U.S. DOT/RSPA - Environmental Assessment-Revised August 2003, Final Rule, Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines)

Page 1- Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Environmental Assessment - Revised August 2003 Final Rule Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines) Docket: RSPA-00-7666; Amendment 192-95 RIN 2137-AD54#

Page 2Table of Contents Summary A. Purpose and Need for Action B. Description of Action C. Alternatives Considered D. Affected Environment E. Environmental Consequences of Action and Alternatives E. 1 Enviroiiinental Consequences of Action E.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives F. Environmental Justice Considerations G . Information Made Available to States, Local Governments, and Individuals H. List of Agencies and Persons Consulted I. Conclusion .. 11 ... 111 1 1 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 9#

Page 3Summary This document is an update of the Environmental Assessment prepared in support of the proposed rule to establish integrity management program requirements for operators of natural gas transmission pipelines (68 FR 4278: January 28,2003). The document was modified to reflect changes that were made to the proposed requirements in response to public comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environniental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. Section 4332)’ the Couiicil on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Sections 1500-1 508), and Department of Transportation Order 5610. IC, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. It was prepared to assist in thc agency’s planning and decision-making. This document describes the Research and Special Programs Administration’s (RSPA) final nile to establish integrity management program requirements for operators of natural gas transmission pipelines, the alternative requirements considered, the environment affected by this action, the consequences to the environment of the action and the alternatives, and a list of the agencies and organizations consulted. This document, along with the Environmental Assessment prepared in June 2002, provides sufficient evidence to determine that the provisions of the final rule are expected to have no significant impact on the environment. ... 111#

Page 4A. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for this action was described in the Environmental Assessment that accompanied the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to define requirements for gas pipeline integrity management program in high consequence areas’. The Environmental Assessment’ is available in the Docket (#7666). This document updates the earlier analysis to reflect the changed provisions in the final rule. A number of individuals and organizations provided comment on the proposed rule described in the NPRM. These comments are available in the Docket and summarized in the preamble to the final rule. In response to comments, RSPA modified the proposed rule language, altering the definition of high consequence areas, the allowable intervals for integrity reassessments, the allowable assessment intervals for direct assessment, requirements for preventive and mitigative measures, and requirements for confirmatory direct assessment. The provisions of the final rule are described in Section B. B. Description of Action RSPA is adding a new section to 49 CFR 192 to establish integrity management program requirements for operators of natural gas transmission pipelines. The rule requires each operator to develop and implement an integrity management program that provides for continual assessment of the integrity of all pipeline segments located in high consequence areas. The proposed rule further requires that the program evaluate the entire range of threats to each pipeline segment’s integrity through comprehensive information analysis and ensure additional protection to a pipeline segment’s integrity though remedial actions and preventive and mitigative measures. The nile applies to all gas transmission pipelines, as defined in Section 192.3. This includes transmission pipelines transporting petroleum gas, hydrogen, and other gas products covered under Part 192. The rule requires that no later than one year from the rule effective date, an operator of a covered pipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity management program that contains all the elements listed below and that addresses the risks on each covered segment. The initial integrity management program must consist, at a minimum, of a framework describing how each I “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines),” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 68 FR 4278, January 28, 2003. 2 “Environmental Assessment: Proposed Rulemaking Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines),” Docket: RSPA-OO- 7666, June, 2002. 1#

