# PHMSA Environmental Assessment & Finding of No Significant Findings - **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:** Not available - **effective on:** Not available - **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:** <<>> PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Special Permit Requester: TransCanada Pipelines Limited PHMSA Docket No.: PHMSA-2009-0061 Location of Subject Facilities: Lucas County, Ohio Document Date: June 14, 2010 Contact: Tewabe Asebe, 202-366-5523, tewabe.asebe@dot.gov I. Background The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 USC §§ 4321 – 4375, Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 40 CFR §§ 1500-1508, and DOT Order 5610.1C, require the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) to analyze a proposed action to determine whether the action will have a significant impact on the human environment. PHMSA analyzes special permit requests for potential risks to public safety and the environment that could result from our decision to grant or deny the request. As part of this analysis, PHMSA looks at whether a special permit would impact the likelihood and consequences of a pipeline failure as compared to the environmental status quo in the absence of the special permit. We are denying TransCanada’s special permit request because based on our analysis it would not be consistent with pipeline safety. We developed this assessment to determine the effects of our action on the environment. II. Purpose and Need On February 6, 2009, PHMSA received a special permit petition from TransCanada Pipelines Limited, operator of American Natural Resources Pipeline (TCPL-ANR), for relief from the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(a), concerning maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) limitations for a certain pipeline segment located in Lucas County, Ohio.1 The class location along this pipeline segment has changed from an original Class 1 location to a Class 3 location because of an increase in the population within the original class location of the pipeline. Section 192.611(a) would require TCPL-ANR to take one or more actions, including a reduction in operating pressure, the performance of pressure tests to re-qualify MAOP, or the installation of new pipe, to continue operating the affected segments after a class location 1 A description of the pipeline segment can be found in the docket for this Special Permit request (PHMSA-2009- 0061) at www.regulations.gov. - See PHMSA Special Permit Analysis and Findings, page 2. <<>> change. TCPL-ANR would like to continue operating the affected segment at its current MAOP, despite the fact that this segment has experienced multiple changes in Class Location from Class 1 location to Class 3 location, which is not allowed in Section 192.611(a). PHMSA weighed the alternatives of granting the permit with conditions or denying the permit. PHMSA is denying TCPL-ANR’s special permit request. PHMSA concluded that even with conditions, the issuance of a special permit would be inconsistent with pipeline safety. III. Affected Environment TCPL-ANR’s special permit request concerns a segment of 20-inch Line 515 located downstream of Valve 1 from Station 430+69 ft to 464+37ft (Milepost 23.83 to 24.47) in Lucas County, Ohio2. The class location along this pipeline in this segment has changed from an original Class 1 location to a Class 3 location, due to an increase in the population near the pipeline segment. The population figures in the vicinity of the affected segment and other information about the affected environment are incorporated into this document and can be found in the docket PHMSA-2009-0061, at www.Regulations.gov. 3 IV. Alternatives Considered and Environmental Impacts of Each Alternative Alternative 1: Grant Special Permit Request with Conditions Under this alternative, PHMSA would grant the special permit with certain conditions designed to reduce the risks associated with permitting TCPL-ANR to continue to operate its pipeline segment at the existing MAOP in Class 3 locations. TCPL-ANR would be required to take action to reduce risks associated with pipe material strength, pipe coating, cathodic protection, damage prevention, anomaly identification, and anomaly repair integrity. As PHMSA has done in past class location special permits, we would condition a special permit on TCPL-ANR performing close interval surveys to determine the effectiveness of its cathodic protection systems; performing a pipeline coating survey and repairing damage; performing stress corrosion cracking surveys; improving damage prevention programs; performing engineering analysis of longitudinal pipe seams and remediating any threats; performing pipeline inspections with instrumented in-line inspection (ILI) tools and repairing any anomalies, etc. Since TCPL-ANR does not have pipe mechanical and chemical properties (mill test reports) documentation to confirm the pipe strength for usage in operating pressure determination and anomaly repair safe pressure calculations, if a special permit was granted, TCPL-ANR would be required to test the pipe through mechanical and hydrostatic pressure tests to confirm the pipe strength. 2 TCPL-ANR’s responses to PHMSA’s environmental questionnaire including a map of the segment location and a description of the environment surrounding the pipeline segment can be found in the docket, PHMSA-2009-0061, at www.Regulations.gov. 3 See TCPL-ANR’s responses to PHMSA’s environmental questionnaire in the docket, PHMSA-2009-0061, at www.Regulations.gov. . 2 <<>> Some of the conditions that would be imposed if the permit were granted would have a positive impact on the environment because they would provide enhanced safety protections for a number of pipeline threats. This choice would reduce pipeline safety threats associated with unknown threats associated with a lack of documentation on pipe mechanical and chemical properties on the pipe segment including pipe toughness4. PHMSA does not let pipeline operators get rewarded through the special permit process for poor practices, such as not maintaining pipe strength documentation in class locations that have changed from a Class 1 location to a Class 3 location. However, on balance, selection of this alternative could have a negative impact on the environment. Gas pipeline failures are a threat to the public and the environment because they may result in fires or explosions, which can harm the public and the environment. Alternative 2: Deny Special Permit Request Under this alternative, we would deny TCPL-ANR’s special permit request. TCPL-ANR would not be granted a waiver of compliance with the requirements of § 192.611(a), and would be required to continue to comply with existing regulations. Current regulations have achieved excellent safety performance through use of increased safety factors, to compensate for unknowns or technological limitations associated with historical operation and maintenance practices, as the population near a natural gas transmission pipeline increases (resulting in Class Location changes). Because certain of TCPL-ANR’s pipeline segment is now in a Class 3 location due to an increase in population in the nearby area, the company would have to reduce the operating pressure of the Class 3 pipeline segment or install new pipe. TCPL-ANR has indicated that if its special permit request is denied it would replace 0.64 miles of pipe in order to address the Class Location change. Denial of the special permit request (if TCPL-ANR, in fact, chooses not to reduce pressure or re- qualify pipe MAOP) could lead to the disturbance of soil, vehicle and equipment travel on the rights-of-way, and other negative environmental impacts associated with pipe replacement. However, such negative environmental impacts would be limited to the existing rights-of-way and would be the same impacts that would have likely occurred had TCPL-ANR never applied for a special permit and had simply complied with the regulations. PHMSA’s denial would have a positive impact on the environment because it would likely lead to TCPL-ANR replacing pipe with pipe strength (mechanical and chemical properties) documentation issues and a reduction in the risk of a pipeline failure in populated Class 3 area. Gas pipeline failures can lead to fires and explosions and cause harm to the public and the environment. On balance, PHMSA’s denial of the permit would have a net positive impact because it is likely to lead to TCPL-ANR replacing the pipe with undocumented strength and other safety threats. 4 A description of the issues associated with lack of pipe mechanical and chemical properties documentation can be found in the docket. See PHMSA Special Permit Analysis and Findings, PHMSA-2009-0061, page 4. 3 <<>> V. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) PHMSA has carefully analyzed the safety and environmental risks associated with denial of this special permit. By denying this special permit TCPL-ANR will be required to reduce the operating pressure or replace pipe that presents certain safety threats. The net safety and environmental impact of this denial will be positive. Therefore, we believe there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the denial of TCPL-ANR’s request. VI. List of Preparers and Reviewers Steve Nanney, PHMSA Jim Curry, PHMSA Tewabe Asebe, PHMSA VII. Agencies and Persons Consulted No other agencies were consulted, but PHMSA considered environmental information and documents submitted by TCPL-ANR. 4 - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 9438