{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e8509a","title":"U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Preliminary Environmental Assessment","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 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... Preliminary 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...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8509a.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8509a.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8509a","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-2003-15864-0037/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nPROTECTING UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS\nFROM RURAL ONSHORE HAZARDOUS LIQUID\nGATHERING LINES AND LOW STRESS LINES\nPreliminary Environmental Assessment\nDocket No. PHMSA-2003-15864\nAugust 2006\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\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nTABLE OF CONTENTS I\nLIST OF ACRONYMS II\n1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1\n1.1 BACKGROUND 1\n1.2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 1\n1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 2\n1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 3\n2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 5\n2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 5\n2.2 ALTERNATIVES INITIALLY CONSIDERED 5\n2.2.1 No Action Alternative 6\n2.2.2 Action Alternative 1: Collect more information about the potential hazards of rural\ngathering lines and low stress lines before proposing any specific safety rules. 6\n2.2.3 Action Alternative 2: Apply all 49 CFR Part 195 rules to “regulated rural onshore\ngathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” 6\n2.2.4 Action Alternative 3: Implement limited operation and maintenance rules, along with\nimplementing reporting rules for accidents and safety-related conditions. 7\n2.2.5 Alternative 4: Develop a completely new set of safety rules for “regulated rural onshore\ngathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” 7\n2.2.6 Alternative 5: Implement limited operation and maintenance rules, along with rules for\nreporting accidents and safety-related conditions plus rules for design, construction, initial\ninspection, and testing, establishment of maximum operating pressure, installation and maintenance\nof line markers, and establishment of integrity assessment and leak detection programs. 8\n2.3 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 8\n2.4 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 9\n3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 10\n3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 10\n3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 11\n3.2.1 No Action Alternative 11\n3.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative 11\n4.0 PREPARERS 17\nAugust 2006 i\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\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\nAugust 2006 ii\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\n1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION\n1.1 BACKGROUND\nLow stress lines generally transport hazardous liquid at low stress levels for relatively\nshort distances to and from refineries and terminals, while gathering lines transport\npetroleum products from production facilities to downstream locations, such as a refinery\nor processing plant.\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA’s) safety rules\nfor hazardous liquid pipelines (49 CFR Part 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by\nPipeline) apply to both offshore and onshore gathering and low stress lines. However,\nsome of these lines are exempt from all or portions of Part 195 regulatory requirements.\nAlthough these particular pipelines may pose little risk overall, some lines are inherently\nriskier than others because they could cause substantial harm to areas PHMSA has\ndefined as needing special protection (unusually sensitive areas1)2\n.\nUnder this proposal, some of these rural lines will no longer be exempt if within a\ndefined buffer zone (1/4 mile) of an unusually sensitive area3\n.\n1.2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION\nPHMSA is proposing to extend certain existing safety rules for the transportation of\nhazardous liquids by pipeline to higher risk hazardous liquid gathering lines and low\nstress lines in onshore rural areas.\nWith respect to hazardous liquid gathering lines, PHMSA is proposing to include higher-\nrisk rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines in a new definition of “regulated rural\nonshore gathering lines”4. Similarly, with respect to rural onshore low stress lines\n1 PHMSA has defined “unusually sensitive areas” in 49 CFR 195.2 and 195.6. These areas are unusually\nsensitive to environmental damage if a hazardous liquid pipe release were to occur because a release into\nthese areas could substantially impact the Nation’s supply of drinking water and endanger public health,\nand create long-term or irrevocable damage to the habitat of threatened and endangered species.\n2 PHMSA generally considers higher risk rural lines to be those rural gathering and low stress pipelines\nlocated within 1/4 mile of an unusually sensitive area (lines in non-rural areas are already regulated by\nPHMSA).\n3 This proposal will not affect other exempt low stress lines, specifically pipelines subject to safety\nregulations of the U.S. Coast Guard, or those pipelines that serve certain refining and terminal facilities, if\nthe pipeline is less than 1-mile long (measured outside of facility grounds) and does not cross offshore\nareas or a waterway currently used for commercial navigation.