![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Pipeline Safety: Intent To Approve Project Modifications and Environmental Assessment of Modifications for the Natural Gas; Pipeline Company of America Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Project
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 17, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 43295-43298]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17au01-129]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
[Docket No. RSPA-98-4034; Notice 16]
Pipeline Safety: Intent To Approve Project Modifications and
Environmental Assessment of Modifications for the Natural Gas; Pipeline
Company of America Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Project
AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent to approve project modification and
environmental assessment of modification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is conducting a Risk
Management Demonstration Program with pipeline operators to determine
how risk management might be used to complement and improve the
existing Federal pipeline safety regulatory process. In December, 1998,
OPS approved Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (NGPL) \1\ as a
participant in the Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Program.
Since its demonstration project was approved, NGPL has identified five
segments in its system where it proposes to perform alternative risk
control activities in lieu of compliance with the regulations
addressing class location changes. This Notice announces OPS's intent
to modify NGPL's Demonstration Project order to allow the proposed risk
control alternatives (the ``Alternatives''). This Notice also provides
an environmental assessment of NGPL's Alternatives. Based on this
environmental assessment, OPS has preliminarily concluded that this
proposed project modification will not have significant environmental
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1998, NGPL was acquired by KN Energy, Inc. In October,
1999, KN Energy merged with Kinder Morgan, Inc. The merged company
is named Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI). NGPL now operates its pipeline
system as a subsidiary of KMI. The scope of the Risk Management
Demonstration Project remains limited to the NGPL system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Notice explains OPS's rationale for approving NGPL's
Alternatives. OPS seeks public comment on the proposed demonstration
project modification so that it may consider and address these comments
before modifying the order to approve the alternatives.
ADDRESSES: OPS requests that comments to this Notice or about this
environmental assessment be submitted on or before September 17, 2001
so they can be considered before the modifications are approved.
However, comments on this or any other demonstration project will be
accepted in the Docket throughout the demonstration period. Written
comments should be sent to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket number RSPA-98-4034.
Persons should submit the original comment document and one (1) copy.
Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments
must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. The Dockets Facility is
located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building in Room 401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. The Dockets Facility is open from
10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
You may also submit comments to the docket electronically. To do so,
log on to the DMS Web at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on Help &
Information to obtain instructions for filing a document
electronically.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Callsen, OPS, (202) 366-
4572, regarding the subject matter of this Notice. Contact the Dockets
Unit, (202) 366-5046, for docket material. Comments may also be
reviewed online at the DOT Docket Management System website at http://
dms.dot.gov/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
1. Background
In December, 1998, OPS approved NGPL as a participant in the
Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Program \2, 3\. Since approval,
as part of its development and application of risk management, NGPL has
identified five pipeline segments in its system where it proposes to
conduct risk control alternatives to the class location change
requirements in 49 CFR Sec. 192.611. These alternative activities have
been designed to achieve superior safety and environmental protection
along these five segments. This document summarizes OPS's review of
these alternatives and evaluates the safety and environmental impacts
of this proposed project modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pipeline Safety: Intent to Approve and Environmental
Assessment for the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America Pipeline
Risk Management Demonstration Program [63 Federal Register 46497,
September 1, 1998].
\3\ Pipeline Safety: Natural Gas pipeline Company of America;
Approved for Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Program 964
Federal Register 1067, January 7, 1999].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. OPS Evaluation of NGPL's Proposed Alternatives
A Project Review Team (PRT), consisting of representatives from OPS
Headquarters, Central Region, and Southwestern Region; representatives
of Illinois and Texas pipeline regulatory agencies; and risk management
experts evaluated NGPL's proposed Alternatives. The PRT met with NGPL
to discuss the current risk assessment and risk control processes NGPL
uses, how these processes were used to identify and define the proposed
regulatory alternatives, the analysis of the protection achieved by the
proposed alternatives compared to the protection 49 CFR 192.611
provides, and proposed performance measures to ensure superior
performance is being achieved. The evaluation also included an
environmental assessment, which is described in Appendix A of this
Notice.
The major review criterion for this evaluation was whether the risk
control alternatives NGPL proposed can be expected to produce superior
safety, environmental protection, and reliability of service compared
to that achieved from compliance with 49 CFR 192.611.
