published a notice to clarify its plans about regulating rural gathering lines (69 FR 5305; February 4, 2004). The notice explained PHMSA sought comments on a suitable approach to identifying gathering lines commenters thought PHMSA should regulate. The notice also extended the deadline for receipt of written comments to March 4, 2004. In 2006, PHMSA held a public workshop in Alexandria, Virginia, to discuss the need to also 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 August 2006 3#

Page 7Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines meeting of the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee to discuss how best to regulate low stress lines to better protect unusually sensitive areas 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. This Draft EA is being made available for public comment concurrent with the availability of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for public comment. A final determination on environmental impact will be made after the end of the comment period on the NPRM. August 2006 4#

Page 8Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES This EA examines two alternatives: the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, PHMSA would not impose new rules on onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas, nor would they actively collect more information about the potential hazards of such pipelines. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA requires the analysis of a No Action Alternative, as the No Action Alternative is commonly used to define existing conditions of the natural and human-made environments. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, PHMSA would implement, for “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines,” the following regulations: limited operation and maintenance rules; reporting rules for accidents and safety-related conditions; rules for design, construction, initial inspection and testing; rules for establishment of maximum operating pressure of the pipeline; and rules for installation and maintenance of line markers. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, PHMSA would also require the establishment of integrity assessment and leak detection programs for “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” 2.2 ALTERNATIVES INITIALLY CONSIDERED PHMSA initially considered the following six alternatives – one no action alternative and five action alternative – to address the safety of onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas. In addition to the no action alternative, the five action alternatives considered were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Collect more information about the potential hazards of onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas before proposing any specific safety rules. Apply all PHMSA safety rules for the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline (i.e., 49 CFR Part 195 rules) to onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas. Implement limited operation and maintenance rules, along with implementing reporting rules for accidents and safety-related conditions for “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” Develop a completely new set of safety rules for “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” Implement limited operation and maintenance rules, along with implementing reporting rules for accidents and safety-related conditions for “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” This alternative also includes implementing rules for design, construction, initial August 2006 5#

Page 9Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines inspection and testing, establishment of maximum operating pressure of the pipeline, and installation and maintenance of line markers for “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” as well as the establishment of integrity assessment and leak detection programs for “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” 2.2.1 No Action Alternative Under this alternative, PHMSA would take no action and would not impose new rules on onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas, nor would they actively collect more information about the potential hazards of onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas. Taking no action would not be responsive to the serious risk that these unregulated lines may pose, especially to unusually sensitive areas, and would also not be responsive to the Congressional mandate concerning rural crude oil gathering lines. This alternative would ignore the harm to people and the environment that Federal safety regulations could potentially prevent. For these reasons, the No Action Alternative does not satisfy the need for action, and is thus not a practicable alternative. However, CEQ requires the analysis of a No Action Alternative, so it was carried forward for detailed analysis. 2.2.2 Action Alternative 1: Collect more information about the potential hazards of rural gathering lines and low stress lines before proposing any specific safety rules. Under Alternative 1, PHMSA would not propose any specific safety rules, though they would actively collect more information about the potential hazards of onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas. This alternative received some support from industry, and Congress did grant the DOT specific authority to collect more information about hazards before proposing any safety rules. This alternative was rejected, however, because PHMSA feels there is currently a demonstrated need for safety regulation of onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas. Also, based on PHMSA experience with hazardous liquid pipelines, collecting more information about onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas would be unlikely to change PHMSA’s current understanding of the potential risks these pipelines pose. For these reasons, Alternative 1 was not evaluated further. 2.2.3 Action Alternative 2: Apply all 49 CFR Part 195 rules to “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” Under Alternative 2, PHMSA would apply all existing safety regulations in 49 CFR Part 195 regarding the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline to “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” Upon preliminary analysis, PHMSA found that this alternative would impose significant costs on the industry for little safety benefit. Also, the costs to hazardous liquid gathering line operators could have a significant effect on U.S. oil supplies by causing production to August 2006 6#