\n4 Certain hazardous liquid gathering lines are currently regulated. They are sometimes collectively referred\nto as “regulated gathering lines” (e.g., PHMSA’s 2004 annual reports for hazardous liquid pipelines at\nhttp://ops.dot.gov/stats/DT98.htm). Under the proposed rule, PHMSA would define a “regulated rural\nonshore gathering line” as an onshore gathering line in a rural area that: (1) has a nominal diameter of\nbetween 6 5/8 and 8 5/8 inches, (2) operates at a stress level greater than 20 percent of the specified\nminimum yield strength (SMYS) or, if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not constructed with\nsteel pipe, a pressure of more than 125 psig, and (3) is located within 1/4 mile of an unusually sensitive\nAugust 2006 1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\ntransporting hazardous liquids, PHMSA is proposing to include higher-risk rural onshore\nhazardous liquid low stress lines in a new definition of “regulated rural onshore low\nstress lines”5\n.\nPHMSA is proposing to make changes to 49 CFR Part 195 to require operators of\n“regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines”\nto:\nIdentify all segments of such lines within a specified timeframe;\nFollow safety rules for design, installation, construction, initial inspection, and\ninitial testing;\nReport accidents and safety-related conditions, and file annual reports;\nEstablish the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline;\nInstall and maintain line markers;\nEstablish a public education program;\nEstablish a damage prevention program;\nControl corrosion for steel pipelines, including continuous monitoring and\ncleaning; and\nEstablish an operator qualification program.\nFurthermore, PHMSA is proposing that operators of “regulated rural onshore low stress\nlines” also:\nEstablish an integrity assessment program, and assess at regular intervals the\nintegrity of the lines; and\nEstablish and apply a leak detection program.\nThe proposed rules are intended to provide additional protection for unusually sensitive\nareas that could be affected by these lines and improve public confidence in the safety of\nrural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines.\n1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION\nThe purpose of these proposed rules are to improve the safety of onshore hazardous\nliquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas.\nThe need for the action stems from safety concerns expressed by Congress (see below),\nas well as public comments gathered over the past several years and available spill data\nthat show accidents are occurring on unregulated hazardous liquid gathering lines and\nlow stress lines in rural areas. These accidents have the same leading causes as accidents\non regulated non-rural lines, namely corrosion and excavation damage. PHMSA believes\narea.\n5 Under the proposed rule, PHMSA would define a “regulated rural onshore low stress line” as an onshore\nline in a rural area that: (1) has a nominal diameter of 8 5/8 inches or more, (2) operates at a stress level\nequal to or less than 20 percent of the SMYS or, if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not\nconstructed with steel pipe, a pressure of less than 125 psig, and (3) is located within 1/4 mile of an\nunusually sensitive area.\nAugust 2006 2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\nthese unregulated lines may pose a serious risk, especially where the potential exists for a\nspill to cause substantial harm to an unusually sensitive area. PHMSA thus recognizes\nthat it is no longer appropriate to continue to exempt rural onshore hazardous liquid\ngathering lines and low stress lines from safety requirements in Part 195, and that rather,\na safety rule to address this concern is needed.\nCongress realized some rural crude oil gathering lines could pose serious risks. In 1992,\nCongress gave the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) authority to regulate certain\nrural gathering lines based on consideration of risk factors, including diameter, location,\nline length, operating pressure, and throughput. The proposed rules also respond to this\nCongressional concern about the safety of higher-risk rural gathering lines.\nRecent accidents have also demonstrated the need to regulate low stress pipelines near\nunusually sensitive areas. For instance, on March 2, 2006, a spill from BP’s 34-inch\nunregulated low stress pipeline in North Slope Borough, Alaska, released 5,000 barrels of\ncrude oil, impacting the artic tundra and covering approximately 2 acres of permafrost.\nOn March 23, 2006, a spill from BP’s 36-inch low stress pipeline in Toledo, Ohio,\nreleased 200 barrels of unleaded gasoline, some of which found its way into Shantee\nCreek, which flows to Lake Erie. On August 6, 2006, BP found corrosion and leaks in its\nunregulated low stress pipeline in North Slope Borough, Alaska. The discovery of severe\ncorrosion and the leaks caused BP to shut the pipeline down. As a consequence of these\ndiscoveries, part of the massive Prudhoe Bay oilfield had to be shutdown. These and\nprevious accidents on low stress lines caused PHMSA to decide to take regulatory action\nto address rural onshore low stress lines.\n1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT\nIn 2003, PHMSA invited the public to discuss oil and gas gathering line issues. PHMSA\nheld three public meetings, one in Austin, Texas, on November 19-20, 2003 (the notice\nfor this meeting was published on November 5, 2003 (68 FR 62555)), and two in\nAnchorage, Alaska, on January 16-17, 2004 (the notice for this meeting was published on\nDecember 1, 2003 (68 FR 67129). The meetings gave people an opportunity to comment\non what might make regulating the safety of rural gathering lines appropriate, and what\nthe safety rules should be. Transcripts of both meetings were made public via the DOT’s\nDocket Management System (DMS), in Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864.