{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e91a08","title":"PHMSA Environmental Assessment & Finding of No Significant Findings","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"The assessment explains PHMSA received a special permit petition from TransCanada (TCPL‑ANR) seeking relief from 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(a) so a pipeline segment in Lucas County, Ohio, that has changed from Class 1 to Class 3 could continue to operate at its existing MAOP. PHMSA analyzed alternatives (grant with conditions vs. deny) including potential environmental impacts of each. PHMSA concluded that even with conditions a special permit would be inconsistent with pipeline safety, denied the request, and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact concluding the denial’s net safety and environmental impact will be positive. The assessment notes potential environmental impacts from pipeline replacement would be limited to existing rights‑of‑way and that PHMSA considered information submitted by TCPL‑ANR. Scope: the analysis focuses on the specified 20‑inch Line 515 segment in Lucas County, a","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e91a08.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e91a08.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e91a08","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-2009-0061-0009/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nSPECIAL PERMIT\nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT\nSpecial Permit Requester: TransCanada Pipelines Limited\nPHMSA Docket No.: PHMSA-2009-0061\nLocation of Subject Facilities: Lucas County, Ohio\nDocument Date: June 14, 2010\nContact: Tewabe Asebe, 202-366-5523, tewabe.asebe@dot.gov\nI. Background\nThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 USC §§ 4321 – 4375, Council on\nEnvironmental Quality regulations, 40 CFR §§ 1500-1508, and DOT Order 5610.1C, require the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) to analyze a proposed\naction to determine whether the action will have a significant impact on the human environment.\nPHMSA analyzes special permit requests for potential risks to public safety and the environment\nthat could result from our decision to grant or deny the request. As part of this analysis, PHMSA\nlooks at whether a special permit would impact the likelihood and consequences of a pipeline\nfailure as compared to the environmental status quo in the absence of the special permit. We are\ndenying TransCanada’s special permit request because based on our analysis it would not be\nconsistent with pipeline safety. We developed this assessment to determine the effects of our\naction on the environment.\nII. Purpose and Need\nOn February 6, 2009, PHMSA received a special permit petition from TransCanada Pipelines\nLimited, operator of American Natural Resources Pipeline (TCPL-ANR), for relief from the\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(a), concerning maximum allowable operating pressure\n(MAOP) limitations for a certain pipeline segment located in Lucas County, Ohio.1 The class\nlocation along this pipeline segment has changed from an original Class 1 location to a Class 3\nlocation because of an increase in the population within the original class location of the\npipeline. Section 192.611(a) would require TCPL-ANR to take one or more actions, including a\nreduction in operating pressure, the performance of pressure tests to re-qualify MAOP, or the\ninstallation of new pipe, to continue operating the affected segments after a class location\n1 A description of the pipeline segment can be found in the docket for this Special Permit request (PHMSA-2009-\n0061) at www.regulations.gov.\n- See PHMSA Special Permit Analysis and Findings, page 2.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nchange. TCPL-ANR would like to continue operating the affected segment at its current MAOP,\ndespite the fact that this segment has experienced multiple changes in Class Location from Class\n1 location to Class 3 location, which is not allowed in Section 192.611(a).\nPHMSA weighed the alternatives of granting the permit with conditions or denying the permit.\nPHMSA is denying TCPL-ANR’s special permit request. PHMSA concluded that even with\nconditions, the issuance of a special permit would be inconsistent with pipeline safety.\nIII. Affected Environment\nTCPL-ANR’s special permit request concerns a segment of 20-inch Line 515 located\ndownstream of Valve 1 from Station 430+69 ft to 464+37ft (Milepost 23.83 to 24.47) in Lucas\nCounty, Ohio2. The class location along this pipeline in this segment has changed from an\noriginal Class 1 location to a Class 3 location, due to an increase in the population near the\npipeline segment. The population figures in the vicinity of the affected segment and other\ninformation about the affected environment are incorporated into this document and can be\nfound in the docket PHMSA-2009-0061, at www.Regulations.gov.