RegulusPipeline research0900006481b7873f
Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes Draft Environmental Assessment Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0163 June 9, 2015 Prepared for: Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Prepared by: John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology#
Page 2DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................................I LIST OF ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................... II 1.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ..................................................................................... 2 2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED.......................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................. 3 3.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 3 3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................................. 3 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................................................... 4 3.3.1 Accident and Incident Notification ......................................................................................... 4 3.3.2 Cost Recovery for Design Reviews ......................................................................................... 4 3.3.3 Operator Qualification Requirements for Parts 192 and 195 ................................................ 5 3.3.4 Special Permit Renewal.......................................................................................................... 6 3.3.5 Farm Taps .............................................................................................................................. 7 3.3.6 Reversal of Flow or Change in Product ................................................................................. 7 3.3.7 Editorial Amendments ............................................................................................................ 7 3.3.8 Incorporation by Reference ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3.9 Retention of Samples and Additional Testing ......................................................................... 9 3.3.10 Electronic Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results............................................... 9 3.3.11 Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing........................................................................... 9 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES........................10 4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................................................10 4.2 ENVIORNMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................10 4.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative..................................................................................................10 4.2.2 Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ......................................13 4.2.3 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................14 5.0 DECISION REGARDING DEGREE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .................................14 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS ..................................................................................14 6.1 PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................................14 6.2 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................15 May 2014 i#
Page 3DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes LIST OF ACRONYMS CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DIMP Distribution Integrity Management Program DOT United States Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NRC National Response Center OQ Operator Qualification PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration The Act Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 The proposed rule Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes May 2014 ii#
Page 4DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes 1.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS This draft Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental consequences associated with adopting the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA's), proposed rule “Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes” (the proposed rule) The rule proposes changes to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 199) to address Sections 9 and 13 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-90, hereafter referred to as “the Act”) to make changes to the operator qualification requirements and other changes. The proposed changes include: adding a specific time frame for telephonic or electronic notifications of accidents and incidents adding provisions for cost recovery for design reviews of new projects that cost over $2,500,000,000 or new and novel technologies modifying operator qualification requirements including addressing NTSB recommendation to clarify operator qualification (OQ) requirements for control rooms adding provisions for the renewal of expiring special permits excluding farm taps from the requirements of the Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) requirements while proposing safety requirements for the farm taps requiring pipeline operators to report to PHMSA permanent reversal of flow that lasts more than 30 days or a change in product addressing NTSB recommendations for control room team training providing assessment tools by incorporating consensus standards by reference in Part 195 for stress corrosion cracking direct assessment requiring retention of samples and additional testing in Part 199 requiring electronic reporting of drug and alcohol testing results in Part 199 requiring operators to keep a record of the reason why post-accident drug and alcohol test was not conducted for at least three years, and adding a procedure for requests to keep submitted information confidential. June 2015 1#
