U.S. DOT/RSPA - Environmental Assessment - Revised August 2002 - Final Rule - High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines

Page 1Research and Special Programs Administration US. Department of Transportation Environmental Assessment - Revised August 2002 Final Rule High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines Docket: RSPA-00-7666 -- I(J & RIN 2137-AD64#

Page 2Table of Contents Summary A. B. Purpose and Need for Action Description of Action C. Alternatives Considered D. Affected Environment E. E. 1 Environmental Consequences of Action and Alternatives Environmental Consequences of Action E.2 E.2.1 E.2.2 E.2.3 Environmental Consequences of Altematives Take No Action Define high consequence areas as Class 3 and Class 4 Areas Define high consequence areas using the definition of high population areas from tj 195.450 F. Environmental Justice Considerations G. Information Made Available to States, Local Governments, and Individuals H. List of Agencies and Persons Consulted I. Conclusion .. 11 i ,i 1 1 2 3 4 5 7 7 7 8 8 9 10 10#

Page 3Summary This document is an update of the Environmental Assessment prepared in support of the proposed rule defining high consequence areas (67 FR 1108: Jan. 9,2002). The document was modified to reflect changes that were made to the definition in response to public comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. Section 4332), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Sections 1500-1508), and Department of Transportation Order 5610.lc, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. It was prepared to assist in the agency’s planning and decision-making. This document describes the Research and Special Programs Administration’s (RSPA) final rule to define high consequence areas for gas transmission pipelines, the alternative definitions considered, the environment affected by this action, the consequences to the environment of the action and the alternatives, and a list of the agencies ancl organizations consulted. This document, along with the Environmental Assessment prepared in January 2002, provide 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 high consequence areas (67 Fed. Reg. 1108 Jan. 9, 2002). The Environmental Assessment is available in the Docket (#7666). This document updates the earlier analysis to reflect the 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 synthesizing this feedback, RSPA modified the proposed rule language, to provide for small, low pressure pipelines; to clarify the definition of places where persons congregate; and to clarify the definition of buildings that contain persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility or would be difficult to evacuate. The provisions of the final rule are described in Section B. RSPA plans to propose rules on pipeline integrity management for interstate and intrastate natural gas operators in the near fiture. The specific requirements of those rules and the environmental impacts associated with those requirements will be considered in the rulemaking process. B. Description of Action RSPA is adding a new section to 49 CFR 192 defining high consequence areas for gas transmission pipelines. The definition includes - Class 3 areas under 0 192.5. Class 3 areas are defined as a class location units with 46 ,)r more buildings intended for human occupancy. A class location unit is an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous one-mile length of pipeline. A class 3 area is also an area where the pipeline lies within 100 yards of eithei a building or a small, well-defined outside area, such as a playground, recreation area, outdoor theater, or other place of public assembly, which is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month period. Neither the daj s nor the weeks need be consecutive. Class 4 areas under tj 192.5. A Class 4 area is any class location unit where buildings with four or more stories are prevalent. For a pipeline not more than 12 inches in nominal diameter and operating at a maximum allowable operating pressure of not more than 1200 p.s.i.g., an area which extends 300 feet from the centerline of the pipeline to the identified site (see definition in (0 below); For a pipeline greater than 30 inches in nominal diameter and operating at a maximum allowable operating pressure greater than 1000 p.s.i.g., an area which extends 1000 feel 1#

Page 5from the centerline of the pipeline to the identified site (see definition in (f) below); For a pipeline not described in paragraph (c) or (d), an area which extends 660 feet from the centerline of the pipeline to the identified site (see definition in ( f ) below). An identified site. An identified site is a building or outside area that- (1) is visibly marked; (2) is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local agency; (3) is known by public officials; or (4) is on a list or map maintained by or available from a Federal, State, or local agency 01: a publicly or commercially available database; and (5) is occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate. Examples include, but are not limited to hospitals, prisons, school: #, day-care facilities, retirement facilities, and assisted-living facilities; or (6) there is evidence of use of the site by at least 20 or more persons on at least 50 days j n any 12-month period. (The days need not be consecutive.) Examples include, but are nl I t limited to, beaches, playgrounds, recreational facilities, camping grounds, outdoor theaters, stadiums, religious facilities, and recreational areas near bodies of water. The high consequence area definition here has been changed from that included in the proposec rule (67 FR 1 108). The definition here has added a separate definition of high consequence are: s around small-diameter, low-pressure pipelines (under (c) above); this definition applies if sites that contain persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility or would be difficult to evacua e or sites where persons congregate are located are within 300 feet of these pipelines. In addition the definition here has clarified the definition of sites that contain persons who are confined, ar' ; of impaired mobility or would be difficult to evacuate (see (f)(l)-(5) above) and sites where persons congregate (see (f)( 1)-(4), (f)(6) above). C. Alternatives Considered RSPA 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 define areas of high consequence but would rely on the existing regulatory requirements to provide protection for all areas. This alternative would not be responsive to Congressional mandates or NTSB recommendations. 2. Define high consequence areas as any Class 3 or Class 4 Area. In this alternative, high consequence areas would be limited to pipeline segments adjacent to Class 3 or Class 4 areas. This option would include populated areas but exclude sites occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate (e.g., hospitals, prisons, 2#

