{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006481b7873f","title":"U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes - Draft Environmental Assessment","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"Scope: The EA examines environmental effects of PHMSA’s proposed rule “Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes,” which would amend 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 199. The proposed changes include specified time limits for accident/incident notifications, cost recovery for design reviews, expanded operator qualification requirements, special permit renewal procedures, exclusion of farm taps from DIMP with added inspection requirements, notification for flow reversal or product change, incorporation by reference of assessment standards, retention and electronic reporting provisions for drug and alcohol testing, and post-accident testing documentation requirements. Material conclusions: The EA preliminarily determines the proposed rule “would not have a significant negative impact on the env","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006481b7873f.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006481b7873f.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006481b7873f","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-2013-0163-0003/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nPipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery,\nAccident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline\nSafety Proposed Changes\nDraft Environmental Assessment\nDocket No. PHMSA-2013-0163\nJune 9, 2015\nPrepared for:\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nPrepared by:\nJohn A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center\nOffice of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nTABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................................I\nLIST OF ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................... II\n1.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 1\n2.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ..................................................................................... 2\n2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 2\n2.2 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................... 2\n2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED.......................................................................................................................... 3\n3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................. 3\n3.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 3\n3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................................. 3\n3.3 PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................................................... 4\n3.3.1 Accident and Incident Notification ......................................................................................... 4\n3.3.2 Cost Recovery for Design Reviews ......................................................................................... 4\n3.3.3 Operator Qualification Requirements for Parts 192 and 195 ................................................ 5\n3.3.4 Special Permit Renewal.......................................................................................................... 6\n3.3.5 Farm Taps .............................................................................................................................. 7\n3.3.6 Reversal of Flow or Change in Product ................................................................................. 7\n3.3.7 Editorial Amendments ............................................................................................................ 7\n3.3.8 Incorporation by Reference ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.\n3.3.9 Retention of Samples and Additional Testing ......................................................................... 9\n3.3.10 Electronic Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results............................................... 9\n3.3.11 Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing........................................................................... 9\n4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES........................10\n4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................................................10\n4.2 ENVIORNMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................10\n4.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative..................................................................................................10\n4.2.2 Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ......................................13\n4.2.3 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................14\n5.0 DECISION REGARDING DEGREE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .................................14\n6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS ..................................................................................14\n6.1 PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................................14\n6.2 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................15\nMay 2014 i\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\nLIST OF ACRONYMS\nCEQ Council on Environmental Quality\nCFR Code of Federal Regulations\nDIMP Distribution Integrity Management Program\nDOT United States Department of Transportation\nEA Environmental Assessment\nEIS Environmental Impact Statement\nFONSI Finding of No Significant Impact\nNACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers\nNEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969\nNRC National Response Center\nOQ Operator Qualification\nPHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nThe Act Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011\nThe proposed\nrule\nPipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\nMay 2014 ii\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\n1.