Page 5DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes 2.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION This draft EA is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)1, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). This statute and the implementing regulations require that PHMSA assess the environmental impacts of any Proposed Federal Action; identify adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the Proposed Action be implemented; and evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Action, including a No Action Alternative, and their environmental effects. This EA evaluates the potential effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on the physical, human, and natural environment. If it is determined that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Action, then the determination will result in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). PHMSA would then publish a Final EA and the FONSI, completing the NEPA process. If significant impacts to the natural or human environment are indicated, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be prepared. An EIS is a more extensive study of the effects of the Proposed Action, and requires more rigorous public involvement. 2.2 BACKGROUND Under the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq., the Secretary of Transportation must prescribe minimum safety standards for pipeline transportation and for pipeline facilities. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the PHMSA Administrator (49 CFR 1.97(a)) and the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations can be found at 49 CFR 190-199. On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed the Act into law. Several sections of the Act require PHMSA to meet certain safety requirements that could only be achieved by making changes to the current Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. In addition, PHMSA proposes to modify the operator qualification requirements, including addressing NTSB recommendation to clarify OQ requirements for control rooms, add provisions for the renewal of expiring special permits, and other standard maintenance changes described in Section 3.0. 1 42 U.S.C 4321 et seq. June 2015 2#
Page 6DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes 2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED PHMSA’s mission is to protect people and the environment from the risks of hazardous materials transportation. The purpose of this proposed rule is to enhance pipeline integrity and safety to lessen the frequency and consequences of pipeline incidents that cause environmental degradation, personal injury, and loss of life. The need for this action stems from the statutory mandates in Sections 9 and 13 of the Act, NTSB recommendations, and the need for other changes in the regulations. Section 9 of the Act directs PHMSA to require a specific time limit for telephonic or electronic reporting of pipeline accidents and incidents, and Section 13 of the Act directs PHMSA to recover costs associated with pipeline design reviews. NTSB has made recommendations regarding the clarification of OQ requirements in control rooms, and to eliminate operator discretion with regard to post-accident drug and alcohol testing of covered employees. In addition, PHMSA’s safety regulations require periodic updates and clarifications to enhance compliance and overall safety. 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 3.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES PHMSA considered two alternatives to the proposed rule: the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action, a set of revisions to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to incorporate proposed amendments. This EA examines the environmental impacts of the two alternatives, the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. PHMSA’s Proposed Action is a set of amendments and editorial changes to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR 190-192, 195 and 199), which are summarized in the sections below. A more detailed description of these changes can be found in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM 2013). 3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) regulations for implementing NEPA require the analysis of a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative defines existing conditions of the natural and human-made environment and serves as a baseline when analyzing environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. June 2015 3#
Page 7DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes Under this alternative, PHMSA would not amend, correct errors, or update the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Existing errors, inconsistencies and outdated references in the regulations would remain. Pipeline operators would continue to be governed by the requirement of the existing Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations but would not be subject to the new requirements of the Act. 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION 3.3.1 Accident and Incident Notification Section 9 of the Act requires PHMSA to establish a specific time limit for telephonic or electronic reporting of pipeline accidents and incidents to the National Response Center (NRC). Currently, PHMSA requires pipeline owners and operators to notify the NRC by telephone or electronically at the earliest practicable moment following discovery (49 CFR §§ 191.5 and 195.52).2 Section 9(b)(1) of the Act requires PHMSA to issue regulations requiring owners and operators to notify the NRC not later than one hour after confirmed discovery of a pipeline accident or incident. PHMSA proposes to revise the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to require notification at the earliest practicable moment following the confirmed discovery of an accident or incident, not later than 1 hour following the time of such confirmed discovery. Owners and operators would also be required to revise their initial telephonic or electronic notice to the Secretary and the NRC with an estimate of the amount of the product released, an estimate of the number of fatalities and injuries, if any, and any other information determined appropriate by the Secretary, within 48 hours of the accident or incident, to the extent practicable. 3.3.2 Cost Recovery for Design Reviews PHMSA conducts facility design safety reviews in connection with proposals to construct, expand, or operate gas or hazardous liquid pipelines or liquefied natural gas pipeline facilities. Reviews include design, construction, and operational inspections and oversight. PHMSA currently has no method for recovering from the operator of a pipeline the design review costs incurred by the agency in conducting these reviews. 2 In an advisory notice (67 FR 57060) dated September 6, 2002, PHMSA advised owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities that at the earliest practicable opportunity usually means 1 to 2 hours after discovery of the incident. June 2015 4#
