# U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes - Draft Environmental Assessment

- **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:** Not available
- **effective on:** Not available
- **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>>>

U.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 2>>>

DRAFT 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 3>>>

DRAFT 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 4>>>

DRAFT 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 5>>>

DRAFT 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 6>>>

DRAFT 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 7>>>

DRAFT 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 8>>>

DRAFT 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 9>>>

DRAFT 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 10>>>

DRAFT 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 11>>>

DRAFT 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 12>>>

DRAFT 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 13>>>

DRAFT 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 14>>>

DRAFT 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 15>>>

DRAFT 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 16>>>

DRAFT 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 17>>>

DRAFT 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 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 41523