Page 10Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines cease many marginal wells. For these reasons, Alternative 2 was dismissed and is not evaluated further. 2.2.4 Action Alternative 3: Implement limited operation and maintenance rules, along with implementing reporting rules for accidents and safety-related conditions. Under Alternative 3, PHMSA would impose limited operation and maintenance and reporting rules, requiring operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated 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 advantages of Alternative 3 are that PHMSA avoids imposing excessive safety regulation by focusing on the leading threats to rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines – corrosion and excavation damage. Also, the information collected through application of the reporting rules would enable PHMSA to recognize safety problems and evaluate the effectiveness of adopting only limited safety rules. The disadvantages of Alternative 3 are that it would not require operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to follow safety rules for the 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. In addition, this alternative would not require operators of “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to establish integrity assessment and leak detection programs. These aforementioned actions are important safety measures, and some are considered critical components of pipeline corrosion and damage prevention programs. For example, the use of line markers to warn excavators of the presence of hazardous liquid pipelines is a well-established safety practice within the hazardous liquid pipeline industry. Because Alternative 3 did not fully satisfy the need for action by its exclusion of certain critical safety measures, it was dismissed and is not evaluated further. 2.2.5 Alternative 4: Develop a completely new set of safety rules for “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” Alternative 4 would require PHMSA to develop a completely new set of rules regulating the safety of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” PHMSA does not have any reason to believe that the current 49 CFR Part 195 safety rules now in effect for non-rural hazardous liquid gathering and low stress lines would not be as effective if applied to these lines in rural areas. PHMSA experience indicates August 2006 7#

Page 11Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines the Part 195 rules can be expected to work well for rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines because the integrity threats involved are similar to the threats on non-rural lines. Consequently, Alternative 4 was dismissed and is not evaluated further. 2.2.6 Alternative 5: Implement limited operation and maintenance rules, along with rules for reporting accidents and safety-related conditions plus rules for design, construction, initial inspection, and testing, establishment of maximum operating pressure, installation and maintenance of line markers, and establishment of integrity assessment and leak detection programs. Alternative 5 is an expanded version of Alternative 3. In addition to the rules described in Alternative 3, this alternative would also require operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to 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. This alternative would additionally require operators of “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to establish integrity assessment and leak detection programs. Alternative 5 was found to fully satisfy the need for action and was carried further for detailed analysis. 2.3 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE As explained above, PHMSA found that Alternative 5 was the only alternative out of the five action alternatives evaluated that fully satisfied the need for action. Alternative 5 requires operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated 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. Alternative 5 also requires that operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated 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, Alternative 5 would additionally require operators of “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to establish integrity assessment and leak detection 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 August 2006 8#

Page 12Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines hazardous liquid pipeline industry. As such, the approach described in Alternative 5 is not expected to be excessively burdensome to affected pipeline operators. For all the aforementioned reasons and given that Alternative 5 satisfies the need for action, Alternative 5 was chosen by PHMSA as the Proposed Action Alternative. 2.4 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 unusually sensitive areas from the threats posed by onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and 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 unusually sensitive areas, and would also not be responsive to the Congressional mandate concerning rural crude oil gathering 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 gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas to unusually sensitive areas would continue to increase. August 2006 9#

Page 13Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines 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 “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” exist. . Hazardous liquid gathering lines can be found in rural and non-rural areas as well as onshore and offshore; the Association of Oil Pipelines estimates that between 30,000 and 40,000 miles of crude oil gathering lines, located primarily in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Wyoming with small systems in a number of other oil producing states, are currently in operation (thirty of the fifty United States are oil producing states and are likely to have gathering lines).6 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 unusually sensitive areas in the vicinity of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated 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 “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated 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.7 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. 6 See “How Many Pipelines are There?” at http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/energy-pl.html. This estimate is for oil producing states. Consequently, it might not include mileage in Outer Continental Shelf waters outside of state control. 7 The Regulatory Evaluation for the proposed regulations estimates that between 30 and 40 major pipeline operators would have pipeline mileage impacted by those proposed regulations. August 2006 10#