\n3\nIV. Alternatives Considered and Environmental Impacts of Each Alternative\nAlternative 1: Grant Special Permit Request with Conditions\nUnder this alternative, PHMSA would grant the special permit with certain conditions designed\nto reduce the risks associated with permitting TCPL-ANR to continue to operate its pipeline\nsegment at the existing MAOP in Class 3 locations. TCPL-ANR would be required to take\naction to reduce risks associated with pipe material strength, pipe coating, cathodic protection,\ndamage prevention, anomaly identification, and anomaly repair integrity. As PHMSA has done\nin past class location special permits, we would condition a special permit on TCPL-ANR\nperforming close interval surveys to determine the effectiveness of its cathodic protection\nsystems; performing a pipeline coating survey and repairing damage; performing stress corrosion\ncracking surveys; improving damage prevention programs; performing engineering analysis of\nlongitudinal pipe seams and remediating any threats; performing pipeline inspections with\ninstrumented in-line inspection (ILI) tools and repairing any anomalies, etc. Since TCPL-ANR\ndoes not have pipe mechanical and chemical properties (mill test reports) documentation to\nconfirm the pipe strength for usage in operating pressure determination and anomaly repair safe\npressure calculations, if a special permit was granted, TCPL-ANR would be required to test the\npipe through mechanical and hydrostatic pressure tests to confirm the pipe strength.\n2 TCPL-ANR’s responses to PHMSA’s environmental questionnaire including a map of the segment location and a\ndescription of the environment surrounding the pipeline segment can be found in the docket, PHMSA-2009-0061, at\nwww.Regulations.gov.\n3 See TCPL-ANR’s responses to PHMSA’s environmental questionnaire in the docket, PHMSA-2009-0061, at\nwww.Regulations.gov.\n.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nSome of the conditions that would be imposed if the permit were granted would have a positive\nimpact on the environment because they would provide enhanced safety protections for a number\nof pipeline threats. This choice would reduce pipeline safety threats associated with unknown\nthreats associated with a lack of documentation on pipe mechanical and chemical properties on\nthe pipe segment including pipe toughness4. PHMSA does not let pipeline operators get\nrewarded through the special permit process for poor practices, such as not maintaining pipe\nstrength documentation in class locations that have changed from a Class 1 location to a Class 3\nlocation. However, on balance, selection of this alternative could have a negative impact on the\nenvironment. Gas pipeline failures are a threat to the public and the environment because they\nmay result in fires or explosions, which can harm the public and the environment.\nAlternative 2: Deny Special Permit Request\nUnder this alternative, we would deny TCPL-ANR’s special permit request. TCPL-ANR would\nnot be granted a waiver of compliance with the requirements of § 192.611(a), and would be\nrequired to continue to comply with existing regulations. Current regulations have achieved\nexcellent safety performance through use of increased safety factors, to compensate for\nunknowns or technological limitations associated with historical operation and maintenance\npractices, as the population near a natural gas transmission pipeline increases (resulting in Class\nLocation changes).\nBecause certain of TCPL-ANR’s pipeline segment is now in a Class 3 location due to an increase\nin population in the nearby area, the company would have to reduce the operating pressure of the\nClass 3 pipeline segment or install new pipe. TCPL-ANR has indicated that if its special permit\nrequest is denied it would replace 0.64 miles of pipe in order to address the Class Location\nchange.\nDenial of the special permit request (if TCPL-ANR, in fact, chooses not to reduce pressure or re-\nqualify pipe MAOP) could lead to the disturbance of soil, vehicle and equipment travel on the\nrights-of-way, and other negative environmental impacts associated with pipe replacement.\nHowever, such negative environmental impacts would be limited to the existing rights-of-way\nand would be the same impacts that would have likely occurred had TCPL-ANR never applied\nfor a special permit and had simply complied with the regulations.\nPHMSA’s denial would have a positive impact on the environment because it would likely lead\nto TCPL-ANR replacing pipe with pipe strength (mechanical and chemical properties)\ndocumentation issues and a reduction in the risk of a pipeline failure in populated Class 3 area.\nGas pipeline failures can lead to fires and explosions and cause harm to the public and the\nenvironment. On balance, PHMSA’s denial of the permit would have a net positive impact\nbecause it is likely to lead to TCPL-ANR replacing the pipe with undocumented strength and\nother safety threats.\n4 A description of the issues associated with lack of pipe mechanical and chemical properties documentation can be\nfound in the docket. See PHMSA Special Permit Analysis and Findings, PHMSA-2009-0061, page 4.\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nV. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)\nPHMSA has carefully analyzed the safety and environmental risks associated with denial of this\nspecial permit. By denying this special permit TCPL-ANR will be required to reduce the\noperating pressure or replace pipe that presents certain safety threats. The net safety and\nenvironmental impact of this denial will be positive. Therefore, we believe there are no\nsignificant environmental impacts associated with the denial of TCPL-ANR’s request.\nVI. List of Preparers and Reviewers\nSteve Nanney, PHMSA\nJim Curry, PHMSA\nTewabe Asebe, PHMSA\nVII. Agencies and Persons Consulted\nNo other agencies were consulted, but PHMSA considered environmental information and\ndocuments submitted by TCPL-ANR.\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":9438}