\nIn 2004, following the public meetings, PHMSA published a notice to clarify its plans\nabout regulating rural gathering lines (69 FR 5305; February 4, 2004). The notice\nexplained PHMSA sought comments on a suitable approach to identifying gathering lines\ncommenters thought PHMSA should regulate. The notice also extended the deadline for\nreceipt of written comments to March 4, 2004.\nIn 2006, PHMSA held a public workshop in Alexandria, Virginia, to discuss the need to\nalso regulate 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\nAugust 2006 3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\nmeeting of the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee to\ndiscuss how best to regulate low stress lines to better protect unusually sensitive areas\nfrom spills. The notice for the meeting, as well as comments regarding the regulation of\nrural low stress lines, can be found on the DMS, in Docket No.PHMSA-2004-18938;\nfurther comments can 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.\nThis Draft EA is being made available for public comment concurrent with the\navailability of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for public comment. A final\ndetermination on environmental impact will be made after the end of the comment period\non the NPRM.\nAugust 2006 4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\n2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES\n2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES\nThis EA examines two alternatives: the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action\nAlternative.\nUnder the No Action Alternative, PHMSA would not impose new rules on onshore\nhazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas, nor would they\nactively collect more information about the potential hazards of such pipelines. The\nCouncil on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA requires\nthe analysis of a No Action Alternative, as the No Action Alternative is commonly used\nto define existing conditions of the natural and human-made environments.\nUnder the Proposed Action Alternative, PHMSA would implement, for “regulated rural\nonshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines,” the following\nregulations: limited operation and maintenance rules; reporting rules for accidents and\nsafety-related conditions; rules for design, construction, initial inspection and testing;\nrules for establishment of maximum operating pressure of the pipeline; and rules for\ninstallation and maintenance of line markers. Under the Proposed Action Alternative,\nPHMSA would also require the establishment of integrity assessment and leak detection\nprograms for “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.”\n2.2 ALTERNATIVES INITIALLY CONSIDERED\nPHMSA initially considered the following six alternatives – one no action alternative and\nfive action alternative – to address the safety of onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines\nand low stress lines in rural areas. In addition to the no action alternative, the five action\nalternatives considered were:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Collect more information about the potential hazards of onshore hazardous liquid\ngathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas before proposing any specific\nsafety rules.\nApply all PHMSA safety rules for the transportation of hazardous liquids by\npipeline (i.e., 49 CFR Part 195 rules) to onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines\nand low stress lines in rural areas.\nImplement limited operation and maintenance rules, along with implementing\nreporting rules for accidents and safety-related conditions for “regulated rural\nonshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.”\nDevelop a completely new set of safety rules for “regulated rural onshore\ngathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.”\nImplement limited operation and maintenance rules, along with implementing\nreporting rules for accidents and safety-related conditions for “regulated rural\nonshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” This\nalternative also includes implementing rules for design, construction, initial\nAugust 2006 5\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\ninspection and testing, establishment of maximum operating pressure of the\npipeline, and installation and maintenance of line markers for “regulated rural\nonshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” as well as\nthe establishment of integrity assessment and leak detection programs for\n“regulated rural onshore low stress lines.”\n2.2.1 No Action Alternative\nUnder this alternative, PHMSA would take no action and would not impose new rules on\nonshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas, nor would\nthey actively collect more information about the potential hazards of onshore hazardous\nliquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas. Taking no action would not be\nresponsive to the serious risk that these unregulated lines may pose, especially to\nunusually sensitive areas, and would also not be responsive to the Congressional mandate\nconcerning rural crude oil gathering lines. This alternative would ignore the harm to\npeople and the environment that Federal safety regulations could potentially prevent. For\nthese reasons, the No Action Alternative does not satisfy the need for action, and is thus\nnot a practicable alternative. However, CEQ requires the analysis of a No Action\nAlternative, so it was carried forward for detailed analysis.\n2.2.2 Action Alternative 1: Collect more information about the potential hazards\nof rural gathering lines and low stress lines before proposing any specific\nsafety rules.