Page 14Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines 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, including unusually sensitive areas, around “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” as a result of ground disturbing 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, the activities associated with establishing an integrity assessment program, and the establishment of a leak detection system. 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. 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 “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated 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 definitions of “regulated rural onshore gathering line” and “regulated rural onshore low stress line” are administrative changes and will require no physical work on pipelines or their rights of way. As such, there are no direct environmental consequences associated with these new definitions. August 2006 11#

Page 15Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines The proposed rules would require operators to identify all segments of their pipelines meeting the definitions of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” This will largely be an administrative exercise. However, some field verification work may be required to confirm line sizes, operating conditions, and proximity to unusually sensitive areas. This could result in minor ground disturbances through unusually sensitive areas 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 195.5 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. 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. The proposed rules would require operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to establish the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195.406. Establishing the maximum operating pressure does not require any physical work along the pipeline. Instead, this involves a review of pipeline records to identify the pressures for which the pipeline was designed. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts associated with this requirement. 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. August 2006 12#

Page 16Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines 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 “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated 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 “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated 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 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. In addition, operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” will also be required to continuously monitor such pipelines to identify any changes in operating conditions that could necessitate cleaning the lines and accelerating the corrosion control program. While regular cleaning prohibits the build-up of the components that accelerate internal corrosion, the debris recovered from the cleaning process has to the potential to cause negative environmental impacts if it is not properly managed. For example, if the residue is spilled or discharged within the pipeline rights of way, the soil, water, and vegetation within those rights of way could be negatively impacted. Impacts will vary depending on the nature and the volume of residue discharged, the local topography, soil type, hydrogeology, weathering, and other factors. Under certain conditions, areas outside of the rights of way could be negatively affected (for example, if contaminants leach into groundwater). Currently, PHMSA does August 2006 13#

Page 17Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines not dictate any standard cleaning practices nor do they regulate the capture or removal of debris recovered from the cleaning process. However, the disposal of debris and residues from pipeline cleaning is regulated by EPA under the Clean Water Act (PL 97-117) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580). PHMSA assumes that pipeline operators will comply with these EPA regulations when engaged in pipeline cleaning operations. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the proposed rules are expected to be minor. Operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated 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 “regulated 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)8 . 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. Operators of “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” would also be required to establish a leak detection system based on API 1130. Many leak detection systems and methods are used in the operation of pipelines, and, generally, a single pipeline will employ several of these. For example, instrumentation is monitored to detect conditions such as a drop in pressure or a change in the flow rate that might indicate a rupture. Also, lines are frequently inspected on foot, by car or from aircraft. The environmental impacts of these leak detection methods are expected to be negligible. In summary, the Proposed Action Alternative will not result in any significant adverse 8 Operators may choose to employ these risk mitigative measures though they are not a requirement of the rule. August 2006 14#

Page 18Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines 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 and leak detection 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 on rural gathering lines and low-stress lines will be reduced resulting in minor to moderate positive environmental impact that would offset the negative environmental impacts. 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 Evaluation9, 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 are expected to be $4,874,000 in the first year following implementation of the regulations (with $2,115,000 incurred by gathering line operators and $2,759,000 incurred by low stress line operators), $1,940,000 annually in the second through the sixth years (with $193,000 incurred by gathering line operators and $1,747,000 incurred by low stress line operators), and $827,000 annually thereafter (with $193,000 incurred by gathering line operators and $634,000 incurred by low stress line operators). Overall, costs during the first 20 years are expected to have a present value of $21 million using a 3% discount rate and $17 million using a 7% discount rate. Monetized benefits during the first 20 years are expected to have a present value of $49 million using a 3% discount rate and $35 million using a 7% discount rate. In addition to 9 PHMSA, “Regulatory Evaluation, Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines,” Docket No. RSPA-2003-15864, August 2006. August 2006 15#

Page 19Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines 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. August 2006 16#

Page 20Preliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low Stress Lines 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). August 2006 17#