Page 5element will be implemented, how relevant decisions will be made, and what near-term improvements are planned. As an operator further develops the integrity management program, the operator must document all actions the operator will take to implement each element. An operator’s initial integrity management program framework and subsequent integrity management program must, at minimum, contain the following elements: (a) An identification of all high consequence areas that define segments - covered by the rule. The rule has added to the definition of high consequence areas from the previously issued rule on high consequence areas for gas transmission pipelines’ and has changed the definition in the proposed rulc. The rule includes, as a high consequence area, any area outside a Class 3 or Class 4 location where the potential impact radius4 is greater than 660 feet and the area within a potential impact circle contains 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy. The definition of high consequence areas in the rule includes “identified sites”: locations where people congregate and locations occupied by persons of limited mobility. The rule involves the use of local public safety or emergency planning organizations to provide information on the locations of identified sites. (b) A baseline integrity assessnient plan including all covered segments. This plan must include the assessment method, the schedule for completion of assessments, and explanation of the choice of assessment methods and the risk factors considered in establishing the assessment schedule. The assessment method used could be an internal inspection tool or tools, pressure test, Direct Assessment, or other technology that the operator demonstrates can provide an equivalent understanding of the condition of the line pipe. The required completion date for all baseline assessments is the same whether or not direct assessment is used as the assessment method. (c) An identification of threats to each covered pipeline segment, which must include a risk assessment to evaluate the failure likelihood of each covered segment. An operator must use the threat identification and risk assessment to prioritize covered segments for assessment and to evaluate the merits of additional preventive and mitigative measures for each covered segment. (d) A direct assessment plan, if direct assessment is used as an integrity assessment method. (e) Provisions for remediating conditions found during an integrity assessment. (9 A process for continual evaluation and assessment. Unlike the proposed rule, the required interval for completing integrity reassessments is the same whether or not direct assessment is used as the assessment method. The reassessment intervals now required by the rule are seven 3 “Pipeline Safety: High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines,’’ Final Rule, 67 FR 50824, August 6, 2002. 4 A distance that represents the extent of the area that could be impacted by a pipeline leak, calculated based on pipeline characteristics. 2#

Page 6years by one of the allowed assessment methods, unless the operator establishes that a longer interval is sufficient. However, if under one of the methods, an operator establishes an interval longer than seven years, a reassessment by confirmatory direct assessment must be done by the seventh year. If a pipeline operates above 50% SMYS, the maximum interval is ten years with a confirmatory direct assessment by the seventh year. For pipelines operating between 30% and 50% SMYS, the maximum interval is fifteen years, with confirmatory direct assessment in the seventh and 14“’ years. And for pipelines operating below 30% SMYS, the maximum is twenty years, with either a confirmatory direct assessment, or a low-stress reassessment in the seventh and 14‘” years. A low stress reassessment involves electrical surveys. (g) A plan for confirmatorv direct assessment, if this assessment method is used as part of the operator’s process for continual evaluation and assessment. (h) Provisions for evaluating and carrying - out additional preventive and mitigative measures to protect high consequence areas. The rule requirks these evaluations for all covered segments, regardless of operating pressure. (i) A performance plan that includes performance measures. (j) Record keeping provisions. (k ) A management of change process. (1) A quality assurance process. (m) A communication plan that includes procedures for addressing safety concerns raised by OPS and State or local pipeline safety authorities. (n) Procedures for providing (when requested), by electronic or other means, a copy of the operator’s risk analysis or integrity management program to OPS or State or local pipeline safety authorities with which OPS has an interstate agent agreement. (0) Procedures for ensuring that each integrity assessment is being conducted in a manner that minimizes environmental and safety risks. (p) A process for identification and assessment of newly-identified high consequence areas. Further definition of requirements for these integrity management program elements is found in sections of the rule and in ASME/ANSI Standard B31.8S. C. Alternatives Considered 3#

Page 7RSPA considered alternatives in the decision process that led to the high consequence area definition given in Section B above. These alternatives are summarized below: 1, Take No Action. In this alternative, RSPA would not propose new integrity management requirements for high consequence areas but would rely on the existing regulatory requirements to protect all areas. This alternative would not be responsive to Congressional mandates or NTSB recommendations. This alternative would not provide the protection provided by the rule of required integrity assessment and repair of detected defects or the consideration of additional preventive and mitigative measures to protect high consequence areas. 2. Use the Same Provisions as in the Hazardous Liquids Integritv Management Rule ( I 92.452). The main differences between the rule and the requirements of 192.452 are: A. the time limits for completing the baseline integrity assessment and reassessment of pipeline segments that could affect high consequence areas and B. the option of using direct assessment as an assessment method (not allowed in 192.452). The time limit for baseline assessment under the liquid rule is seven years, while the limit for baseline assessments under the gas rule is ten years. The liquid pipeline rule requires reassessment every five years, while the gas rule allows a maximum interval for reassessment of ten years (for pipelines operating above 50% SMYS), fifteen years (for pipelines operating between 30% and 50% SMYS), or twenty years (for pipelines operating below 30% SMYS), if confirmatory direct assessment is done every seven years. OPS believes that requiring the shorter periods for completing baseline assessments and reassessments would cause negative impacts on gas supply, the cost of gas to consumers, and the quality of integrity assessment services. In addition, gas transmission pipelines in high population areas generally operate at lower stresses than liquid pipelines in populated areas, which lowers the risk from allowing longer intervals to complete baseline assessments and longer intervals between reassessments. Studies indicate that internal inspection is not possible for a substantial percentage of gas transmission lines, except at high cost. Pressure testing all these lines could impose negative effects on the supply of gas to consumers. Direct assessment is the only assessment method that could be employed in these lines to avoid these negative impacts. Hence, it is important for the gas rule to allow direct assessnient as an assessment method. Because of the significant differences between gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines, OPS has defined different provisions for the gas integrity management rule than the provisions for liquid pipelines under 195.452. D. Affected Environment 4#