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS\nThis draft Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental\nconsequences associated with adopting the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration’s (PHMSA's), proposed rule “Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed\nChanges” (the proposed rule) The rule proposes changes to the Federal Pipeline Safety\nRegulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 199) to\naddress Sections 9 and 13 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation\nAct of 2011 (Public Law 112-90, hereafter referred to as “the Act”) to make changes to\nthe operator qualification requirements and other changes. The proposed changes\ninclude:\n adding a specific time frame for telephonic or electronic notifications of accidents\nand incidents\n adding provisions for cost recovery for design reviews of new projects that cost\nover $2,500,000,000 or new and novel technologies\n modifying operator qualification requirements including addressing NTSB\nrecommendation to clarify operator qualification (OQ) requirements for control\nrooms\n adding provisions for the renewal of expiring special permits\n excluding farm taps from the requirements of the Distribution Integrity\nManagement Program (DIMP) requirements while proposing safety requirements\nfor the farm taps\n requiring pipeline operators to report to PHMSA permanent reversal of flow that\nlasts more than 30 days or a change in product\n addressing NTSB recommendations for control room team training\n providing assessment tools by incorporating consensus standards by reference in\nPart 195 for stress corrosion cracking direct assessment\n requiring retention of samples and additional testing in Part 199\n requiring electronic reporting of drug and alcohol testing results in Part 199\n requiring operators to keep a record of the reason why post-accident drug and\nalcohol test was not conducted for at least three years, and\n adding a procedure for requests to keep submitted information confidential.\nJune 2015 1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\n2.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION\n2.1 INTRODUCTION\nThis draft EA is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of\n1969 (NEPA)1, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for\nimplementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). This statute and the implementing\nregulations require that PHMSA assess the environmental impacts of any Proposed\nFederal Action; identify adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the\nProposed Action be implemented; and evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Action,\nincluding a No Action Alternative, and their environmental effects. This EA evaluates\nthe potential effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on the\nphysical, human, and natural environment.\nIf it is determined that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed\nAction, then the determination will result in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).\nPHMSA would then publish a Final EA and the FONSI, completing the NEPA process.\nIf significant impacts to the natural or human environment are indicated, an\nEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be prepared. An EIS is a more extensive\nstudy of the effects of the Proposed Action, and requires more rigorous public\ninvolvement.\n2.2 BACKGROUND\nUnder the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq., the Secretary of\nTransportation must prescribe minimum safety standards for pipeline transportation and\nfor pipeline facilities. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the PHMSA\nAdministrator (49 CFR 1.97(a)) and the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations can be found\nat 49 CFR 190-199. On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed the Act into law.\nSeveral sections of the Act require PHMSA to meet certain safety requirements that\ncould only be achieved by making changes to the current Federal Pipeline Safety\nRegulations. In addition, PHMSA proposes to modify the operator qualification\nrequirements, including addressing NTSB recommendation to clarify OQ requirements\nfor control rooms, add provisions for the renewal of expiring special permits, and other\nstandard maintenance changes described in Section 3.0.\n1 42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.\nJune 2015 2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\n2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED\nPHMSA’s mission is to protect people and the environment from the risks of hazardous\nmaterials transportation. The purpose of this proposed rule is to enhance pipeline\nintegrity and safety to lessen the frequency and consequences of pipeline incidents that\ncause environmental degradation, personal injury, and loss of life.