Page 8DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes Section 13 of the Act allows PHMSA to recover costs associated with design reviews. Section 13 also allows PHMSA to prescribe a fee structure and assessment methodology for recovering costs associated with design reviews of new gas and hazardous liquid pipelines with overall design and construction costs totaling at least $2,500,000,000 or that contain new and novel technologies. PHMSA is proposing to exercise the cost recovery authority described in Section 13(a) of the Act by prescribing a fee structure and assessment methodology that is based on the costs of providing these reviews. 3.3.3 Operator Qualification Requirements for Parts 192 and 195 This proposed rulemaking action would amend the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195 to expand the scope of the regulations to cover new construction and certain operation and maintenance tasks and include requirements for program effectiveness review and recordkeeping in the OQ program. The recommended changes would enhance the OQ requirements by clarifying existing requirements and making necessary changes to address findings and shortcomings in the interest of public safety. This proposed rule would address the NTSB recommendation for OQ that would clarify OQ requirements to control rooms (Safety Recommendation P-12-8). In addition, PHMSA is extending the program requirements to operators of regulated Type B onshore gas gathering lines. The proposed action would amend the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. The Amendments would: Change the scope of OQ rule in §§ 192.801 and 195.501 to revise the method of determining a "covered task". Instead of determining a covered task by the “4- part test”, PHMSA is proposing to define a covered task as any maintenance, construction or emergency response task the operator identifies as affecting the safety or integrity of the pipeline facility. The “4-part test” omitted important tasks, such as all construction tasks on new pipelines and certain operation and maintenance tasks. Update the “General” sections of §§ 192.809 and 195.509 to remove the implementation dates that no longer affect the implementation requirements for operators. In addition, after they are updated §§ 192.809 and 195.509 are renumbered as §§ 192.805 and 195.505. Clarify the requirements in §§ 192.805 and 195.505 by adding new definitions, deleting an obsolete date for training requirements and clarifying the need for training individuals performing covered tasks. Additionally, we are adding a new June 2015 5#
Page 9DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes requirement for evaluators of individuals performing covered tasks, including training requirements for new construction tasks as the current OQ requirements do not include new construction tasks. Add a “Program effectiveness” requirement at §§ 192.807 and 195.507 to ensure that operators complete a review of the effectiveness of their OQ program. The review would include ensuring that procedures that were amended have been captured in the necessary portions of the OQ program. Add record requirements in §§ 192.809 and 195.509 that are normally reviewed during the inspection of OQ programs and are necessary to provide a thorough overview of an OQ program. The additional records would include records that document evaluators’ performance and program effectiveness. Add a new paragraph (b)(5) to §§ 192.631 and 195.446 to require each operator to define the roles and responsibilities and qualifications of others who have the authority to direct or supersede the specific technical actions of controllers. PHMSA believes this change will reinforce that operators need to declare the roles, responsibilities, and qualifications of all others who, at times, could intervene in control room operations. Add a new subparagraph in in the “Qualification Program” sections as §§ 192.805(b)(7) and 195.505(b)(7) proposing requirements addressing management of change and the communication of those changes. This proposed section will ensure that weaknesses of a program are found and corrections are made with notification to those affected. Modify sections of §§ 192.9 and 195.11 to require operators to establish and administer an OQ program covering personnel who perform work on Type A gas gathering lines in Class 2 locations, regulated Type B onshore gas gathering lines and regulated hazardous liquids gathering lines in rural locations. 3.3.4 Special Permit Renewal This proposed rulemaking action would amend 49 CFR 190.341 of the Federal pipeline safety regulations to add procedures for renewing a special permit. PHMSA is proposing to add permit renewal procedures to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. June 2015 6#
Page 10DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes 3.3.5 Farm Taps This proposed rulemaking action would amend the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations in 49 CFR Part 192 to exclude farm taps from the pipeline Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP requirements). A “farm tap” is a pipeline that branches from a transmission, gathering, or production pipeline to deliver gas to a farmer or other landowner. PHMSA has recognized farm taps as distribution lines for many years and these lines were included within the scope of the DIMP final rule for gas distribution pipelines in 2009 (74 FR 63906). Because farm taps are mostly located in less-populated areas, the risk to the public from farm taps is generally low, and most farm taps are already addressed within Part 192, PHMSA is proposing to amend Part 192 to exempt farm taps from the DIMP requirements. However, to better protect customers served by these lines, PHMSA would amend Part 192, Subpart M - Maintenance by adding a new section that prescribes inspection activities for pressure regulators and over- pressurization protection equipment on service lines that originate from transmission, gathering, or production pipelines. 