# U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Environmental Assessment (EA) - **operation:** document - **citation:** 0900006481ca7cd9 - **title:** U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Environmental Assessment (EA) - **source type:** rulemaking - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** current - **official:** true - **published on:** Not available - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** Preliminary Environmental Assessment Regulatory Development Support Services Pipeline Safety: Safety of On-Shore Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Contract No.: DPTH56-09-F-000012 Order No.: DTPH56-09-F-000012TTD002 Project No.: 1027-002 Submitted To: Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Attn: Ms.... Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................. 1 List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................ 2 Preliminary Environmental Assessment... - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006481ca7cd9.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006481ca7cd9.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006481ca7cd9 - **source url:** https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-2010-0229-0036/attachment_1.pdf **body:** <<>> Preliminary Environmental Assessment Regulatory Development Support Services Pipeline Safety: Safety of On-Shore Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Contract No.: DPTH56-09-F-000012 Order No.: DTPH56-09-F-000012TTD002 Project No.: 1027-002 Submitted To: Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Attn: Ms. Cheryl Whetsel, COTR 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590–0001 Submitted By: Econometrica, Inc. 4416 East-West Highway, Suite 215 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 February 2, 2015 1 <<>> Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................. 1 List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................ 2 Preliminary Environmental Assessment ............................................................................. 3 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3 1.2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 4 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................... 5 1.4 Public Involvement ...................................................................................... 6 1.5 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 7 Requirement Area #1 – Extend Reporting Requirements to Gravity Lines .... 7 Requirement Area # 2. Extend Reporting Requirements to All Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines ................................................................................... 8 Requirement Area #3. Require Inspections of Pipelines in Areas Affected by Extreme Weather, Man-made or Natural Disasters and Other Similar Events ....................................................................................................................... 9 Requirement Area # 4. Require Periodic Assessments of Pipelines Not Already Covered Under the IM Program ...................................................... 10 Requirement Area #5. Require Leak Detection Systems on Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in All Locations ................................................................... 13 Requirement Area # 6. Modify the Provisions of Making Pipeline Repairs .. 14 Requirement Area # 7. Require All Pipelines Subject to the IM Program be Capable of Accommodating Inline Inspection Tools .................................... 15 Requirement Area #8. Clarify Other Requirements ..................................... 16 Number 8.1 Enhancing the Definition of Information Analysis to Improve the Quality of Operator Evaluations ................................................................... 16 Requirements Number 8. 2 Periodic Verification of the Identification of Covered Segments ...................................................................................... 17 Requirement Number 8.3. Clarification of IM Requirements for Non-Pipe Facilities ....................................................................................................... 18 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE RULE .......................................... 19 Hazardous Materials Transportation ............................................................ 21 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................... 21 1.8. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 24 1.9 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS ............................................... 25 2.0 SOURCE DOCUMENTS ........................................................................... 26 1 <<>> List of Acronyms ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking API-AOPL American Petroleum Institute – Association of Oil Pipelines CEQ U.S. Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment EFRD Emergency flow restricting devices ESA Endangered Species Act GIS Geographic information system HCA High consequence area ILI Inline inspection IM Integrity Management NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic preservation Act NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking OCS Outer continental shelf OPS Office of Pipeline Safety PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration SCC Stress corrosion cracking USA Unusually Sensitive Area 2 <<>> Preliminary Environmental Assessment 1.1 INTRODUCTION The nation's pipelines are a transportation system that enables the safe movement of energy products to industry and consumers. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is the Federal safety authority for the nation's natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA is the Federal agency charged with the safe and secure movement of almost one-million daily shipments of hazardous materials by all modes of transportation. The agency also oversees the nation's pipeline infrastructure which accounts for 64 percent of the energy commodities consumed in the United States. 1 Federal agencies are required to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).2 NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) implementing regulations3 establish policies and procedures that ensure environmental information is available to decision makers, regulatory agencies, and the public before Federal actions are implemented. This EA follows the procedures established by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT)4 to implement NEPA, pursuant to the CEQ regulations. The Federal pipeline safety regulations (1) assure safety in design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of pipeline facilities and in the siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of LNG facilities; (2) set out parameters for administering the pipeline safety program; and (3) delineate requirements for onshore oil pipeline response plans. PHMSA is proposing changes to the regulations covering the safety of hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. These changes follow from an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63774). Through the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is proposing to make certain changes to the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations. As written in the NPRM, the changes include (1) extending the reporting requirements to all gravity lines; (2) extending the reporting requirements to all gathering lines; (3) requiring inspections of pipelines in areas affected by extreme weather, man-made and natural disasters, and other similar events; (4) requiring periodic assessments of pipelines that are not already covered under the integrity management program requirements; (5) requiring leak detection systems on pipelines in all locations; (6) modifying the 1 Hearing on “Pipeline Safety: Public Awareness and Education” http://cooperativeplan.slco.org/pdf/Projects/Pipelines/PipelineAwarenessHea.pdf. 2 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. 3 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq. 4 DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 9/18/79, as amended 7/13/82, 7/30/85. 3 <<>> provisions for performing pipeline repairs; (7) requiring that all pipelines subject to the integrity management requirements be capable of accommodating inline inspection tools within 20 years, unless the basic construction of a pipeline cannot be modified to permit that accommodation; and (8) clarifying other requirements. 1.2 BACKGROUND PHMSA is responsible for regulating the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines located throughout the United States, which traverse of variety of environments – from highly populated urban sites to remote, unpopulated rural areas. The physical environment potentially affected by the proposed rule includes the airspace, water resources (e.g., oceans, streams, lakes), cultural and historical resources (e.g., properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places), biological and ecological resources (e.g., coastal zones, wetlands, plant and animal species and their habitat, forests, grasslands, offshore marine ecosystems), and special ecological resources (e.g., threatened and endangered plant and animal species and their habitat, national and state parklands, biological reserves, Wild and Scenic Rivers) that exist directly adjacent to and within the vicinity of pipelines. PHMSA’s mission is “to protect people and the environment from the risks inherent in transportation of hazardous materials – by pipeline and other modes of transportation.” PHMSA is committed to reducing the risk of harm to people and the environment resulting from the transportation of hazardous materials by pipelines. Pipeline accidents can impact surrounding populations, property, and the environment, and may result in injuries or fatalities as well as property and environmental damage. One of the major ways PHMSA’s strategic plan includes the following goals: Reduce the risk of harm to people due to the transportation of hazardous materials by pipeline and other modes. Pipeline accidents, depending on their mode and severity, can cause many health hazards, including toxicity, dizziness, asphyxiation, irritation or burns. Pipeline accidents not only have a negative impact on the environment and the economy but can also affect health and wellbeing. Reduce the risk of harm to the environment due to the transportation of oil and hazardous materials by pipeline and other modes. Ground and waterway releases can cause environmental damage, impact wildlife, or contaminate drinking water supplies. Since some petroleum product vapors are heavier than air, they can spread, creating a vapor explosion. Releases can affect ground and waterway contamination. Oil spills that spread over the permeable ground may require clean-up. Since oil products are lighter than water, spills that impact waterways can travel through or close to populated areas through storm drains, creating a pathway for flammable or combustible liquids as well as 4 <<>> the resulting vapors to travel. The spread can be undetectable from the surface. Also, runoff may cause pollution. Help maintain and improve the reliability of systems that deliver energy products and other hazardous materials in a way that increases safety and minimizes the effect of disruptions. Accidents have the potential to increase the demand for community resources. There is typically an increased demand for assistance from first responders and firefighters to control fires, and police and other law enforcement personnel to control traffic and assist in possible evacuations. These releases may also prompt demand for services from engineers or other public workers to deal with utility and infrastructure problems. Releases can cause business interruptions or loss of fuel supplies such as natural gas, gasoline, and home heating oil. Although the potential for releases to cause displacement of populations near or around fires or explosions is remote, these releases could cause the need for permanent or temporary shelter, putting more strain on community resources. Combined effects on businesses, transportation, and other economic resources can exacerbate response and recovery issues. 