\nThe need for this action stems from the statutory mandates in Sections 9 and 13 of the\nAct, NTSB recommendations, and the need for other changes in the regulations. Section\n9 of the Act directs PHMSA to require a specific time limit for telephonic or electronic\nreporting of pipeline accidents and incidents, and Section 13 of the Act directs PHMSA\nto recover costs associated with pipeline design reviews. NTSB has made\nrecommendations regarding the clarification of OQ requirements in control rooms, and to\neliminate operator discretion with regard to post-accident drug and alcohol testing of\ncovered employees. In addition, PHMSA’s safety regulations require periodic updates\nand clarifications to enhance compliance and overall safety.\n3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES\n3.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES\nPHMSA considered two alternatives to the proposed rule: the No Action Alternative and\nthe Proposed Action, a set of revisions to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to\nincorporate proposed amendments. This EA examines the environmental impacts of the\ntwo alternatives, the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action.\nPHMSA’s Proposed Action is a set of amendments and editorial changes to the Federal\nPipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR 190-192, 195 and 199), which are summarized in\nthe sections below. A more detailed description of these changes can be found in the\nNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM 2013).\n3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE\nThe CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) regulations for implementing NEPA\nrequire the analysis of a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative defines\nexisting conditions of the natural and human-made environment and serves as a baseline\nwhen analyzing environmental impacts of the Proposed Action.\nJune 2015 3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\nUnder this alternative, PHMSA would not amend, correct errors, or update the Federal\nPipeline Safety Regulations. Existing errors, inconsistencies and outdated references in\nthe regulations would remain. Pipeline operators would continue to be governed by the\nrequirement of the existing Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations but would not be subject\nto the new requirements of the Act.\n3.3 PROPOSED ACTION\n3.3.1 Accident and Incident Notification\nSection 9 of the Act requires PHMSA to establish a specific time limit for telephonic or\nelectronic reporting of pipeline accidents and incidents to the National Response Center\n(NRC). Currently, PHMSA requires pipeline owners and operators to notify the NRC by\ntelephone or electronically at the earliest practicable moment following discovery (49\nCFR §§ 191.5 and 195.52).2\nSection 9(b)(1) of the Act requires PHMSA to issue regulations requiring owners and\noperators to notify the NRC not later than one hour after confirmed discovery of a\npipeline accident or incident. PHMSA proposes to revise the Federal Pipeline Safety\nRegulations to require notification at the earliest practicable moment following the\nconfirmed discovery of an accident or incident, not later than 1 hour following the time of\nsuch confirmed discovery. Owners and operators would also be required to revise their\ninitial telephonic or electronic notice to the Secretary and the NRC with an estimate of\nthe amount of the product released, an estimate of the number of fatalities and injuries, if\nany, and any other information determined appropriate by the Secretary, within 48 hours\nof the accident or incident, to the extent practicable.\n3.3.2 Cost Recovery for Design Reviews\nPHMSA conducts facility design safety reviews in connection with proposals to\nconstruct, expand, or operate gas or hazardous liquid pipelines or liquefied natural gas\npipeline facilities. Reviews include design, construction, and operational inspections and\noversight. PHMSA currently has no method for recovering from the operator of a\npipeline the design review costs incurred by the agency in conducting these reviews.\n2 In an advisory notice (67 FR 57060) dated September 6, 2002, PHMSA advised owners and operators of\ngas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities that at the earliest\npracticable opportunity usually means 1 to 2 hours after discovery of the incident.\nJune 2015 4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\nSection 13 of the Act allows PHMSA to recover costs associated with design reviews.\nSection 13 also allows PHMSA to prescribe a fee structure and assessment methodology\nfor recovering costs associated with design reviews of new gas and hazardous liquid\npipelines with overall design and construction costs totaling at least $2,500,000,000 or\nthat contain new and novel technologies. PHMSA is proposing to exercise the cost\nrecovery authority described in Section 13(a) of the Act by prescribing a fee structure and\nassessment methodology that is based on the costs of providing these reviews.\n3.3.3 Operator Qualification Requirements for Parts 192 and 195\nThis proposed rulemaking action would amend the Federal pipeline safety regulations in\n49 CFR Parts 192 and 195 to expand the scope of the regulations to cover new\nconstruction and certain operation and maintenance tasks and include requirements for\nprogram effectiveness review and recordkeeping in the OQ program. The recommended\nchanges would enhance the OQ requirements by clarifying existing requirements and\nmaking necessary changes to address findings and shortcomings in the interest of public\nsafety. This proposed rule would address the NTSB recommendation for OQ that would\nclarify OQ requirements to control rooms (Safety Recommendation P-12-8). In addition,\nPHMSA is extending the program requirements to operators of regulated Type B onshore\ngas gathering lines.