\nUnder Alternative 1, PHMSA would not propose any specific safety rules, though they\nwould actively collect more information about the potential hazards of onshore hazardous\nliquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural areas. This alternative received some\nsupport from industry, and Congress did grant the DOT specific authority to collect more\ninformation about hazards before proposing any safety rules. This alternative was\nrejected, however, because PHMSA feels there is currently a demonstrated need for\nsafety regulation of onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in rural\nareas. Also, based on PHMSA experience with hazardous liquid pipelines, collecting\nmore information about onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress lines in\nrural areas would be unlikely to change PHMSA’s current understanding of the potential\nrisks these pipelines pose. For these reasons, Alternative 1 was not evaluated further.\n2.2.3 Action Alternative 2: Apply all 49 CFR Part 195 rules to “regulated rural\nonshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.”\nUnder Alternative 2, PHMSA would apply all existing safety regulations in 49 CFR Part\n195 regarding the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline to “regulated rural\nonshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines.” Upon\npreliminary analysis, PHMSA found that this alternative would impose significant costs\non the industry for little safety benefit. Also, the costs to hazardous liquid gathering line\noperators could have a significant effect on U.S. oil supplies by causing production to\nAugust 2006 6\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\ncease many marginal wells. For these reasons, Alternative 2 was dismissed and is not\nevaluated further.\n2.2.4 Action Alternative 3: Implement limited operation and maintenance rules,\nalong with implementing reporting rules for accidents and safety-related\nconditions.\nUnder Alternative 3, PHMSA would impose limited operation and maintenance and\nreporting rules, requiring operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and\n“regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to identify all segments of such lines, report\naccidents and safety-related conditions, establish a public education program, establish a\ndamage prevention program, control corrosion for steel pipelines, and establish an\noperator qualification program.\nThe advantages of Alternative 3 are that PHMSA avoids imposing excessive safety\nregulation by focusing on the leading threats to rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering\nlines and low stress lines – corrosion and excavation damage. Also, the information\ncollected through application of the reporting rules would enable PHMSA to recognize\nsafety problems and evaluate the effectiveness of adopting only limited safety rules. The\ndisadvantages of Alternative 3 are that it would not require operators of “regulated rural\nonshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to follow safety\nrules for the design, construction, initial inspection and testing of new, relocated, or\notherwise changed lines, establish the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline, and\ninstall and maintain line markers. In addition, this alternative would not require operators\nof “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to establish integrity assessment and leak\ndetection programs. These aforementioned actions are important safety measures, and\nsome are considered critical components of pipeline corrosion and damage prevention\nprograms. For example, the use of line markers to warn excavators of the presence of\nhazardous liquid pipelines is a well-established safety practice within the hazardous\nliquid pipeline industry.\nBecause Alternative 3 did not fully satisfy the need for action by its exclusion of certain\ncritical safety measures, it was dismissed and is not evaluated further.\n2.2.5 Alternative 4: Develop a completely new set of safety rules for “regulated\nrural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress\nlines.”\nAlternative 4 would require PHMSA to develop a completely new set of rules regulating\nthe safety of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low\nstress lines.”\nPHMSA does not have any reason to believe that the current 49 CFR Part 195 safety\nrules now in effect for non-rural hazardous liquid gathering and low stress lines would\nnot be as effective if applied to these lines in rural areas. PHMSA experience indicates\nAugust 2006 7\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\nthe Part 195 rules can be expected to work well for rural onshore hazardous liquid\ngathering lines and low stress lines because the integrity threats involved are similar to\nthe threats on non-rural lines. Consequently, Alternative 4 was dismissed and is not\nevaluated further.\n2.2.6 Alternative 5: Implement limited operation and maintenance rules, along\nwith rules for reporting accidents and safety-related conditions plus rules for\ndesign, construction, initial inspection, and testing, establishment of\nmaximum operating pressure, installation and maintenance of line markers,\nand establishment of integrity assessment and leak detection programs.\nAlternative 5 is an expanded version of Alternative 3. In addition to the rules described\nin Alternative 3, this alternative would also require operators of “regulated rural onshore\ngathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to follow safety rules for\ndesign, construction, initial inspection, and testing of new, relocated, or otherwise\nchanged lines, establish the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline, and install and\nmaintain line markers. This alternative would additionally require operators of\n“regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to establish integrity assessment and leak\ndetection programs.