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED The statement of purpose and need defines the need for PHMSA action, not just for the proposed action. The statement is an explanation of why agency action is needed or proposed, and reflects the goals to be achieved. Congress established the current framework for regulating the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines in the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (HLPSA) of 1979 (P.L. 96-129). Like its predecessor, the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-481), the HLPSA provided the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) with the authority to prescribe minimum Federal safety standards for hazardous liquid pipeline facilities. That authority, as amended in subsequent reauthorizations, is currently codified in the Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. §§ 60101 et seq.). PHMSA has issued a set of comprehensive safety standards for the design, construction, testing, operation, and maintenance of hazardous liquid pipelines. Those standards are codified in the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 195). Part 195 applies broadly to the transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide by pipeline, including on the Outer Continental Shelf, with certain exceptions as required by statute or for reasons of policy. Performance-based safety standards are generally favored (i.e., a particular objective is specified, but the method of achieving that objective is not). Risk management principles play a critical role in the Pipeline Integrity Management requirements for high consequence areas. Congress recently enacted the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90). That legislation included several provisions that are relevant to the regulation of hazardous liquid pipelines. A comprehensive analysis of the effect of those provisions on this proceeding is provided below. 5 <<>> PHMSA chose the proposed actions among many alternatives considered. The actions represent PHMSA’s preferred alternatives. The actions are expected to enhance PHMSA’s ability to:  Understand, measure, and assess the performance of individual operators and the industry as a whole.  Integrate pipeline safety data in a way that will allow a more thorough, rigorous, and comprehensive understanding and assessment of risk.  Improve the data and analyses PHMSA relies on to make critical, safety-related decisions and improve PHMSA decision-making.  Facilitate PHMSA’s allocation of inspection and other resources based on a more accurate accounting of risk.  Reduce the time PHMSA spends on gathering data from multiple sources to carry out pipeline oversight responsibilities. See section 1.5 Alternatives for a more detailed discussion of the purpose and need of each facet of the NPRM. 1.4 Public Involvement Public involvement is a critical aspect of the NEPA process. As such, PHMSA must consider any comments received from the public and any comments and recommendations of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee and other relevant stakeholders. PHMSA has already solicited public comments on the ANPRM5 . The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will be published. 6 PHMSA will again request public comments on the proposed rulemaking. The public will also have the opportunity to comment on this Draft EA before the Final EA is published. 7 In regard to regulatory development, OPS works with statutorily mandated advisory committees who provide peer reviews of all proposed pipeline safety rules to assure technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness and practicability. In addition to the issuance of pipeline safety regulations, OPS monitors compliance via inspections and works with stakeholders to address current and potential pipeline safety issues. OPS also issues advisory bulletins, safety alerts, special permits, and interpretations letters on a wide range of pipeline safety areas. Advisory bulletins are used to inform affected pipeline operators and Federal and state pipeline safety personnel of matters that have the potential of becoming safety or environmental risks. 8 PHMSA has two pipeline safety standards advisory committees that are mandated by legislation. The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 established the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 5 The ANPRM may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID PHMSA-2010- 0229. 6 The NPRM may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID PHMSA-2010- 0229. 7 The EA may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID PHMSA-2010-0229. 8 http://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov/pipelineforum/dot-action/regulatory-guidance/. 