\nThe proposed action would amend the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations in 49 CFR\nparts 192 and 195. The Amendments would:\n Change the scope of OQ rule in §§ 192.801 and 195.501 to revise the method of\ndetermining a \"covered task\". Instead of determining a covered task by the “4-\npart test”, PHMSA is proposing to define a covered task as any maintenance,\nconstruction or emergency response task the operator identifies as affecting the\nsafety or integrity of the pipeline facility. The “4-part test” omitted important\ntasks, such as all construction tasks on new pipelines and certain operation and\nmaintenance tasks.\n Update the “General” sections of §§ 192.809 and 195.509 to remove the\nimplementation dates that no longer affect the implementation requirements for\noperators. In addition, after they are updated §§ 192.809 and 195.509 are\nrenumbered as §§ 192.805 and 195.505.\n Clarify the requirements in §§ 192.805 and 195.505 by adding new definitions,\ndeleting an obsolete date for training requirements and clarifying the need for\ntraining individuals performing covered tasks. Additionally, we are adding a new\nJune 2015 5\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\nrequirement for evaluators of individuals performing covered tasks, including\ntraining requirements for new construction tasks as the current OQ requirements\ndo not include new construction tasks.\n Add a “Program effectiveness” requirement at §§ 192.807 and 195.507 to ensure\nthat operators complete a review of the effectiveness of their OQ program. The\nreview would include ensuring that procedures that were amended have been\ncaptured in the necessary portions of the OQ program. Add record requirements\nin §§ 192.809 and 195.509 that are normally reviewed during the inspection of\nOQ programs and are necessary to provide a thorough overview of an OQ\nprogram. The additional records would include records that document evaluators’\nperformance and program effectiveness.\n Add a new paragraph (b)(5) to §§ 192.631 and 195.446 to require each operator\nto define the roles and responsibilities and qualifications of others who have the\nauthority to direct or supersede the specific technical actions of controllers.\nPHMSA believes this change will reinforce that operators need to declare the\nroles, responsibilities, and qualifications of all others who, at times, could\nintervene in control room operations.\n Add a new subparagraph in in the “Qualification Program” sections as §§\n192.805(b)(7) and 195.505(b)(7) proposing requirements addressing management\nof change and the communication of those changes. This proposed section will\nensure that weaknesses of a program are found and corrections are made with\nnotification to those affected.\n Modify sections of §§ 192.9 and 195.11 to require operators to establish and\nadminister an OQ program covering personnel who perform work on Type A gas\ngathering lines in Class 2 locations, regulated Type B onshore gas gathering lines\nand regulated hazardous liquids gathering lines in rural locations.\n3.3.4 Special Permit Renewal\nThis proposed rulemaking action would amend 49 CFR 190.341 of the Federal pipeline\nsafety regulations to add procedures for renewing a special permit. PHMSA is proposing\nto add permit renewal procedures to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations.\nJune 2015 6\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\n3.3.5 Farm Taps\nThis proposed rulemaking action would amend the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations in\n49 CFR Part 192 to exclude farm taps from the pipeline Distribution Integrity\nManagement Program (DIMP requirements). A “farm tap” is a pipeline that branches\nfrom a transmission, gathering, or production pipeline to deliver gas to a farmer or other\nlandowner. PHMSA has recognized farm taps as distribution lines for many years and\nthese lines were included within the scope of the DIMP final rule for gas distribution\npipelines in 2009 (74 FR 63906). Because farm taps are mostly located in less-populated\nareas, the risk to the public from farm taps is generally low, and most farm taps are\nalready addressed within Part 192, PHMSA is proposing to amend Part 192 to exempt\nfarm taps from the DIMP requirements. However, to better protect customers served by\nthese lines, PHMSA would amend Part 192, Subpart M - Maintenance by adding a new\nsection that prescribes inspection activities for pressure regulators and over-\npressurization protection equipment on service lines that originate from transmission,\ngathering, or production pipelines.\n3.3.6 Reversal of Flow or Change in Product\n§§191.22 and 195.64 of the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations require operators to\nnotify PHMSA electronically of the occurrence of certain events no later than 60 days\nbefore the events occur. PHMSA proposes to expand the scope of reportable events in\n§§191.22 and 195.64 to include the reversal of flow of product or change in product in a\nmainline pipeline. The proposed rule would require operators to notify PHMSA\nelectronically no later than 60 days before there is a reversal of the flow of product\nthrough a pipeline and also in the instance that there is a change in the product flowing\nthrough a pipeline. Examples include, but may not be limited to, changing a transported\nproduct from liquid to gas, from crude oil to highly volatile liquids, and vice versa. This\nnotification is not required for pipeline systems already designed for bi-directional flow,\nor when the reversal is not expected to last for 30 days or less.