Page 6schools, day-care facilities, retirement facilities, assisted-living facilities). It would also exclude sites where persons congregate (e.g., beaches, playgrounds, recreational facilities, camping grounds, outdoor theaters, stadiums, religious facilities, and recreational areas near bodies of water). This alternative definition would likely result in fewer areas receiving additional protection. 3. Define high consequence areas using the definition of high population areas from 6 195.450 The definition of high consequence areas for hazardous liquid pipeline integrity management requirements (49 CFR 195.450) includes high population areas, which are urbanized areas, as defined and delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau, that contain 50,000 or more people and have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. Under this alternative, high consequence areas for gas pipeline integrity management would use the Census Bureau definitil )n of high population areas. This would capture pipelines within the boundaries of larger towns and cities, many of the areas where a gas pipeline failure could have significant consequences. However, some of the areas that would be included under this alternative would not necessarily be areas of high population density or heavy development, because the boundaries defined by tl Le Census Bureau might include some areas of low population density. Also, some Class 3 or Class 4 areas may be excluded by this alternative, if the Class 3 or Class 4 locations do not lie within the boundaries of the Census Bureau units. RSPA believes the rule’s definition has certain features that make it superior to this alternative By using the class location scheme contained in 49 CFR 192.5 to identify high consequence areas, gas pipeline operators will use information they are already required to obtain and maint %in on the development and population density near pipelines. Including Class 3 and Class 4 locations ensures that areas where population density and development are greatest are protect :d. In addition, the rule’s definition includes sites occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate and sites where persons congregate, while this alternative would not. D. Affected Environment This rule defines high consequence areas throughout the United States that may be affected b! ’ gas pipelines. The intent is that future rules will define requirements for integrity managemerit on gas transmission pipeline segments that are in those high consequence areas. Thus, the are is of the environment potentially impacted are those that fall within the definition. AAer they are initially established, high consequence areas will be updated on a periodic basi ; to incorporate new information and data, For example, as communities and populations grow, tlie extent of Class 3 locations (as defined in §192S(b)(3)(i) and §192.5(b)(3)(ii)) may expand. IFSO, the operator will need to apply any integrity management requirements to the expanded area. The frequency at which these updates will be necessary has not been determined. 3#

Page 7In addition to the defined areas, the provisions of a proposed integrity management rule are likellf to affect areas of the environment beyond the high consequence area. For example, if integrity assessment is required, we expect some operators will choose to use internal inspection devices to fulfill the requirement. Due to economic and operational considerations, the launchers and receivers used to insert and remove internal inspection devices are typically located at compressor stations or other isolation points, which may be many miles apart. Even though a high consequence area may exist for only a short distance along the line, because of the location of inspection device launchers and receivers, operators will likely inspect the entire extended length. Thus, in addition to the information about the condition of the line in a high consequenr e area, the operator will obtain integrity data about a much larger segment of pipe. E. Environmental Consequences of Action and Alternatives This section describes the expected impact to the environment from the rule’s definition of hi@ consequence areas (Section E. 1) and the alternatives (Section E.2). Gas transmission pipelines transport pressurized natural gas, which is lighter than air and flammable. If released as a result of a pipeline leak or rupture, natural gas can potentially ignitc , causing fires or explosions. Industry experience demonstrates that environmental consequence: I of pipeline rupture-initiated fires are almost always limited to localized damage to the vegetatic n and animal life in the area adjacent to the failure site. It is possible that a rupture occurring in a heavily forested area in the dry season could result in a forest fire, which would have a more extensive impact on wildlife and vegetation. However, the likelihood of such an occurrence is believed to be very low. Other than local damage in the event of a fire or explosion, there are r o significant environmental impacts from natural gas pipeline leaks or ruptures. Unlike hazardot is liquid pipelines, ruptures of gas pipelines would not result in liquid releases that could flow int I bodies of water and be transported further away from the failure site nor would gas fi-om the release impact groundwater. This rule defines high consequence areas for natural gas transmission pipelines. The definition will be used in a forthcoming rulemaking that addresses integrity management program requirements for pipelines in and near these areas. Because there are no requirements yet, thc precise environmental consequences to the high consequence areas cannot be assessed. We will evaluate these consequences when we propose integrity management program requirements. E. 1 Environmental Consequences of Action As presented in the June 27,2001 Notice requesting information on gas pipeline integrity management concepts (66 FR 343 18), at least seven elements are involved. The first element, A definition of high consequence areas, is the action covered here. The other six elements concc m the additional actions pipeline operators could take for those pipeline segments that could affei:t a high consequence area. This section considers the potential general environmental effects on 4#

