{"operation":"document","citation":"09000064824a106a","title":"U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Changes - Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"Scope: The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes environmental consequences of adopting PHMSA’s rule “Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Changes,” covering amendments to 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 199, and compares a Selected Alternative to a No Action Alternative. Material conclusions: The EA describes the specific regulatory changes considered (including one-hour accident/incident notification, cost recovery for large or novel design reviews, operator qualification clarifications for control room staff, special permit renewal procedures, farm tap DIMP exemption with added inspection requirements, reporting of flow reversals/changes in product, incorporation by reference of assessment standards, electronic reporting of drug/alcohol testing, and explicit documentation and testing policies)","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-09000064824a106a.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-09000064824a106a.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-09000064824a106a","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-2013-0163-0049/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 Changes\nFinal Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant\nImpact\nDocket No. PHMSA-2013-0163\nDecember 22, 2016\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\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety 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 .......................................................................................................................... 2\n3.0 ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................... 3\n3.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 3\n3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................................. 3\n3.3 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................................. 4\n3.3.1 Accident and Incident Notification ......................................................................................... 4\n3.3.2 Cost Recovery for Design Reviews ......................................................................................... 4\n3.3.3 NTSB Recommendation on Control Room Center Staff .......................................................... 5\n3.3.4 Special Permit Renewal .......................................................................................................... 5\n3.3.5 Farm Taps .............................................................................................................................. 5\n3.3.6 Reversal of Flow or Change in Product ................................................................................. 6\n3.3.7 Editorial Amendments ............................................................................................................ 6\n3.3.8 Pipeline Assessment Tools ...................................................................................................... 7\n3.3.9 Electronic Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results .................................................... 7\n3.3.10 Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing ........................................................................... 8\n4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................... 8\n4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................ 8\n4.2 ENVIORNMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... 8\n4.2.1 Selected Alternative ................................................................................................................ 9\n4.2.2 Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Selected Alternative .................................11\n4.2.3 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................12\n5.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION ...............................................................................................................12\n6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ................................................................................12\n7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS ..................................................................................13\n7.1 PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................................13\n7.2 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................13\ni\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety 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 rule Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\nii\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\n1.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS\nThis final Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental consequences\nassociated with adopting the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s\n(PHMSA's), rule “Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and\nIncident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes” (the rule) The rule\nchanges the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)\nParts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 199) to address Sections 9 and 13 of the Pipeline Safety,\nRegulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-90, hereafter\nreferred to as “the Act”) to make changes to the operator qualification requirements and\nother changes. The changes include:\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 to address NTSB recommendation\non control rooms\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.\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\n2.