\n3.3.7 Editorial Amendments\nPHMSA is proposing to make the following editorial amendments to the Federal Pipeline\nSafety Regulations:\n In § 192.175(b) replace the erroneous formula C=(DxPxF/48.33)\n(C=(3DxPxF/1,000)) with the correct formula C = (3D*P*F)/1000) (C =\n(3D*P*F*)/6,895), where, C = (3D*P*F)/1000) is in inches (English unit), and C\n= (3D*P*F*)/6,895) is in millimeters (metric conversion).\nJune 2015 7\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\n Amend the language in § 195.64(a) and § 195.64(c)(1)(ii) to correct the term\n“hazardous liquid” to read “hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide.”\n In § 195.248, replace the erroneous “100 feet (30 millimeters)” with the correct\nconversion of English to metric units “100 feet (30.5 meters).\n”\n In § 195.452, add a new paragraph (a)(4) to clarify the applicability of § 195.452\nto low stress pipelines as described in § 195.12.\n3.3.8 Pipeline Assessment Tools\nPeriodic assessment of hazardous liquids pipelines is required by § 195.452. PHMSA\nproposes to incorporate by reference consensus standards for assessing the physical\ncondition of in-service hazardous liquids pipelines using in-line inspection and stress\ncorrosion cracking direct assessment. Incorporation of the consensus standards would\nensure better tool selection and analysis and therefore improve consistency, accuracy and\nquality in pipeline assessments conducted using these techniques. PHMSA proposes to\nincorporate by reference the following consensus standards into 49 CFR Part 195:\n American Petroleum Institute standard 1163, “In-Line Inspection Systems\nQualification Standard” (August 2005);\n National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) International Standard\nPractice SP0102-2010 “Inline Inspection of Pipelines;”\n NACE SP0204-2008 “Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment;”\n American National Standards Institute / American Society for Nondestructive\nTesting ILI-PQ-2005, “In-line Inspection Personnel Qualification and\nCertification” (2005).\nAlso, PHMSA proposes to allow pipeline operators to conduct assessments using tethered\nor remote control tools not explicitly discussed in NACE SP0102-2010, provided the\noperators comply with applicable sections of NACE SP0102-2010.\nEach of these organizations has signed agreements with PHMSA to make these standards\navailable to the public, free of charge on an Internet Web site.\nJune 2015 8\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\n3.3.9 Retention of Samples and Additional Testing\nThe proposed rule would resolve conflicts between the requirements at § 199.111 of 49\nCFR Part 199 - Drug and Alcohol Testing and the applicable sections in 49 CFR Part 40\n– Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs. The\nprimary conflict surrounds additional testing after a confirmed positive drug test. Section\n199.111 allows the employee to select the laboratory for testing the split specimen and\nallows the laboratory that tested the first specimen to also perform the second test.\nHowever, DOT’s (Department of Transportation) Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and\nCompliance has concluded that the Medical Review Officer selects the laboratory to\nwhich the split sample should be sent and Part 40 precludes testing the split specimen by\nthe laboratory that evaluated the first specimen. Because the remaining requirements of\n§ 199.111 are already included in Part 40 and Part 199 requires compliance with Part 40,\nto ensure regulatory consistency, PHMSA proposes to delete § 199.111 in its entirety.\n3.3.10 Electronic Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results\nPHMSA’s pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR 191.7 and 49 CFR 195.58 requires\nelectronic reporting of most pipeline safety reports through the PHMSA Portal. PHMSA\nproposes to also require electronic reporting through the Portal for drug testing results\nrequired under § 199.119 and alcohol testing results required under § 199.229. Pipeline\noperators with less than 50 covered employees are currently required to submit these\nreports only when PHMSA provides written notice. PHMSA proposes to modify these\nregulations to specify that PHMSA will provide notice to operators in the PHMSA Portal.\n3.3.11 Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing\nWhile PHMSA's regulations require documentation of decisions not to administer a post-\naccident alcohol test; the obligation to document a decision not to administer a post-\naccident drug test is implied but not explicitly required. PHMSA proposes to explicitly\nrequire documentation of a decision not to administer a post-accident drug test.\nIn response to a NTSB recommendation, PHMSA proposes to eliminate operator\ndiscretion with regard to drug and alcohol testing after an accident of each employee\nwhose performance either contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted\nas a contributing factor to the accident. PHMSA proposes to modify 49 CFR 199.105\nand 49 CFR 199.225 by restating and further defining the existing requirement to conduct\npost-accident drug and alcohol testing of all employees except those for whom sufficient\ninformation establishes that they had no role in the accident.\nJune 2015 9\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\n4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL\nCONSEQUENCES\n4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT\nThe gas pipeline infrastructure in the United States is a network of over 2.6 million miles\nof pipelines (http://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov/pipelineforum/facts-and-stats/incidents-and-\nmileage-report/). These pipelines exist in a variety of diverse environments, including\noffshore locations, highly populated urban sites, and unpopulated rural areas. Therefore,\nthe potentially affected environment would be the land area and waterways in the United\nStates where pipelines are located.