3.3.6 Reversal of Flow or Change in Product §§191.22 and 195.64 of the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations require operators to notify PHMSA electronically of the occurrence of certain events no later than 60 days before the events occur. PHMSA proposes to expand the scope of reportable events in §§191.22 and 195.64 to include the reversal of flow of product or change in product in a mainline pipeline. The proposed rule would require operators to notify PHMSA electronically no later than 60 days before there is a reversal of the flow of product through a pipeline and also in the instance that there is a change in the product flowing through a pipeline. Examples include, but may not be limited to, changing a transported product from liquid to gas, from crude oil to highly volatile liquids, and vice versa. This notification is not required for pipeline systems already designed for bi-directional flow, or when the reversal is not expected to last for 30 days or less. 3.3.7 Editorial Amendments PHMSA is proposing to make the following editorial amendments to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations: In § 192.175(b) replace the erroneous formula C=(DxPxF/48.33) (C=(3DxPxF/1,000)) with the correct formula C = (3D*P*F)/1000) (C = (3D*P*F*)/6,895), where, C = (3D*P*F)/1000) is in inches (English unit), and C = (3D*P*F*)/6,895) is in millimeters (metric conversion). June 2015 7#
Page 11DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes Amend the language in § 195.64(a) and § 195.64(c)(1)(ii) to correct the term “hazardous liquid” to read “hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide.” In § 195.248, replace the erroneous “100 feet (30 millimeters)” with the correct conversion of English to metric units “100 feet (30.5 meters). ” In § 195.452, add a new paragraph (a)(4) to clarify the applicability of § 195.452 to low stress pipelines as described in § 195.12. 3.3.8 Pipeline Assessment Tools Periodic assessment of hazardous liquids pipelines is required by § 195.452. PHMSA proposes to incorporate by reference consensus standards for assessing the physical condition of in-service hazardous liquids pipelines using in-line inspection and stress corrosion cracking direct assessment. Incorporation of the consensus standards would ensure better tool selection and analysis and therefore improve consistency, accuracy and quality in pipeline assessments conducted using these techniques. PHMSA proposes to incorporate by reference the following consensus standards into 49 CFR Part 195: American Petroleum Institute standard 1163, “In-Line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard” (August 2005); National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) International Standard Practice SP0102-2010 “Inline Inspection of Pipelines;” NACE SP0204-2008 “Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment;” American National Standards Institute / American Society for Nondestructive Testing ILI-PQ-2005, “In-line Inspection Personnel Qualification and Certification” (2005). Also, PHMSA proposes to allow pipeline operators to conduct assessments using tethered or remote control tools not explicitly discussed in NACE SP0102-2010, provided the operators comply with applicable sections of NACE SP0102-2010. Each of these organizations has signed agreements with PHMSA to make these standards available to the public, free of charge on an Internet Web site. June 2015 8#
Page 12DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes 3.3.9 Retention of Samples and Additional Testing The proposed rule would resolve conflicts between the requirements at § 199.111 of 49 CFR Part 199 - Drug and Alcohol Testing and the applicable sections in 49 CFR Part 40 – Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs. The primary conflict surrounds additional testing after a confirmed positive drug test. Section 199.111 allows the employee to select the laboratory for testing the split specimen and allows the laboratory that tested the first specimen to also perform the second test. However, DOT’s (Department of Transportation) Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance has concluded that the Medical Review Officer selects the laboratory to which the split sample should be sent and Part 40 precludes testing the split specimen by the laboratory that evaluated the first specimen. Because the remaining requirements of § 199.111 are already included in Part 40 and Part 199 requires compliance with Part 40, to ensure regulatory consistency, PHMSA proposes to delete § 199.111 in its entirety. 3.3.10 Electronic Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results PHMSA’s pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR 191.7 and 49 CFR 195.58 requires electronic reporting of most pipeline safety reports through the PHMSA Portal. PHMSA proposes to also require electronic reporting through the Portal for drug testing results required under § 199.119 and alcohol testing results required under § 199.229. Pipeline operators with less than 50 covered employees are currently required to submit these reports only when PHMSA provides written notice. PHMSA proposes to modify these regulations to specify that PHMSA will provide notice to operators in the PHMSA Portal. 3.3.11 Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing While PHMSA's regulations require documentation of decisions not to administer a post- accident alcohol test; the obligation to document a decision not to administer a post- accident drug test is implied but not explicitly required. PHMSA proposes to explicitly require documentation of a decision not to administer a post-accident drug test. In response to a NTSB recommendation, PHMSA proposes to eliminate operator discretion with regard to drug and alcohol testing after an accident of each employee whose performance either contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident. PHMSA proposes to modify 49 CFR 199.105 and 49 CFR 199.225 by restating and further defining the existing requirement to conduct post-accident drug and alcohol testing of all employees except those for whom sufficient information establishes that they had no role in the accident. June 2015 9#