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION\n2.1 INTRODUCTION\nA draft EA was 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 final EA\ndescribes the effects of the Selected and the No Action Alternatives on the physical,\nhuman, and natural environment. This final EA also describes the changes that will take\nplace as a result of the rule and how those changes may impact the human environment.\nBased on the analysis presented in this final EA, PHMSA has determined that the rule\nwill not result in significant environmental impacts.\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 is modifying the operator qualification requirements,\nincluding addressing NTSB recommendation for control room center staff, add\nprovisions for the renewal of expiring special permits, and other standard maintenance\nchanges described in Section 3.0.\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 rule is to enhance pipeline integrity and\nsafety to lessen the frequency and consequences of pipeline incidents that cause\nenvironmental degradation, personal injury, and loss of life.\n1 42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\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 NTSB recommendation for control room\ncenter staff, and to eliminate operator discretion with regard to post-accident drug and\nalcohol testing of covered employees. In addition, PHMSA’s safety regulations require\nperiodic updates and clarifications to enhance compliance and overall safety.\n3.0 ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES\n3.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES\nPHMSA considered two alternatives to the rule: the No Action Alternative and the\nSelected Alternative, a set of revisions to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to\nincorporate amendments. PHMSA examined the environmental impacts of the two\nalternatives, the No Action Alternative and the Selected Alternative. These alternatives\nare summarized in section 3.2 and 3.3 of this document.\nThe no action alternative was rejected because PHMSA believes this would not reduce\npipeline failures that are addressed by the Selected Alternative. We believe that PHMSA\nmust take action to decrease the risks to public safety and the environment caused by\npipeline failure.\nPHMSA believes the Selected Alternative is appropriate because it is consistent with the\nAct and will reduce pipeline failure through implementation of the set of rule changes.\nPHMSA’s Action is a set of amendments and editorial changes to the Federal Pipeline\nSafety Regulations (49 CFR 190-192, 195 and 199), which are summarized in the\nsections below. A more detailed description of these changes can be found in the Notice\nof 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\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\nexisting conditions of the natural and human-made environment and serves as a baseline\nwhen analyzing environmental impacts of the Action.\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 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE\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 will 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 will 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\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.\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\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.\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 NTSB Recommendation on Control Room Center Staff\nThis rulemaking action will address the NTSB recommendation for control room center\nstaff that will clarify OQ requirements to control rooms (Safety Recommendation P-12-\n8).\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.\n3.3.4 Special Permit Renewal\nThis rulemaking action will amend 49 CFR 190.341 of the Federal pipeline safety\nregulations to add procedures for renewing a special permit. PHMSA is proposing to add\npermit renewal procedures to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations.\n3.3.5 Farm Taps\nThis rulemaking action will amend the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations in 49 CFR\nPart 192 to exclude farm taps from the pipeline Distribution Integrity Management\nProgram (DIMP requirements). A “farm tap” is a pipeline that branches from a\ntransmission, 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\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\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 will 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 will expand the scope of reportable events in §§191.22\nand 195.64 to include the reversal of flow of product or change in product in a mainline\npipeline. The rule will require operators to notify PHMSA electronically no later than 60\ndays before there is a reversal of the flow of product through a pipeline and also in the\ninstance that there is a change in the product flowing through a pipeline. Examples\ninclude, but may not be limited to, changing a transported product from liquid to gas,\nfrom crude oil to highly volatile liquids, and vice versa. This notification is not required\nfor pipeline systems already designed for bi-directional flow, or when the reversal is not\nexpected to last for 30 days or less.\n3.3.7 Editorial Amendments\nPHMSA will make the following editorial amendments to the Federal Pipeline Safety\nRegulations:\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).\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.\n6\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\n3.3.8 Pipeline Assessment Tools\nPeriodic assessment of hazardous liquids pipelines is required by § 195.452. PHMSA\nwill incorporate by reference consensus standards for assessing the physical condition of\nin-service hazardous liquids pipelines using in-line inspection and stress corrosion\ncracking direct assessment. Incorporation of the consensus standards will ensure better\ntool selection and analysis and therefore improve consistency, accuracy and quality in\npipeline assessments conducted using these techniques. PHMSA will incorporate by\nreference 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 will allow pipeline operators to conduct assessments using tethered or\nremote 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.