Once OPS and NGPL consider comments received on this Notice, OPS
intends to modify NGPL's risk management demonstration project order to
allow the alternatives.
3. Statement of Project Goals
The NGPL System transports pressurized natural gas, which is
lighter than air and flammable. If released as a result of a pipeline
leak or rupture, natural gas can potentially ignite causing fires or
explosions. Protection of
[[Page 43296]]
the public and environment by the prevention of pipeline leaks and
ruptures is the highest priority for OPS and NGPL. OPS and NGPL believe
that by applying and refining NGPL's Risk Management Program, and by
implementing the proposed Alternatives, the demonstration project will
continue to provide superior protection.
4. Risk Control Alternative Locations
NGPL is focusing its proposed regulatory alternatives to control
the increased risk from population increases along the pipeline (see
Section 5) in one location in Illinois and four locations in Texas.
One pipe segment (4912 feet) located on the Amarillo #3
line in Will County, Illinois, within Mileposts 978-979 (just upstream
of Compressor Station 113).
Two pipe segments (1177 feet and 1116 feet) located on the
Gulf Coast #1 and #2 Lines in Liberty Country Texas, within Mileposts
288-289 (between Compressor Stations 302 and 303).
Two pipe segments (both 4.4 miles) located on the
Louisiana #1 and #2 Lines in Liberty County, Texas, within Mileposts
23-28 (between Compressor Stations 302 and 343).
5. Description of Project Modification: Regulatory Alternatives
Designed to Provide Superior Protection
NGPL has identified five short pipe segments where it believes
alternatives to the regulations addressing population increase near a
pipeline ( 49 CFR 192.611) would result in superior safety,
environmental protection, and reliability (see Section 4).
5.1 Current Regulatory Requirements
This section describes the current regulatory requirements in 49
CFR 192.611 that govern actions taken when population density increases
along the pipeline.
OPS categorizes all locations along a gas pipeline according to the
population near the pipeline (see 49 CFR 192.5). Locations with the
smallest population (10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy
within an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline
of any continuous one mile length of pipeline) are designated as Class
1. As the population along the pipeline increases, the class location
increases. For example, Class 2 locations have more than 10 but fewer
than 46 buildings intended for human occupancy. Class 3 locations have
46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy, or are areas where
the pipeline lies within 100 yards of either a building or small, well-
defined outside area (such as a playground, recreation area, outdoor
theater, or other place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or
more persons on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12 month
period. Class 4 locations are any class location unit where buildings
with four or more stories above ground are prevalent (e.g. large office
buildings).
All of the NGPL class location change pipe segments identified in
Section 4 are changing from Class 2 to Class 3.
Pipeline safety regulations impose more stringent design and
operational requirements as the class location increases. When a pipe
segment changes to a higher class (e.g., from class 2 to class 3), the
operator must lower operating pressure to provide an additional margin
of safety, unless a pressure test on the pipe has confirmed that a
prescribed safety margin exists. If a previous pressure test has not
confirmed the prescribed safety margin, then the operator must test the
pipe to confirm the margin. In situations where it is not possible to
confirm through testing, the operator must replace the pipe with new
pipe that has the prescribed design factor, unless the operator wants
to reduce operating pressure.
Because of the importance of providing reliable natural gas service
to its customers, NGPL is not considering permanent operating pressure
reduction as a realistic alternative since this would decrease the
quantity of gas that the company could deliver. To comply with pipeline
safety regulations, NGPL would have to replace pipe in these five
segments. Replacing existing pipe with new pipe that has the prescribed
design factor eliminates the possibility that defects from the original
materials and construction, as well as corrosion that may have occurred
since installation, will result in a failure.
5.2 NGPL's Risk Control Alternatives
For each class location change area described in Section 4, NGPL
has performed risk analyses to understand and characterize the existing
risks to the pipeline and defined specific alternatives to replacing
pipe for controlling these risks. NGPL identified outside force damage
and corrosion as the principal risks to the pipeline in the class
location segments and the surrounding sections and defined the
following risk control alternatives (also summarized in Table 1):
Internally inspecting class location change segments using
geometry and magnetic flux leakage in-line inspection tools. Gas
pipeline safety regulations do not currently require internal
inspection. These tools will identify indications of wall loss (e.g.
corrosion), as well as dents and gouges from initial construction
damage or third party excavators working along the pipeline right-of-
way. OPS reviews results of these internal inspections as they are
completed.
