{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e91a54","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":"The document evaluates a special permit petition from TransCanada (TCPL-ANR) to remain at existing maximum allowable operating pressures on four segments of Line 716 in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, after class locations changed from Class 1 to Class 3 due to increased nearby population. PHMSA considered granting the permit with conditions but concluded “even with conditions, the issuance of a special permit would be inconsistent with pipeline safety,” and therefore denied the request. PHMSA found known longitudinal seam and other pipe integrity issues on the affected segments that would not be acceptably mitigated by the proposed conditions, and determined that denial would likely lead to pipe replacement or pressure reduction/requalification, producing a net positive safety and environmental outcome. The analysis is limited to the information and materials in the PHMSA docket for PHMSA","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e91a54.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e91a54.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e91a54","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-2009-0055-0014/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-2009-0055\nLocation of Subject Facilities: St. Martin Parish, Louisiana\nDocument Date: May 19, 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\nPHMSA analyze a proposed action to determine whether the action will have a significant\nimpact on the human environment. PHMSA analyzes special permit requests for potential risks\nto public safety and the environment that could result from our decision to grant or deny the\nrequest. As part of this analysis, PHMSA evaluates whether a special permit would impact the\nlikelihood of a pipeline failure as compared to the environmental status quo in the absence of the\nspecial permit. We are denying TransCanada’s special permit request because based on our\nanalysis it would not be consistent with pipeline safety. We developed this assessment to\ndetermine the effects of our action on the environment.\nII. Purpose and Need\nOn February 6, 2009, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”)\nreceived a special permit petition from TransCanada Pipelines Limited, operator of American\nNatural Resources Pipeline (TCPL-ANR) for relief from the requirements of 49 C.F.R. §\n192.611(a), concerning maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) limitations for certain\npipeline segments located in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana.1 The class locations along these\npipeline segments have changed from an original Class 1 location to a Class 3 location because\nof an increase in the population within the original class location of the pipeline. Section\n192.611(a) would require TCPL-ANR to take one or more actions, including a reduction in\noperating pressure, the performance of pressure tests to re-qualify MAOP, or the installation of\nnew pipe, to continue operating the affected segments after a class location change. TCPL-ANR\n1 A description of the pipeline segments can be found in the docket for this Special Permit request (PHMSA-2009-\n0055) at www.regulations.gov.\n- See PHMSA Special Permit Analysis and Findings, 2.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nwould like to continue operating the affected segments at their current MAOPs, despite the fact\nthat 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 TransCanda’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 four special permit segments along its natural gas\ntransmission pipeline system. These four special permit segments are on the 20-inch Line 716\nlocated in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana.\n2 The class locations along these pipelines 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-2009-0055, 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, we would grant the special permit with certain conditions designed to\nreduce 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 were 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\nknown longitudinal weld seam issues with some of the pipe used on TCPL-ANR pipeline\nsegments, nor would it reduce threats associated with a lack of documentation on pipe\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.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nmechanical and chemical properties and girth welds on other pipe segments.4 PHMSA has\nspecifically recognized the dangers of seam threats in its “Criteria for Considering Class\nLocation Waiver Requests” (69 FR 38948) and through our experience with numerous\nlongitudinal seam-related failures.\nThese seam threats increase the possibility of a failure of the TCPL-ANR segments that would\nbe subject to a special permit. The threats posed by these pipe seam characteristics are not\nacceptable in a populated Class 3 location. There is no existing technology to remediate these in\nservice gas pipelines that would mitigate the safety risks in a Class 3 Location consistent with\nreplacing the pipe with modern steel pipe, external coatings, field welding, girth weld non-\ndestructive testing, and in-place hydrostatic testing methods. Gas pipeline failures are a threat to\nthe public and the environment because they may result in fires or explosions, which can harm\nthe 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 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\n0.47 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 longitudinal seam issues with new pipe, and a\nreduction in the risk 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 possible longitudinal weld seam and other safety threats.\n4 A description of the issues associated with pipe weld seams, mechanical and chemical properties, and girth welds\ncan be found in the docket. See PHMSA Special Permit Analysis and Findings, PHMSA-2009-0055.\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":9514}