Page 13DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The gas pipeline infrastructure in the United States is a network of over 2.6 million miles of pipelines (http://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov/pipelineforum/facts-and-stats/incidents-and- mileage-report/). These pipelines exist in a variety of diverse environments, including offshore locations, highly populated urban sites, and unpopulated rural areas. Therefore, the potentially affected environment would be the land area and waterways in the United States where pipelines are located. 4.2 ENVIORNMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES This section identifies the environmental effects of each alternative. These effects include impacts to human health and the physical environment. The physical environment includes: Air quality and climate Soils, topography and geology Water Resources (including Wetlands, Water Bodies and Floodplains) Historical and Archeological Resources Wildlife Farmland 4.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative This section identifies the environmental effects of each component of the proposed rulemaking, including potential impacts to human health and to the physical environment, as defined in Section 4.2. Many of the changes included in the proposed rule reflect existing prudent pipeline practices and others propose entirely new practices. Either way, the proposed rule would require these practices. Where the proposed rule would enhance the accuracy and quality of pipeline inspections, it may better identify conditions in existing pipelines which require maintenance activities. In such cases, the rule could lead to more excavations. This excavation would result in ground disturbance that has the potential to cause sedimentation into adjacent wetlands and waterways, if any are present. This would reduce water quality and diminish aquatic habitat. In addition, disturbance to vegetation could cause disturbance June 2015 10#
Page 14DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes or reduce available wildlife habitat for terrestrial species. However, impacts associated with these excavations are expected to be localized and temporary in nature. Excavation could also disturb historical and archaeological resources and farmland, if any of these resources are present. While the linear size of these excavations would vary, it is expected that they would be contained within the existing rights-of-way. While such excavations would individually have minor localized environmental impacts, they would also decrease the likelihood of pipeline failures that could result in catastrophic damage to human health and the environment. Therefore, it is expected that in such cases, the proposed rule would have a negligible temporary adverse impact but, due to decreased risk of release, would result in net positive impacts to the human environment, including air quality and climate, soils, topography, geology, water resources (floodplains, wetlands and water bodies), historical and archeological resources, wildlife, and farmland. To the extent that the proposed rule would affect pipelines that exist in areas where Environmental Justice concerns exist, the regulatory amendments would have the same effect regardless of the geographic location of the pipelines. Therefore, Environmental Justice populations are not expected to be affected by the proposed rule any differently than the general population. Because PHMSA believes that these regulatory amendments would increase pipeline safety across systems, we believe any impact to areas where environmental justice concerns exist will be positive. Therefore, consistent with Executive Order 12898 and DOT Order 5610.2(a), PHMSA does not anticipate that the proposed rule would result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. In this section, environmental consequences of the Proposed Action Alternative are examined for each component of the proposed rulemaking, which are described in section 3.3. This section describes the potential impacts of each component on public health. Accident and Incident Notification: This rulemaking action would revise the pipeline safety regulations to establish time limits for telephonic or electronic notification of an accident or incident to require such notification at the earliest practicable moment following the confirmed discovery of an accident or incident, not later than 1 hour following the time of such confirmed discovery. PHMSA does not expect this change to affect the likelihood of pipeline failure. However, PHMSA believes that faster reporting can prevent or mitigate environmental and human health consequences of an incident because response activities can begin and be overseen by proper officials. Cost Recovery for Design Reviews: This rulemaking action would provide a fee structure and assessment methodology for recovering costs associated with design review of new gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA does not expect this change to affect June 2015 11#
Page 15DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes the likelihood of pipeline failure and therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Operator Qualification Requirements for Parts 192 and 195: Amendments to the operator qualification program would improve the overall effectiveness of the program by incorporating new construction, operation and maintenance tasks into the program. These changes would also enhance the program by clarifying existing requirements and making necessary changes to address findings and shortcoming. Ensuring operators have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the actual work may reduce errors that can result in pipeline failures. Therefore, PHMSA expects that this component of the proposed rule would decrease the risk of pipeline failure and have a positive impact to human health and the physical environment. Special Permit Renewal: This rulemaking action would ensure that special permits are not granted without an expiration date. This will ensure that a special permit will not continue to be used if it is no longer in the best interest of public safety. Therefore, PHMSA expects that this component of the proposed rule would decrease the risk of pipeline failure and have a positive impact to human health and the