Page 8high consequence areas of such actions. 1. Identification and evaluation of the threats to pipeline integsity in each high conseauencc area. - A possible requirement would be for operators to conduct a comprehensive and integratc d analysis of threats to a high consequence area from pipelines in the vicinity. 2. Selection of assessment technologies 3. 2. 3. Another possible action would be to require operators to perform a baseline assessment If pipeline integrity along all segments that could affect a high consequence area. Such ar . assessment could determine which pipeline segments need to be repaired. Different assessment technologies will be more effective and practical, depending on the characteristics of the pipeline and the surrounding area. Some of the choices in technology (e.g., in line inspection, pressure testing) have minor environmental impacts associated with their use, but these are more than offset by the positive effects of increased prevention of pipeline failures assured by an effective baseline integrity assessment and repair of discovered problems. These issues are treated in depth in the Environmental Assessment (Docket # 99-6355) prepared for the Liquid Pipeline Integri y Management Rule (65 FR 75378). Determination of time frames to conduct a baseline integritv assessment and to make ar needed repair. This possible requirement would ensure that the baseline assessment and associated repairs are carried out so that the highest risk segments are addressed first. Potential harmful effects on the environment from pipe failure would be addressed according to 1 he level of risk associated with each pipeline segment. Identification and implementation of additional preventive and mitigative measures appropriate to manage significant threats. Under such a requirement, an operator would examine the entire range of threats to pipeline integrity and integrate information from all relevant sources. The objective of this evaluation would be to identify location-specific conditions that might pose significant risks to a high consequence area, prioritize these risks, and consider what actions might be warranted to address the most important risks. Continual evaluation and reassessment at specified intervals. Another possible requirement would be for operators to follow up the baseline integrit 1 assessment with periodic reassessment of pipeline integrity. Continued protection of 5#

Page 9pipeline integrity will help to prevent failures in and near the high consequence areas. A: L stated for element 2 above, some of the assessment technologies that operators might employ in the reassessment have minor negative environmental impacts, but OPS considers these much lower than the positive effects of continued protection of pipelines and repair of any threats to integrity. A thorough discussion of this issue is included in tk e Environmental Assessment (Docket # 99-6355) prepared for the Liquid Pipeline Integrit:lr Management Rule (65 FR 75378). 4. Monitoring the effectiveness of the management process. This element of an integrity management program would have operators evaluate the effectiveness of their integrity management program through performance measurement This evaluation would assure that the program is continually effective in managing and reducing risk in high consequence areas. The existing pipeline safety regulations already provide additional protection for populated are: s. Regulations for integrity management of gas transmission pipelines in the areas defined as higl L consequence areas will add on to and extend these protections. The definition of high consequence areas given here has changed from the definition included i n the proposed rule (67 FR 1 108). This revised definition has potentially reduced the extent of hi i;h consequence areas by reducing the distance from small-diameter, lower-pressure pipelines that is considered (300 feet vs. 660 or 1000 feet for larger-diameter, higher-pressure pipelines). Although this change may cause a smaller total area to defined within high consequence areas, the small-diameter, low-pressure pipelines covered by the changes to the definition have a low :r potential for adverse impacts on the area surrounding the pipeline than pipelines that are larger or operate at higher pressure. The 300-foot zone around smaller, lower-pressure pipelines that is ( if concern for sites that contain persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate or sites where persons congregate covers the area that is likely to be impacted by a pipeline failure. Therefore, the impact of this change to the definition does not have a significant effect on the environment. Summarv of Expected Environmental Impacts for the Rule The rule defines high consequence areas for gas pipeline integrity management. Although the definition of high consequence area does not, by itself, have any impact on the environment, OPS’s intent is to reduce the likelihood of gas pipeline failures in the vicinity of high consequence areas. As discussed above, the revised definition of high consequence areas has resulted in potentially fewer areas being defined as high consequence areas, but this change is considered to have an insignificant effect on the risk of adverse impacts to the environment. 7 he expected reduction of pipeline failures will reduce the impacts of pipelines on the environmelit, but because the environmental impacts of releases from gas pipelines are limited, this reductii m in environmental risk is expected to be small. 6#