6 <<>> (TPSSC), and the Hazardous Liquid Safety Act of 1979 established the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC). The TPSSC and THLPSSC review PHMSA’s proposed regulatory initiatives to assure the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness and practicability of each proposal. The committees also evaluate the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment information of the proposals. Each committee has 15 members with equal representation from government, industry, and the public. Proceedings are published accessible on the PHMSA Web 9 1.5 ALTERNATIVES Following is an area by area listing of the proposed actions. Requirement Area #1 - Extend Reporting Requirements to Gravity Lines The Target Problem, Need and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is the requirement to modify § 195.48, the scope statement for Subpart B, Annual, Accident, and Safety-Related Condition Reporting, to acquire the desired data.10 The proposed revision states that Subpart B applies to all pipelines subject to Part 195 and to pipelines excepted from regulation under specific paragraphs of § 195.1(b). PHMSA is proposing no change to its exercise of jurisdiction relative to these pipelines at this time other than for reporting purposes. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the newly enacted Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90). That legislation included several provisions that are relevant to the regulation of hazardous liquid pipelines that have had questions about the safety of hazardous liquid gathering lines. PHMSA requires additional information to address these concerns. Purpose: Assist in determining whether the existing Federal and State regulations for these lines are adequate. 9 http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/technical-advisory-comm/TPSSC. 10The desired data is described on the PHMSA forms. The relevant forms can be viewed on the Web at http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/forms. 7 <<>> Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action Should PHMSA not extend the reporting requirements to gravity lines, the unknown risks of accidental release and the subsequent damages will remain a mystery. The “No Action” alternative is used as a base-line comparison of environmental impacts if no action is taken by the Agency. Alternative 2: Subject to Regulation Only Gravity Flow Pipelines Carrying Ethanol Commenters that stated that the current exception for gravity flow pipelines is appropriate but expressed the view that the exception should not apply to pipelines that transport ethanol. This alternative was rejected because releases of all hazardous liquid products carried by gravity lines pose a threat to the physical environment. Requirement Area # 2. Extend Reporting Requirements to All Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines The Target Problem, Need and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is the requirement to modify § 195.48, the scope statement for Subpart B, Annual, Accident, and Safety-Related Condition Reporting, to acquire the desired data.11 The proposed revision states that Subpart B applies to all pipelines subject to Part 195 and to pipelines excepted from regulation under specific paragraphs of § 195.1(b). PHMSA is proposing no change to its exercise of jurisdiction relative to these pipelines at this time other than for reporting purposes. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the newly enacted Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90). That legislation included several provisions that are relevant to the regulation of hazardous liquid pipelines that have had questions about the safety of hazardous liquid gathering lines. PHMSA requires additional information to address these concerns. Purpose: Assist in determining whether the existing Federal and State regulations for these lines are adequate. Alternatives Considered and Rejected 11The desired data is described on the PHMSA forms. The relevant forms can be viewed on the Web at http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/forms. 8 <<>> Alternative 1: No Action. Under this option, PHMSA would maintain existing requirements for reporting by taking no action. However, PHMSA believes this would not effectively support PHMSA’s safety mission. By not taking action, the Agency would be unresponsive to mandates imposed by Congress, and there would likely be inefficiencies and gaps identified in the NPRM that would continue to exist. Although taking no action would eliminate additional compliance costs, there would be no benefits ensuing from the proposal. Alternative 2: Require different reporting requirements for some operators. PHMSA can establish different requirements for large and small operators affected by the proposed rule, basing the requirements on estimated differences in expected costs and benefits. PHMSA is aware that some regulations, rules, and government policies place a disproportionate burden on small firms. Consequently, to promote entrepreneurship, government agencies have sometimes granted small businesses preferential regulatory treatment, such as exemptions from legislation and regulations or extended deadlines for compliance. PHMSA judged that these considerations were not sufficient to recommend reporting requirements based on business size. This option was not chosen because PHMSA concluded that allowing disparate reporting would not meet its informational needs by leaving a significant number of operators outside the reporting requirements. The Agency believes reporting must provide relevant information that is useful for the decision-making needs of groups for whom the information is provided. PHMSA determined, therefore, that not requiring the smaller operators to report would dampen the regulation’s effectiveness and that special regulatory treatment would not, in fact, help small businesses. PHMSA believes that although there may be a learning curve for small entities, with practice and guidance—which PHMSA is willing to provide—small operators will learn how to comply with the reporting requirements. Requirement