\nAlternative 5 was found to fully satisfy the need for action and was carried further for\ndetailed analysis.\n2.3 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE\nAs explained above, PHMSA found that Alternative 5 was the only alternative out of the\nfive action alternatives evaluated that fully satisfied the need for action.\nAlternative 5 requires operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and\n“regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to identify all segments of such lines, report\naccidents and safety-related conditions, establish a public education program, establish a\ndamage prevention program, control corrosion for steel pipelines, and establish an\noperator qualification program. Alternative 5 also requires that operators of “regulated\nrural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” follow safety\nrules for design, construction, initial inspection, and testing of new, relocated, or\notherwise changed lines, establish the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline, and\ninstall and maintain line markers. Finally, Alternative 5 would additionally require\noperators of “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to establish integrity assessment\nand leak detection 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\nAugust 2006 8\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\nhazardous liquid pipeline industry. As such, the approach described in Alternative 5 is\nnot expected to be excessively burdensome to affected pipeline operators.\nFor all the aforementioned reasons and given that Alternative 5 satisfies the need for\naction, Alternative 5 was chosen by PHMSA as the Proposed Action Alternative.\n2.4 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 unusually sensitive areas from the threats posed by\nonshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and 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 unusually sensitive areas, and\nwould also not be responsive to the Congressional mandate concerning rural crude oil\ngathering lines. This alternative would ignore the harm to people and the environment\nthat Federal safety regulations could potentially prevent. Under the No Action\nAlternative, the threats posed by onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low stress\nlines in rural areas to unusually sensitive areas would continue to increase.\nAugust 2006 9\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\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 “regulated\nrural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” exist. .\nHazardous liquid gathering lines can be found in rural and non-rural areas as well as\nonshore and offshore; the Association of Oil Pipelines estimates that between 30,000 and\n40,000 miles of crude oil gathering lines, located primarily in Texas, Oklahoma,\nLouisiana, and Wyoming with small systems in a number of other oil producing states,\nare currently in operation (thirty of the fifty United States are oil producing states and are\nlikely to have gathering lines).6 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 unusually\nsensitive areas in the vicinity of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated\nrural onshore low stress lines.” The proposed safety rules would also require pipeline\noperators to perform physical work along the pipeline rights of way with environmental\nconsequences as discussed below.\nNEPA also requires analysis of socioeconomic consequences; thus, the primary\nstakeholder group potentially affected by the rulemaking – entities that operate “regulated\nrural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” – may be\nconsidered an important part of the “affected environment.” The proposed safety rules\ncould potentially result in placing a disproportionate burden on certain pipeline operators.\nThe pipeline operators impacted by the proposed regulations are expected to be major\npipeline firms.7 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.\n6 See “How Many Pipelines are There?” at http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/energy-pl.html. This\nestimate is for oil producing states. Consequently, it might not include mileage in Outer Continental Shelf\nwaters outside of state control.\n7 The Regulatory Evaluation for the proposed regulations estimates that between 30 and 40 major pipeline\noperators would have pipeline mileage impacted by those proposed regulations.\nAugust 2006 10\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\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, including unusually sensitive areas, around “regulated rural\nonshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” as a result of\nground disturbing activities associated with field verification of pipeline segments,\ninspection and testing activities, the installation and maintenance of line markers, the\ninstallation and maintenance of cathodic protection systems, the activities associated with\nestablishing an integrity assessment program, and the establishment of a leak detection\nsystem.\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. The\nlikelihood of a hazardous liquid spill affecting an unusually sensitive area remains the\nsame and may increase as no new inspection and testing efforts would be conducted to\nhelp ensure pipelines are in a satisfactory condition prior to being placed in service, no\ninformation on accidents and safety-related conditions would need to be reported, no\npublic education programs would be implemented, no damage prevention program to\nreduce the likelihood of an incident arising from excavation damage would be required,\nno control corrosion requirement for steel pipelines would be imposed, no operator\nqualification program would be established, and no integrity assessment program would\nbe established.