{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e91a3d","title":"PHMSA Environmental Assessment/FONSI","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"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-2009-0056 Location of Subject Facilities: Tate County, Mississippi Document Date: June 2, 2010 Contacts: Tewabe Asebe, 202-366-5523, tewabe.asebe@dot.gov I. Background... change. TCPL-ANR would like to continue operating the affected segments at their current MAOPs, despite the fact that those segments have experienced changes in Class Location. PHMSA weighed the alternatives of granting the permit with conditions or denying the permit. PHMSA is denying TransCanada’s special permit...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e91a3d.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e91a3d.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e91a3d","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-2009-0056-0010/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-2009-0056\nLocation of Subject Facilities: Tate County, Mississippi\nDocument Date: June 2, 2010\nContacts: 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 that\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) analyze a proposed action\nto 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\nevaluates whether a special permit would impact the likelihood of a pipeline failure, as compared\nto the environmental status quo in the absence of the special permit. We are denying\nTransCanada’s special permit request because based on our analysis it would not be consistent\nwith pipeline safety. We developed this assessment to determine the effects of our action on the\nenvironment.\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 certain pipeline segments located in Tate County Mississippi.\n1 The class\nlocations along these pipeline segments have changed from an original Class 1 location to a\nClass 3 location 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 segments can be found in the docket for this Special Permit request (PHMSA-2009-\n0056) 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 segments at their current\nMAOPs, despite the fact that those segments have experienced changes in Class Location.\nPHMSA weighed the alternatives of granting the permit with conditions or denying the permit.\nPHMSA is denying TransCanada’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 30-inch Line 1-501 downstream of\nValve 27 in Tate County, Mississippi.2 The class locations along this pipeline have changed\nfrom an original Class 1 location to a Class 3 location, due to an increase in the population near\nthe pipeline segments. The population figures in the vicinity of the affected segments and other\ninformation about the affected environment are incorporated into this document and can be\nfound in the docket PHMSA-2009-0056, 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\nsegments at the existing MAOP in Class 3 locations. TCPL-ANR would be required to take\naction to reduce risks associated with pipe coating, cathodic protection, damage prevention, and\nweld seam and girth weld integrity. As PHMSA has done in past class location special permits,\nwe would condition a special permit on TCPL-ANR performing close interval surveys to\ndetermine the effectiveness of its cathodic protection systems; performing a pipeline coating\nsurvey and repairing damage; performing stress corrosion cracking surveys; improving damage\nprevention programs; performing engineering analysis of longitudinal pipe seams and\nremediating any threats; performing pipeline inspections with instrumented in-line inspection\n(ILI) tools and repairing any anomalies, etc.\nSome of the conditions that would be imposed, if the permit was granted, would have a positive\nimpact on the environment because they would provide enhanced safety protections for a number\nof pipeline threats. However, on balance, selection of this alternative could have a negative\nimpact on the environment. This choice would not reduce pipeline safety threats associated with\na pipe toughness4 properties and girth welds on the pipe segment.\n2 A Map and description of the environment surrounding the pipeline segments can also be found in the docket. See\npage 9 of each of TransCanada’s responses to PHMSA’s environmental questionnaire.\n3 See TransCanada’s responses to PHMSA’s environmental questionnaire, page 3.\n4 A description of the issues associated with low toughness pipe and girth welds can be found in the docket. See\nPHMSA Special Permit Analysis and Findings, PHMSA-2009-0056, page 5.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nLow toughness pipe increases the consequences of a failure of the TCPL-ANR segment that\nwould be subject to a special permit. The threats posed by low toughness steel characteristics are\nnot acceptable in a populated Class 3 location. Higher toughness properties are needed for a\nductile fracture arrest and to reduce fracture propagation if the pipe should have a failure, so that\na smaller area would be affected. There is no existing technology to remediate these in service\ngas pipelines that would mitigate the safety risks in a Class 3 Location consistent with replacing\nthe pipe with modern steel pipe, external coatings, field welding, girth weld non-destructive\ntesting, and in-place hydrostatic testing methods. Gas pipeline failures are a threat to the public\nand the environment because they may result in fires or explosions, which can harm the public\nand 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 segments are now in Class 3 locations due to an\nincrease in population in the nearby area, the company would have to reduce the operating\npressure of the Class 3 pipeline segments, perform pressure tests to re-qualify the pipe, or install\nnew pipe. TCPL-ANR has indicated that if its special permit request is denied it would replace\n0.17 miles of pipe in order to address the Class Location change.\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 known low toughness with new pipe, and a reduction in the\nrisk and consequences of a pipeline failure in populated Class 3 areas. Gas pipeline failures can\nlead to fires and explosions and cause harm to the public and the environment. On balance,\nPHMSA’s denial of the permit would have a net positive impact because it is likely to lead to\nTCPL-ANR replacing the pipe with low toughness and other possible safety threats.\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\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\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":9180}