Area #3. Require Inspections of Pipelines in Areas Affected by Extreme Weather, Man-made or Natural Disasters and Other Similar Events The Target Problem, Need and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is the requirement to add a new section, § 195.414, which will require operators to: (1) Inspect a pipeline in an area affected by extreme weather, a man-made or natural disaster, or other similar event to ensure that no conditions exist which could adversely affect the safe operation of that pipeline; (2) Consider the nature of the event and the physical characteristics, operating conditions, 9 <<>> location, and prior history of the affected pipeline in determining the appropriate method for performing the inspection; (3) Perform the inspection within 72 hours after the cessation of the event, or as soon as the affected area can be safely accessed; and (4) Take appropriate remedial action to ensure the safe operation of a pipeline based on the information obtained as a result of performing the inspection. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the fact that natural disasters such as storms, earthquakes, floods, can damage or disrupt pipeline operations and cause fuel shortages and rising prices. Natural disasters on energy systems can have extensive ramifications for infrastructure development, the economy, public health, general quality of life, and even peaceful coexistence of communities, regions, and countries. Purpose: Ensure that pipelines are still capable of being safely operated after these events. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action Under this option, PHMSA would maintain existing requirements for reporting by taking no action. However, PHMSA believes this would not effectively support PHMSA’s safety mission. By not taking action, there would likely be inefficiencies and gaps in pipeline safety. Requirement Area # 4. Require Periodic Assessments of Pipelines Not Already Covered Under the IM Program The Target Problem, Need, and Purpose of the proposed action PHMSA preferred alternative is the requirement to adopt a provision that would require operators to perform periodic assessments of hazardous liquid pipelines which are not already covered under the IM program requirements. Specifically, the proposed § 195.416 would require operators to assess non-IM pipelines with an inline inspection (ILI) tool at least once every 10 years. Other assessment methods could be used if an operator provides OPS with prior written notice that a pipeline is not capable of accommodating an ILI tool, and that the use of an alternative technology would provide a substantially equivalent understanding of its condition in light of the threats which could affect its safe operation. Such alternative technologies would include hydrostatic pressure testing or appropriate forms of direct assessment. The individuals who review the results of these periodic assessments would be subject to the operator qualification requirements in Subpart G of Part 195 and would need to consider any uncertainty in the results obtained, including ILI tool tolerance, in determining whether any conditions could adversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline. Such determinations would have to be made promptly, but no later than 180 10 <<>> days after an inspection, unless operator demonstrates that the 180-day deadline is impracticable. Operators would be required to comply with the other provisions in Part 195 in implementing the requirements in § 195.416. That includes having appropriate provisions for performing these periodic assessments and any resulting repairs in an operator’s procedural manual (see § 195.402), adhering to the recordkeeping provisions for inspections, test, and repairs (see§ 195.404), and taking appropriate remedial action under § 195.422, as discussed below. Section 195.11 would also be amended to subject regulated onshore gathering lines to the periodic assessment requirement. PHMSA is also proposing to modify the IM pipeline repair criteria and apply the criteria to non- IM pipeline repairs. Specifically, the criteria in § 195.452(h) for IM repairs would be modified to:  Categorize bottom-side dents with stress risers as immediate repair conditions;  Require immediate repairs whenever the calculated burst pressure is less than 1.1 times maximum operating pressure;  Eliminate the 60-day and 180-day repair categories; and  Establish a new, consolidated 270-day repair category. PHMSA is also proposing to amend the requirements in § 195.422 for performing non- IM repairs by applying the criteria in the immediate repair category in § 195.452(h) and establishing an 18-month repair category for hazardous liquid pipelines which are not subject to the IM requirements. The existing requirements in § 195.422 would also be modified to include a general requirement for performing all other repairs within a reasonable time. A proposed amendment to § 195.11 would extend these new pipeline remediation requirements to regulated onshore gathering lines. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the fact that this requirement will ensure that pipeline operators obtain the information necessary for the prompt detection and remediation of corrosion and other deformation anomalies (e.g., dents, gouges, and grooves) in all locations, not just in areas which could affect HCAs. PHMSA believes that these changes will ensure that immediate action is taken to remediate anomalies that present an imminent threat to the integrity of hazardous liquid pipelines in all locations. Moreover, many anomalies which would not qualify as immediate repairs under the current criteria will meet that requirement as a result of the additional conservatism that will be incorporated into the burst pressure calculations. The new timeframes for performing non-immediate repairs will also allow operators to remediate those conditions in a timely manner while allocating resources to those areas which present a higher risk of harm to the public, property, and the environment. PHMSA’s IM inspection experience (since 2002) has identified that some operators were not considering explicitly the accuracy of tools when evaluating the results of assessments conducted using these tools. As a result, random variation within recorded data led to both overcalls (i.e., an anomaly was identified to be more severe than it actually was) and under-calls. Overcalls are conservative, resulting in repair of some 11 <<>> anomalies that might not actually meet repair criteria. Under-calls, however, are non- conservative, since they could result in anomalies exceeding specified repair criteria going unremediated. The inline inspection tools provide superior information about the condition of a pipeline, and mandating their broader use will improve the detection of anomalies and prevent or mitigate future accidents. Explicitly considering the accuracy of the ILI tool tends to reduce the number of overcalls. PHMSA has concluded, based on its experience inspecting operator IM program implementation, that the repair criteria changes in this proposal would be acceptable, provided that all operators explicitly consider the accuracy of the ILI tools that they use. PHMSA believes that the proposed measures will assure that anomalies requiring repair are identified regardless of whether they are within or outside of segments that could affect HCAs. Purpose: Provide critical information about the condition of these pipelines, including the existence of internal and external corrosion and deformation anomalies. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action If there are no changes to the current practices related to assessments made by ILI, the unreliable information due to inaccurate tools and the inefficiencies which result from under-calls and overcalls will continue. Unintended and untimely repairs will be made, while undetected pipeline anomalies that could lead to costly releases of hazardous liquids are not repaired. The No-Action alternative would not benefit or enhance the environment since fewer anomalies may be detected and repaired in a timely manner. Historically, more anomalies leading to repairs have occurred outside of segments that could affect HCAs. Therefore, PHMSA rejected the No Action alternative for the proposal that operators who select ILI as the method for performing IM assessments be precluded from limiting data collection to covered segments. Alternative2: Create a “Monitored” Category This alternative would include the creation of a scheduled and monitored classification of anomalies (in line with rules for the gas industry in 49 CFR Part 192), as well as the creation of a 365-day repair category. Anomalies currently part of the 60-day and 180- day classifications would be reorganized into the abovementioned categories (immediate, 365-day, scheduled, and monitored), thus eliminating the 60-day and 180-day repair categories. PHMSA states that this alternative is not needed because the rule addresses conditions which would be covered in a “monitored” category and instead is proposing that all of the current 180-day criteria become 365-day criteria. 12 <<>> Requirement Area #5. Require Leak Detection Systems on Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in All Locations The Target Problem, Need and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is the requirement to amend § 195.134 to require that all new hazardous liquid pipelines be designed to include leak detection systems. PHMSA is also proposing to amend § 195.444 to require that operators have a means for detecting leaks on all portions of a hazardous liquid pipeline system, and to require that an evaluation be performed to determine what kinds of systems must be installed to adequately protect the public, property, and the environment. The factors that must be considered in performing that evaluation would include the characteristics and history of the affected pipeline, the capabilities of the available leak detection systems, and the location of emergency response personnel. A proposed amendment to § 195.11 would extend these new leak detection requirements to regulated onshore gathering lines. The need for PHMSA’s action is is based on the recent pipeline accident in Marshall, Michigan which demonstrates the importance of having a means for promptly detecting leaks in all locations. The preliminary findings from that accident indicate that the operator failed to detect the rupture in its pipeline for nearly 18 hours, resulting in the release of approximately 819,000 gallons of crude oil into the Talmadge Creek and Kalamazoo River.12 Other recent pipeline accidents, including a pair of related failures that occurred in 2010 on a crude oil pipeline in Salt Lake City, Utah, further corroborate the significance of having an adequate means for identifying leaks in all locations. These changes will ensure that immediate action is taken to remediate anomalies that present an imminent threat to the integrity of hazardous liquid pipelines in all locations. Many anomalies that would not qualify as immediate repairs under the current criteria will meet that requirement as a result of the additional conservatism that will be incorporated into the burst pressure calculations. The new timeframes for performing other repairs will allow operators to remediate those conditions in a timely manner while allocating resources to those areas that present a higher risk of harm to the public, property, and the environment. Purpose: Help to mitigate the effects of hazardous liquid pipelines failures that occur outside of HCAs. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action Under this option, PHMSA’s safety mission would be compromised. By not taking action on leak detection, the Agency would be unresponsive, and there would likely be 12 http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enbridge (last accessed January 13, 2012). 13 <<>> inefficiencies and gaps in pipeline safetyInefficiencies and compromised safety would not benefit the public or the environment. Alternative 2: Change Criteria for Identifying HCAs PHMSA considered proposing to make changes to the criteria for identifying HCAs, but changing or broadening the existing Census-based approach for determining high population and other populated areas is not currently justified. The existing approach ensures uniformity and provides an adequate margin of safety by including some less densely populated areas. PHMSA recognizes that other areas of ecological, cultural, or national significance could be designated as PHMSA notes that the new safety standards that are being proposed for hazardous liquid pipelines are not located in an HCA, such as proposing to adopt other regulations that require inspections of pipelines in areas affected by extreme weather, natural disasters, provides an adequate margin of safety. Also, most surface waters are already covered under the present criteria Requirement Area # 6. Modify the Provisions of Making Pipeline Repairs The Target Problem, Need, and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is to make certain modifications to the IM repair criteria and to establish similar repair criteria for pipeline segments that are not located in HCAs. Specifically, under the current proposal, the repair criteria in § 195.452(h) would be amended to:  Categorize bottom-side dents with stress risers as immediate repair conditions;  Require immediate repairs whenever the calculated burst pressure is less than 1.1 times maximum operating pressure (MOP);  Eliminate the 60-day and 180-day repair categories; and Establish a new, consolidated 270-day repair category. PHMSA is also proposing to adopt new requirements in § 195.416 that would:  Apply the criteria in the immediate repair category in § 195.452(h) to pipelines that are not subject to the integrity management requirements; and  Establish an 18-month repair category for hazardous liquid pipelines that are not subject to the integrity management requirements. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the need to ensure that immediate action is taken to remediate anomalies that present an imminent threat to the integrity of hazardous liquid pipelines and environment. If adopted as proposed, these changes will ensure the prompt remediation of anomalous conditions on all hazardous liquid pipeline segments, while allowing operators to allocate their resources to those areas that present a higher risk of harm to the public, property, and the environment. 14 <<>> Purpose: To facilitate timely repairs which will mitigate the likelihood of environmental damage and the disruption of supply to the public. Also, to improve the condition of hazardous liquid pipelines.Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action Under this option, PHMSA’s safety mission would be compromised. By not action on modifying pipeline repair provisions, there would likely be inefficiencies and gaps in pipeline safety. Repairing pipelines in a timely manner is likely to reduce the risk to the environment and public. Requirement Area # 7. Require All Pipelines Subject to the IM Program be Capable of Accommodating Inline Inspection Tools The Target Problem, Need, and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is the requirement to require that all hazardous liquid pipelines in areas that could affect an HCA be made capable of accommodating ILI tools within 20 years, unless the basic construction of a pipeline will not accommodate the passage of such a device. PHMSA is proposing to establish a new provision in § 195.452(n) which would require all pipelines in areas which could affect an HCA be made capable of accommodating ILI tools within 20 years. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the ability of operators to use inline inspection tools in performing integrity assessments. This will enhance public safety and protect the environment, because modern ILI tools : (1) provide a relatively complete examination of the entire length of a pipeline, including information about threats that cannot always be identified using other assessment methods; and (2) superior information about incipient flaws (i.e., flaws that are not yet a threat to pipeline integrity, but that could become so in the future), thereby allowing these conditions to be monitored over consecutive inspections and remediated before a pipeline failure occurs. Purpose: Broadening the use of ILI tools will improve the detection of anomalies and prevent or mitigate future accidents in high-risk areas. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action If there are no changes to the current practices related to assessments, There will be gaps in basic knowledge about the condition of any given pipeline not subject to assessments. The risk from spills will not be curtailed or improved, and pipeline operator will not take 15 <<>> advantage of the latest technology available to them to help protect the public and the environment. Historically, more anomalies leading to repairs have occurred outside of segments that could affect HCAs. Therefore, PHMSA rejected the No Action alternative for the proposal that operators who select ILI as the method for performing IM assessments be precluded from limiting data collection to covered segments. Alternative 2: Require that all Pipelines be Capable of - **truncated:** true - **body characters:** 64649