Page 8The purpose of the rule is to provide additional protection to high consequence areas in the vicinity of gas transmission pipelines throughout the United States. The baseline integrity assessment, periodic reassessments, and additional preventive and mitigative activities apply to segments on the operator’s pipeline that could affect high consequence areas. Thus the primary areas of the environment impacted by this rule are high consequence areas, as defined in the rule for defining high consequence areas for gas transmission pipelines’ and further defined in the integrity management rule (see Section B above). The actions that operators take to comply with the integrity management rule are likely to affect areas of the environment beyond the defined high consequence areas. For example, some operators will choose to use internal inspection to fulfill certain rule requirements. Because the launchers and receivers used to insert and remove internal inspection tools can be located many miles apart, a large extent of pipe may be inspected beyond the portion of the pipe located in high consequence areas. Thus, in addition to the information about the condition of the line segment that could affect a high consequence area, the operator may obtain integrity data about a much larger section of pipe. Similarly, the evaluation and potential implementation of additional preventive and mitigative measures can affect additional areas beyond the boundaries of high consequence areas. For example, if Remove Control Valves (RCVs) are installed to mitigate the release of gas following a line rupture or leak, then this mitigation extends along the full length of the section of the pipe between valves. This may include both pipe segments that could affect high consequence areas and segments that do not affect high consequence areas. The changes to the rule that have been included since the NPRM do not change the type of environment affected by the rule. E. Environmental Consequences of Action and Alternatives This section describes the expected impact to the environment from the action (Section E.l) and the alternatives (Section E.2). E. 1 Environmental Consequences of Action The baseline integrity assessment (pressure testing, internal inspection, or direct assessment), the subsequent integrity reassessments, the integrated and continuous evaluation of line integrity, additional preventive and mitigative measures that may be implemented for pipeline segments affecting high consequence areas, and performance measurement of the integrity management program will result in positive environmental impacts. The number of incidents and the 5 67 FR 50824. 5#

Page 9cnvironniental damage from failures of segments that are in high consequence areas are likely to be reduccd. However, from a national perspective, the impact is not expected to be significant. The overall result of the changes to the rule since the NPRM is to reduce the number of pipeline segments that are covered by the rule (due to changes to the definition of a high consequence area), to reduce the frequency of reassessments for some pipelines, and to reduce the frequency of direct assessments. This somewhat reduces the positive effects of the rule on the likelihood of incidents. Because integrity assessments will be required for fewer pipeline segments and required to be less frequent, the discovery of pipeline conditions during assessments and remediation of those conditions will likely occur less frequently. The net effect of the rule, however, is still expected to be a reduction in incidents and environmental damage. E.2 Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives E.2.1 Tuke No Action Under this alternative, RSPA would not require additional operator programs for integrity management of gas pipelines in high consequence areas. This alternative would have no additional impact on the environment. E.2.2 Use the Same Provisions as in the Hazurdozw Liquids Integrity Matzagement Rule ( 1 92.452) Under this alternative, the integrity management rule for gas transmission pipelines would adopt the sanie provisions as the integrity management rule for hazardous liquid pipelines. As stated in Section C, the primary differences between the gas rule and the liquid rule are that the gas rule allows longer intervals to complete the baseline integrity assessments and reassessments and that the gas rule allows the use of direct assessment as an integrity assessment method. This alternative would have the same overall effect on the environment that would be provided by the rule. Shorter intervals for completing the baseline integrity assessments and reassessments might provide a small degree of additional reduction in the failure rate of pipeline segments that could affect high consequence areas, but this additional protection would be small, while the practical difficulties of accelerating the schedule of baseline assessments (see Section C) could result in reduccd quality of assessment information. Without the option of direct assessment, gas operators would have to conduct pressure tests on a much larger portion of the pipe segments for which pigging is not feasible, with potential negative impacts on gas supply and price to the consumer, but without additional protection of the population or environment. F. Environmental Justice Considerations In accordance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations), RSPA has considered the effects on minority and G#