\nThe No Action Alternative will not result in any socioeconomic impact, as it will no\nimpose any new requirements on operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines”\nand “regulated 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 definitions of “regulated rural onshore gathering line” and “regulated rural\nonshore low stress line” are administrative changes and will require no physical work on\npipelines or their rights of way. As such, there are no direct environmental consequences\nassociated with these new definitions.\nAugust 2006 11\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\nThe proposed rules would require operators to identify all segments of their pipelines\nmeeting the definitions of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural\nonshore low stress lines.” This will largely be an administrative exercise. However,\nsome field verification work may be required to confirm line sizes, operating conditions,\nand proximity to unusually sensitive areas. This could result in minor ground\ndisturbances through unusually sensitive areas to access pipelines. However, these\nimpacts are expected to be negligible since the operator likely maintains regular access to\nsuch areas already for routine operation and maintenance activities.\nUnder the proposed rules, operators will be required to follow safety rules in 49 CFR Part\n195.5 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.\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.\nThe proposed rules would require operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines”\nand “regulated rural onshore low stress lines” to establish the maximum operating\npressure of the pipeline in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195.406. Establishing the\nmaximum operating pressure does not require any physical work along the pipeline.\nInstead, this involves a review of pipeline records to identify the pressures for which the\npipeline was designed. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts associated with\nthis requirement.\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.\nAugust 2006 12\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nPreliminary EA: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas from Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering\nLines and Low Stress Lines\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 “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural onshore low\nstress lines” would be required to implement a damage prevention program in accordance\nwith 49 CFR Part 195.442. This involves membership in a one-call program and would\nnot require any intrusive work along the pipeline. This requirement would also have a\nnet positive impact on the environment since it is intended to reduce the likelihood of\nincidents arising from excavation damage.\nUnder the proposed rules, operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and\n“regulated rural onshore low stress lines” would be required to meet the control corrosion\nrequirements for steel pipelines contained in 49 CFR Part 195 Subpart H. This involves\nthe installation and maintenance of cathodic protection systems. Many operators of steel\nlines not currently subject to regulation have already installed cathodic protection\nsystems. These systems provide protection against external corrosion, a predominant\ncause of pipeline leaks and failures. Operators have an economic incentive to install such\nsystems, to protect the valuable assets represented by their pipelines; PHMSA believes\nmany pipeline operators installed such systems when their pipelines were installed. For\npipelines that will become newly regulated, but for which cathodic protection systems\nwere not previously installed, such systems may need to be retrofitted. Installation of\nthese systems involves excavating predetermined locations along the rights of way to\ninstall sacrificial anodes and the installation of current rectifiers to impose an electrical\ncurrent on the pipeline. The type of localized ground disturbance associated with these\ninstallations is typically minimal and does not affect the environment beyond the\nimmediate vicinity of the pipeline. These disturbances would have far less impact than\nthe potential consequences of a pipeline accident (especially to threatened and\nendangered species and drinking water resources) that could occur if corrosion caused a\nfailure of the pipeline. In PHMSA’s experience, the benefits of installing cathodic\nprotection to prevent corrosion would offset the minor adverse impacts of localized\nground disturbances.\nIn addition, operators of “regulated rural onshore gathering lines” and “regulated rural\nonshore low stress lines” will also be required to continuously monitor such pipelines to\nidentify any changes in operating conditions that could necessitate cleaning the lines and\naccelerating the corrosion control program. While regular cleaning prohibits the build-up\nof the components that accelerate internal corrosion, the debris recovered from the\ncleaning process has to the potential to cause negative environmental impacts if it is not\nproperly managed. For example, if the residue is spilled or discharged within the pipeline\nrights of way, the soil, water, and vegetation within those rights of way could be\nnegatively impacted. Impacts will vary depending on the nature and the volume of\nresidue discharged, the local topography, soil type, hydrogeology,","truncated":true,"body_characters":48957}