Page 10Based on this analysis, RSPA has determined that the definition of high consequence areas for gas pipelines will not have a significant environmental impact. E.2 Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives E.2.1 Take No Action. Under this alternative, RSPA would not define high consequence areas that need additional protection from gas pipeline failures. Existing pipeline operator integrity management activities’ (both those required by Part 192, and those the operators perform voluntarily), as well as OPS oversight, would continue. This alternative would have no additional impact on the environment. Any benefits to high consequence areas from requirements for increased integrity assessment and more formal and integrated approaches to integrity management would not be realized under this alternative. E.2.2 Define high consequence areas as Class 3 and Class 4 areas Under this alternative, only the first two parts of the definition in Section B above would be included. Only Class 3 and 4 areas would receive additional required protection. Thus, any positive effects on the environment would likely be realized for fewer segments of gas pipeline than under the rule. E.2.3 Define high consequence areas using the definition of high Bopulation areas from 3 195.450 Under this alternative, the Census Bureau’s definition of high population areas would be used ti ) define high consequence areas for gas pipelines. As stated above in Section C, this alternative definition would likely cover many of the same areas covered by the definition in Section B above. However, this alternative would not necessarily include all developed areas near gas pipelines encompassed by Class 3 and Class 4 areas and might include areas that do not have a high density of buildings intended for human occupancy. Also, this alternative might not incluc le sites occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate and sites where persons congregate, if such sites are outside the boundaries of Census Bureau high population areas. Most populated areas would receive additional protection under this alternative. However, because the Census Bureau’s definition does not necessarily coincide with the populated areas included under the rule, different areas would be likely to benefit from the increased protection Some areas that would be designated as high consequence areas under this alternative would not be included under the rule. Similarly, some areas that would be included as under the definitio 1 in Section B above would not be included under the Census Bureau’s definition. The overall 7#

Page 11difference between the net environmental effect under this alternative and the net effect under th e rule cannot be ascertained precisely. Both are expected to realize net positive effects, but for different areas. In neither case are the effects expected to be significant. F. Environmental Justice Considerations In accordance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice i n Minority and Low-Income Populations), RSPA has considered the effects on minority and low-income populations of the provisions of this rule. This rulemaking action defines high consequence areas for gas transmission pipelines with the assumption that requirements for integrity management for those pipeline segments in these defined areas will soon be proposed. These future requirements will provide additional protection for those areas. The definition of high consequence areas in Section B above applies nation-wide and does not specifically target any community, based on the income or economic status of the community. The additional protection that will be eventually proposed for the areas covered by the definitioii will benefit all citizens in proximity to gas transmission pipelines, regardless of their economic or minority status. Therefore, the rule does not have disproportionately high or adverse health I )r environmental effects on any minority or low-income populations near gas transmission pipelines. G. Information Made Available to States, Local Governments, and Individuals RSPA has made the following documents publicly available, and incorporates them by referenc :e into this environmental assessment: 0 “Environmental Assessment: Proposed Rulemaking High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines,” Docket: RSPA-00-7666, XXXX 2OOX. 0 “Pipeline Safety: High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 67 FR 1108, January 9,2002. 0 “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines),’’ Notice of Request for Comments, 66 FR 343 18, June 27, 20 :)l. “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardclus Liquid Operators With Less Than 500 Miles of Pipelines),” Final Rule, 67 FR 2 136, January 16,2002. 0 “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardws Liquid Operators With Less Than 500 Miles of Pipelines),” Notice of Proposed 8#

Page 120 0 0 0 0 Rulemaking, 66 FR 15821, March 2 1,2001. “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas,” Final Rule, 65 FR 75378, December 1,2000. “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 c f Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 2 1695, 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 7 171 3, December 22, 1999. 0 “Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Safety and Environmental Protection for Gas Transmission and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in High Consequence Areas,” 64 FR 56725, October 2 1, 1999. H. List of Agencies and Persons Consulted During the process of developing the integrity management rule, RSPA interacted and consul1:ed with numerous organizations. These participants included: e Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) e American Gas Association (AGA) 0 Battelle Memorial Institute 0 Gas Technology Institute (GTI) 0 Western States Land Commissioners 0 National Governors Association e National League of Cities 9#

Page 130 National Council of State Legislators 0 Environmental Defense Fund 0 Public Interest Reform Group 0 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 f lor areas where the consequences of a gas pipeline failure could be significant. This rule covers th : first step in providing this assurance, by defining the areas that will given additional protection through integrity management requirements. This Environmental Assessment has considered t lie impacts of the definition, and has concluded that the risk associated with pipelines operating in high consequence areas should be reduced. However, because the environmental consequence i of gas pipeline failures are limited, the impact is expected to be limited. Therefore, RSPA has concluded that the definition of high consequence areas for gas pipeline integrity management will not have a significant environmental impact. 10#