Page 10low-income populations of the provisions of this rule. This mlemaking action proposes to define new requirements for integrity management for gas transmission pipelines in high consequence areas. These requirements provide additional protection for those areas. The requirements apply nation-wide and do not specifically target any community, based on the income or economic status of the community. The additional protection afforded by the requirements will benefit all citizens in proximity to gas transmission pipelines, regardless of a person’s economic or minority status. Therefore, the action does not have disproportionately high or adverse health or environmental effects on any minority or low-income populations near gas transmission pipelines. G. Information Made AvaiIable to States, Local Governments, and Individuals RSPA has made the following documents publicly available, and incorporates them by reference into this environmental assessment: “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines),” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 68 FR 4278, January 28, 2003. “Pipeline Safety: High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines,” Final Rule, 67 FR 50824, August 6,2002. “Environmental Assessment-Revised August 2002 Final Rule High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines,” Docket: RSPA-00-7666, August, 2002. “Environmental Assessment: Proposed Rulemaking Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines),” Docket: RSPA-00-7666, June, 2002. “Pipeline Safety: High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 67 FR 1108, January 9, 2002. “Environmental Assessment: Proposed Rulemaking High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines,” Docket: RSPA-00-7666, January, 2002. “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines),” Notice of Request for Comnients, 66 FR 343 18, June 27, 2001. “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators With Less Than 500 Miles of Pipelines),” Final Rule, 67 FR 2136, January 16, 2002. “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous 7#

Page 11a a a a 0 Liquid Operators With Less Than 500 Miles of Pipelines),” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 66 FR 15821, March 21, 2001. “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas,” Final Rule, 65 FR 75378, December I , 2000. “Environmental Assessment: Final Rule Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Operators Operating 500 or More Miles of Pipe,” Docket: RSPA 99-6355, November 13, 2000. “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 21695, April 24, 2000. “Environmental Assessment: Proposed Rulemaking Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Operators Operating 500 or More Miles of Pipe,” Docket: RSPA 99-6355, April 2000. “Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Safety and Environmental Protection for Gas Transmission and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in High-Consequence Areas,” Notice Extending Comment Period and Establishing Electronic Public Discussion Forum, 64 FR 7171 3, December 22, 1999. a “Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Safety and Environmental Protection for Gas Transmission and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in High Consequence Areas,” 64 FR 56725, October 21, 1999. H. List of Agencies and Persons Consulted During the process of developing the integrity management rule, RSPA interacted and consulted with numerous organizations. These participants included: a Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) a American Gas Association (AGA) a Battelle Memorial Institute a Gas Technology Institute (GTI) a Western States Land Commissioners a National Governors Association 8#

Page 12e National League of Cities National Council of State Legislators Environmental Defense Fund 0 Public Interest Reform Group e Working Group on Communities Right-To-Know I. Conclusion Gas pipeline failures that impact human health or the environment occur infrequently. Nonetheless, RSPA believes additional assurance of a pipeline system’s integrity is important for areas where the consequences of a gas pipeline failure could be significant. The iule defines integrity management requirements to provide additional assurance. This Environmental Assessment has determined that the effect of the rule should be reduced risk associated with pipelines operating in the vicinity of high consequence areas. However, because the environniental consequences of gas pipeline failures are limited and some pipeline operators are currently carrying out activities similar to what the rule proposes, the impact is expected to be limited. Therefore, RSPA has concluded that the rule’s requirements for gas pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas will not have a significant environmental impact. 9#