\n4.2 ENVIORNMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES\nThis section identifies the environmental effects of each alternative. These effects\ninclude impacts to human health and the physical environment. The physical\nenvironment includes:\n Air quality and climate\n Soils, topography and geology\n Water Resources (including Wetlands, Water Bodies and Floodplains)\n Historical and Archeological Resources\n Wildlife\n Farmland\n4.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative\nThis section identifies the environmental effects of each component of the proposed\nrulemaking, including potential impacts to human health and to the physical environment,\nas defined in Section 4.2. Many of the changes included in the proposed rule reflect\nexisting prudent pipeline practices and others propose entirely new practices. Either way,\nthe proposed rule would require these practices.\nWhere the proposed rule would enhance the accuracy and quality of pipeline inspections,\nit may better identify conditions in existing pipelines which require maintenance\nactivities. In such cases, the rule could lead to more excavations. This excavation would\nresult in ground disturbance that has the potential to cause sedimentation into adjacent\nwetlands and waterways, if any are present. This would reduce water quality and\ndiminish aquatic habitat. In addition, disturbance to vegetation could cause disturbance\nJune 2015 10\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\nor reduce available wildlife habitat for terrestrial species. However, impacts associated\nwith these excavations are expected to be localized and temporary in nature. Excavation\ncould also disturb historical and archaeological resources and farmland, if any of these\nresources are present. While the linear size of these excavations would vary, it is\nexpected that they would be contained within the existing rights-of-way. While such\nexcavations would individually have minor localized environmental impacts, they would\nalso decrease the likelihood of pipeline failures that could result in catastrophic damage\nto human health and the environment. Therefore, it is expected that in such cases, the\nproposed rule would have a negligible temporary adverse impact but, due to decreased\nrisk of release, would result in net positive impacts to the human environment, including\nair quality and climate, soils, topography, geology, water resources (floodplains, wetlands\nand water bodies), historical and archeological resources, wildlife, and farmland.\nTo the extent that the proposed rule would affect pipelines that exist in areas where\nEnvironmental Justice concerns exist, the regulatory amendments would have the same\neffect regardless of the geographic location of the pipelines. Therefore, Environmental\nJustice populations are not expected to be affected by the proposed rule any differently\nthan the general population. Because PHMSA believes that these regulatory amendments\nwould increase pipeline safety across systems, we believe any impact to areas where\nenvironmental justice concerns exist will be positive. Therefore, consistent with\nExecutive Order 12898 and DOT Order 5610.2(a), PHMSA does not anticipate that the\nproposed rule would result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or\nenvironmental effects on minority or low-income populations.\nIn this section, environmental consequences of the Proposed Action Alternative are\nexamined for each component of the proposed rulemaking, which are described in section\n3.3. This section describes the potential impacts of each component on public health.\nAccident and Incident Notification: This rulemaking action would revise the pipeline\nsafety regulations to establish time limits for telephonic or electronic notification of an\naccident or incident to require such notification at the earliest practicable moment\nfollowing the confirmed discovery of an accident or incident, not later than 1 hour\nfollowing the time of such confirmed discovery. PHMSA does not expect this change to\naffect the likelihood of pipeline failure. However, PHMSA believes that faster reporting\ncan prevent or mitigate environmental and human health consequences of an incident\nbecause response activities can begin and be overseen by proper officials.\nCost Recovery for Design Reviews: This rulemaking action would provide a fee\nstructure and assessment methodology for recovering costs associated with design review\nof new gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA does not expect this change to affect\nJune 2015 11\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\nthe likelihood of pipeline failure and therefore, would not result in any environmental\nimpacts.\nOperator Qualification Requirements for Parts 192 and 195: Amendments to the\noperator qualification program would improve the overall effectiveness of the program\nby incorporating new construction, operation and maintenance tasks into the program.\nThese changes would also enhance the program by clarifying existing requirements and\nmaking necessary changes to address findings and shortcoming. Ensuring operators have\nthe necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the actual work may reduce\nerrors that can result in pipeline failures. Therefore, PHMSA expects that this component\nof the proposed rule would decrease the risk of pipeline failure and have a positive\nimpact to human health and the physical environment.