\n3.3.9 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\nwill require electronic reporting through the Portal for drug testing results required under\n§ 199.119 and alcohol testing results required under § 199.229. Pipeline operators with\nless than 50 covered employees are currently required to submit these reports only when\nPHMSA provides written notice. PHMSA will modify these regulations to specify that\nPHMSA will provide notice to operators in the PHMSA Portal.\n7\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\n3.3.10 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 will explicitly require\ndocumentation of a decision not to administer a post-accident drug test.\nIn response to a NTSB recommendation, PHMSA will eliminate operator discretion with\nregard to drug and alcohol testing after an accident of each employee whose performance\neither contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing\nfactor to the accident. PHMSA will modify 49 CFR 199.105 and 49 CFR 199.225 by\nrestating and further defining the existing requirement to conduct post-accident drug and\nalcohol testing of all employees except those for whom sufficient information establishes\nthat they had no role in the accident.\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 affected environment is the land area and waterways in the United States where\npipelines 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\n8\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\n4.2.1 Selected Alternative\nThis section identifies the environmental effects of each component of the rulemaking,\nincluding potential impacts to human health and to the physical environment, as defined\nin Section 4.2. Many of the changes included in the rule reflect existing prudent pipeline\npractices and others propose entirely new practices. Either way, the rule will require\nthese practices.\nWhere the rule will enhance the accuracy and quality of pipeline inspections, it may\nbetter identify conditions in existing pipelines which require maintenance activities. In\nsuch cases, the rule could lead to more excavations. This excavation will result in ground\ndisturbance that has the potential to cause sedimentation into adjacent wetlands and\nwaterways, if any are present. This could reduce water quality and diminish aquatic\nhabitat. In addition, disturbance to vegetation could cause disturbance or reduce\navailable wildlife habitat for terrestrial species. However, impacts associated with these\nexcavations are expected to be localized and temporary in nature. Excavation could also\ndisturb historical and archaeological resources and farmland, if any of these resources are\npresent. While the linear size of these excavations will vary, it is expected that they\nwould be contained within the existing rights-of-way. While such excavations will\nindividually have minor localized environmental impacts, they will also decrease the\nlikelihood of pipeline failures that could result in catastrophic damage to human health\nand the environment. Therefore, it is expected that in such cases, the rule will have a\nnegligible temporary adverse impact but, due to decreased risk of release, will result in\nnet positive impacts to the human environment, including air quality and climate, soils,\ntopography, geology, water resources (floodplains, wetlands and water bodies), historical\nand archeological resources, wildlife, and farmland.\nTo the extent that the rule will affect pipelines that exist in areas where Environmental\nJustice concerns exist, the regulatory amendments will have the same effect regardless of\nthe geographic location of the pipelines. Therefore, Environmental Justice populations\nare not expected to be affected by the rule any differently than the general population.\nBecause PHMSA believes that these regulatory amendments will increase pipeline safety\nacross systems, we believe any impact to areas where environmental justice concerns\nexist will be positive. Therefore, consistent with Executive Order 12898 and DOT Order\n5610.2(a), PHMSA does not anticipate that the rule will result in disproportionately high\nand adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income\npopulations.\n9\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\nIn this section, environmental consequences of the Selected Alternative are examined for\neach component of the rulemaking, which are described in section 3.3. This section\ndescribes the potential impacts of each component on public health.\nAccident and Incident Notification: This rulemaking action will 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 will provide a fee structure\nand assessment methodology for recovering costs associated with design review of new\ngas and hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA does not expect this change to affect the\nlikelihood of pipeline failure and therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts.\nOperator Qualification for Pipeline Controllers and Supervisors: This change will\nenhance the program by clarifying existing requirements. Therefore, PHMSA expects\nthat this component of the rule will decrease the risk of pipeline failure and have a\npositive impact to human health and the physical environment.\nSpecial Permit Renewal: This rulemaking action will ensure that special permits are not\ngranted 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 rule will decrease the risk of pipeline failure\nand have a positive impact to human health and the physical environment.\nFarm Taps: This rulemaking action will 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,\n10\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\nPHMSA expects that the net effect of this component of the rule will be a possible\nminimal increase or have no impact on the risk of pipeline failure and to human health\nand the physical environment.