physical environment. Farm Taps: This rulemaking action would exempt Farm Taps from DIMP regulations. Arguably, the lifting of these requirements from farm taps could increase the potential for pipeline failure. However, PHMSA believes that this is proposal is prudent because most farm taps are located in less-populated areas, and risks to farm taps are lesser than risks to more extensive distribution systems. PHMSA believes that the risks that farm taps present is typically dependent upon the service line in which the farm tap is employed, and the environment in which it operates. Therefore, to account for the exemption of DIMP requirements, in this rulemaking, PHMSA is proposing to prescribe inspection activities for pressure regulators and over-pressurization protection equipment on service lines that originate from transmission, gathering, or production pipelines. Therefore, PHMSA expects that the net effect of this component of the proposed rule would be a possible minimal increase or have no impact on the risk of pipeline failure and to human health and the physical environment. Reversal of Flow or Change in Product: This rulemaking action proposes to expand the list of events in §§ 191.22 and 195.64 that require electronic 60-day notification to PHMSA to include the reversal of flow of product or change in product in a mainline pipeline. This provision simply allows for greater awareness and oversight of changes to pipeline systems, which PHMSA believes generally increases safety and could potentially decrease the likelihood of pipeline failure. June 2015 12#
Page 16DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes Editorial Amendments: The editorial amendments in the proposed rulemaking would provide clarification and consistency to existing regulations, but are not expected to change the likelihood of pipeline failure and therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Pipeline Assessment Tools: This proposed rulemaking action would incorporate by reference consensus standards for assessing the physical condition of in-service hazardous liquids pipelines using in-line inspection (ILI) and stress corrosion cracking direct assessment (SCCDA). Incorporation of these consensus standards would assure better consistency, accuracy and quality in pipeline assessments conducted using these techniques. Therefore, PHMSA expects that this component of the proposed rule would decrease the risk of pipeline failure and have a positive impact to human health and the physical environment. Retention of Samples and Additional Testing: This change would resolve conflicting requirements related to drug and alcohol testing. While this will ensure regulatory consistency and improve the integrity of the drug testing process it is not expected to change the likelihood of pipeline failure and therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Electronic Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results: Requiring operators provide electronic reporting for anti-drug testing results would ensure a qualified workforce; it is not expected to change the likelihood of pipeline failure and therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing: The editorial amendment would provide clarification regarding decisions not to administer a post-accident alcohol test. PHMSA does not expect this to result in a component of the rule to change the likelihood of pipeline failure and therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. 4.2.2 Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action The proposed Action Alternative is not expected to result in significant environmental impacts and many provisions are expected to result in beneficial impacts. As discussed above, some elements of the propose rulemaking, such as more rigorous requirements for assessing the physical condition of in-service pipelines could identify more conditions in existing pipelines which leads to an increase in excavations. Such excavations would individually have minor localized environmental impacts and would also decrease the June 2015 13#
Page 17DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes likelihood of pipeline failures that could result in catastrophic damage to human health and the environment, resulting in a net benefit. Other parts of the proposed rule would improve operator qualifications, which may reduce the likelihood of faulty installation of pipeline components. Other provisions increase oversight, which is intended to increase safety and minimize the likelihood of failures, which account for the biggest threat to the human environmental from gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. 4.2.3 No Action Alternative There are not expected to be any environmental impacts to human health, the physical environment or environmental justice from the no action alternative, in which no regulatory changes would occur. However, if the no action alternative were selected, the changes aimed at further reducing pipeline failures and the resulting harm to the human environment would not be implemented or achieved. Therefore, PHMSA believes that the no action alternative would be an inferior choice for environmental and human safety protection. 5.0 DECISION REGARDING DEGREE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PHMSA has preliminarily determined that the selected alternative would not have a significant negative impact on the environment. In fact, PHMSA believes the proposed rule would have a positive impact on the environment. PHMSA welcomes comment on any of these conclusions. 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS 6.1 PREPARERS This EA was prepared by the following DOT staff from PHMSA and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration): Preparers Volpe Center Preparers: Marla Engel, MRP, AICP, Environmental Protection Specialist Travis Mast, Biologist June 2015 14#
Page 18DRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes Reviewer: Sean Peirce, M.Sc., Economist PHMSA Reviewers: Amelia Samaras, PHMSA Tewabe Asebe, PHMSA Cameron Satterthwaite, PHMSA 6.2 REFERENCES NPRM 2013. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 195199. 2013. “Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes.” Docket No. PHMSA- 2013-0163 June 2015 15#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.