\nSpecial Permit Renewal: This rulemaking action would ensure that special permits are\nnot granted without an expiration date. This will ensure that a special permit will not\ncontinue to be used if it is no longer in the best interest of public safety. Therefore,\nPHMSA expects that this component of the proposed rule would decrease the risk of\npipeline failure and have a positive impact to human health and the physical environment.\nFarm Taps: This rulemaking action would exempt Farm Taps from DIMP regulations.\nArguably, the lifting of these requirements from farm taps could increase the potential for\npipeline failure. However, PHMSA believes that this is proposal is prudent because most\nfarm taps are located in less-populated areas, and risks to farm taps are lesser than risks to\nmore extensive distribution systems. PHMSA believes that the risks that farm taps\npresent is typically dependent upon the service line in which the farm tap is employed,\nand the environment in which it operates. Therefore, to account for the exemption of\nDIMP requirements, in this rulemaking, PHMSA is proposing to prescribe inspection\nactivities for pressure regulators and over-pressurization protection equipment on service\nlines that originate from transmission, gathering, or production pipelines. Therefore,\nPHMSA expects that the net effect of this component of the proposed rule would be a\npossible minimal increase or have no impact on the risk of pipeline failure and to human\nhealth and the physical environment.\nReversal of Flow or Change in Product: This rulemaking action proposes to expand\nthe list of events in §§ 191.22 and 195.64 that require electronic 60-day notification to\nPHMSA to include the reversal of flow of product or change in product in a mainline\npipeline. This provision simply allows for greater awareness and oversight of changes to\npipeline systems, which PHMSA believes generally increases safety and could\npotentially decrease the likelihood of pipeline failure.\nJune 2015 12\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\nEditorial Amendments: The editorial amendments in the proposed rulemaking would\nprovide clarification and consistency to existing regulations, but are not expected to\nchange the likelihood of pipeline failure and therefore, would not result in any\nenvironmental impacts.\nPipeline Assessment Tools: This proposed rulemaking action would incorporate by\nreference consensus standards for assessing the physical condition of in-service\nhazardous liquids pipelines using in-line inspection (ILI) and stress corrosion cracking\ndirect assessment (SCCDA). Incorporation of these consensus standards would assure\nbetter consistency, accuracy and quality in pipeline assessments conducted using these\ntechniques. Therefore, PHMSA expects that this component of the proposed rule would\ndecrease the risk of pipeline failure and have a positive impact to human health and the\nphysical environment.\nRetention of Samples and Additional Testing: This change would resolve conflicting\nrequirements related to drug and alcohol testing. While this will ensure regulatory\nconsistency and improve the integrity of the drug testing process it is not expected to\nchange the likelihood of pipeline failure and therefore, would not result in any\nenvironmental impacts.\nElectronic Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results: Requiring operators\nprovide electronic reporting for anti-drug testing results would ensure a qualified\nworkforce; it is not expected to change the likelihood of pipeline failure and therefore,\nwould not result in any environmental impacts.\nPost-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing: The editorial amendment would provide\nclarification regarding decisions not to administer a post-accident alcohol test. PHMSA\ndoes not expect this to result in a component of the rule to change the likelihood of\npipeline failure and therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts.\n4.2.2 Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action\nThe proposed Action Alternative is not expected to result in significant environmental\nimpacts and many provisions are expected to result in beneficial impacts. As discussed\nabove, some elements of the propose rulemaking, such as more rigorous requirements for\nassessing the physical condition of in-service pipelines could identify more conditions in\nexisting pipelines which leads to an increase in excavations. Such excavations would\nindividually have minor localized environmental impacts and would also decrease the\nJune 2015 13\n\n<<<PAGE 17>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes\nlikelihood of pipeline failures that could result in catastrophic damage to human health\nand the environment, resulting in a net benefit. Other parts of the proposed rule would\nimprove operator qualifications, which may reduce the likelihood of faulty installation of\npipeline components. Other provisions increase oversight, which is intended to increase\nsafety and minimize the likelihood of failures, which account for the biggest threat to the\nhuman environmental from gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and liquefied\nnatural gas (LNG) facilities.\n4.2.3 No Action Alternative\nThere are not expected to be any environmental impacts to human health, the physical\nenvironment or environmental justice from the no action alternative, in which no\nregulatory changes would occur. However, if the no action alternative were selected, the\nchanges aimed at further reducing pipeline failures ","truncated":true,"body_characters":41523}