\nReversal of Flow or Change in Product: This rulemaking action will expand the list of\nevents in §§ 191.22 and 195.64 that require electronic 60-day notification to PHMSA to\ninclude the reversal of flow of product or change in product in a mainline pipeline. This\nprovision simply allows for greater awareness and oversight of changes to pipeline\nsystems, which PHMSA believes generally increases safety and could potentially\ndecrease the likelihood of pipeline failure.\nEditorial Amendments: The editorial amendments in the rulemaking will provide\nclarification and consistency to existing regulations, but are not expected to change the\nlikelihood of pipeline failure and therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts.\nPipeline Assessment Tools: This rulemaking action will incorporate by reference\nconsensus standards for assessing the physical condition of in-service hazardous liquids\npipelines using in-line inspection (ILI) and stress corrosion cracking direct assessment\n(SCCDA). Incorporation of these consensus standards will assure better consistency,\naccuracy and quality in pipeline assessments conducted using these techniques.\nTherefore, PHMSA expects that this component of the rule will decrease the risk of\npipeline failure and have a positive impact to human health and the physical environment.\nElectronic Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results: Requiring operators\nprovide electronic reporting for anti-drug testing results will ensure a qualified\nworkforce; it is not expected to change the likelihood of pipeline failure and therefore,\nwill not result in any environmental impacts.\nPost-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing: The editorial amendment will 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 except that it will increase accountability and therefore, will not result in\nany environmental impacts.\n4.2.2 Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Selected Alternative\nThe Selected Alternative is not expected to result in significant environmental impacts\nand many provisions are expected to result in beneficial impacts. As discussed above,\nsome elements of the rulemaking, such as more rigorous requirements for assessing the\n11\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\nphysical condition of in-service pipelines could identify more conditions in existing\npipelines which leads to an increase in excavations. Such excavations would individually\nhave minor localized environmental impacts and would also decrease the likelihood of\npipeline failures that could result in catastrophic damage to human health and the\nenvironment, resulting in a net benefit. Other provisions increase oversight, which is\nintended to increase safety and minimize the likelihood of failures, which account for the\nbiggest threat to the human environmental from gas and hazardous liquids pipeline\nsystems and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities.\n4.2.3 No Action Alternative\nNo environmental impacts to human health, the physical environment or environmental\njustice would result from the no action alternative because no regulatory changes would\noccur. However, if the no action alternative were selected, the changes aimed at reducing\npipeline failures and would not be implemented or achieved. Therefore, the no action\nalternative would be an inferior choice for environmental and human safety protection.\n5.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION\nPHMSA requested public comments on the draft Environmental Assessment and Notice\nof Proposed Rulemaking in a public notice on July 10, 2015 (80 FR 39916). The NPRM\ninvited comments to address the potential environmental impacts. A total of 39\ncomments were received from the public, private companies and various industry groups.\nHowever, PHMSA received no comments regarding environmental concerns or NEPA\ncompliance for this rulemaking.\n6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS\nThis rule will clarify existing regulations, incorporate new standards, and make other\nrevisions to increase safety and minimize the likelihood of failures, which account for the\nbiggest threat to the human environment from gas and hazardous liquids pipeline\nsystems. This rulemaking exempts farm taps from DIMP under Part 192, but PHMSA is\nadding inspection activities for pressure regulators on those lines. Due to the remote\nlocation of these gas lines, minimal if any increase in risk will result.\nPHMSA anticipates that this rule will enhance pipeline integrity and safety and lessen the\nrisk and consequences of pipeline incidents that harm the environment and threaten\nhuman safety. Therefore, PHMSA finds that the selected alternative will not have a\n12\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nFinal EA: Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification,\nCost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other\nPipeline Safety Changes\nsignificant or negative impact on the environment and will likely result in a positive\nimpact on the environment.\n7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS\n7.1 PREPARERS\nThis EA was prepared by the following DOT staff from PHMSA and Volpe National\nTransportation Systems Center (part of the Research and Innovative Technology\nAdministration):\nPreparers\nVolpe\nCenter\nPreparers:\nMarla Engel, MRP, AICP, Environmental Protection Specialist\nTravis Mast, Biologist\nReviewer:\nSean Peirce, M.Sc., Economist\nPHMSA Reviewers:\nAmelia Samaras, PHMSA\nTewabe Asebe, PHMSA\nCameron Satterthwaite, PHMSA\n7.2 REFERENCES\nNPRM 2013. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and\n195199. 2013. “Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, and Other\nPipeline Safety Proposed Changes.” Docket No. PHMSA- 2013-0163\n13","truncated":false,"body_characters":36643}