Internally inspecting an extended length of pipe bordering
each class change segment to further extend the benefits of the better
integrity analysis. NGPL has already internally inspected approximately
310 miles of pipe.
Repairing indications of corrosion or existing
construction and outside force damage identified by the internal
inspection. NGPL is using conservative investigation and repair
criteria in the class location change sites and in an additional length
of pipe bordering those sites. The criteria call for investigation and
repairs of small dents and anomalies that are well below the size at
which a challenge to pipeline integrity might be expected.
Performing close-interval surveys on the five class
location segments and an extended length of pipe bordering each class
location segment, as an added measure to detect possible pipeline
corrosion. NGPL has surveyed approximately 257 miles of pipe.
Pressure testing the five class location change segments,
an extended length of pipe that encompasses each class location
segment, and additional segments on the same pipelines. NGPL has
pressure tested approximately 60 miles of pipe.
Enhancing damage prevention activities in the class
location change segments and an additional length of pipe bordering
each class location segment. Damage caused by excavators near the
pipeline represents one of the highest risks to the five class location
change areas. This multi-faceted damage prevention program includes:
Annual verification of one-call system database
information to ensure accuracy of pipeline data;
Increasing contact with local contractors that may be
working near the pipeline to provide information on safe practices when
planning and performing work near pipelines;
Having more frequent face-to-face contact with landowners
and residents near the pipeline to provide information on safe
practices and prevent potential damage to the pipeline;
Expanding distribution of information on pipeline
awareness and potential hazards to nearby residents;
Regularly verifying the depth of cover over the pipeline
to protect it from the risk of excavation damage;
[[Page 43297]]
Increasing the number of pipeline markers along the
segment to alert potential excavators of the line's presence; and
Increasing local patrolling frequency.
Increasing contacts with local emergency planners and
emergency responders to ensure preparation for more effective and
coordinated response to emergencies.
Conducting public education on the subject of pipeline
safety; part of this education program will be specifically developed
for students in schools in the immediate vicinity of the Gulf Coast
line class location segments.
Continuing the NGPL current investigation, analysis, and
mitigation program for Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC). This company
program, initiated in response to recent experience on the NGPL system,
involves integration of data regarding soil, coating, and pipe
characteristics to identify areas of probable susceptibility to SCC.
These areas are then investigated further to determine if SCC is
present; any detected SCC is mitigated.
Table 1.--Alternative Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR 192.611 Alternative
Project site requirements activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amarillo #3 Line (106 miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Will County, IL, Class 2 to Pipe replacement. Run both metal loss &
3, 4912 feet, Milepost 978- geometry in-line
979, Highest risk: 3rd party inspection tools.
damage, corrosion.
Repair anomalies
within 106 mile
segment (at
exemption site, use
more stringent
investigation and
repair criteria than
standard company
practice).
Close-Interval Survey
53 miles.
Hydrostatic test 4912
feet.
Enhanced damage
prevention.
Work w/local
Emergency Mngmt.
Depts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Coast #1 Line (32 Miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Liberty County, TX, Class 2 Pipe replacement. Run both metal loss &
to 3, 1177 feet, Milepost 288- geometry in-line
289, Highest risk: 3rd party inspection tools.
damage, corrosion.
Repair anomalies
within 32 mile
segment (at
exemption site, use
more stringent
investigation and
repair criteria than
standard industry
practice).
Close Interval Survey
32 miles.
Hydrostatic test 15
miles.
Enhanced damage
prevention.
Work w/local
Emergency Mngmt.
Depts.
Public Education
Program for Schools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Coast #2 Line (82 miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
. Liberty County, TX, Pipe replacement. Run both wall loss &
Class 2 to 3; 1116 feet, geometry in-line
Milepost 288-289; Highest inspection tools.
risk: 3rd party damage,
corrosion
Repair anomalies
within 82 mile
segment (at
exemption site, use
more stringent
investigation and
repair criteria than
standard industry
practice).
Close Interval Survey
82 miles.
Hydrostatic test 15
miles.
Enhanced damage
prevention.
Work w/local
Emergency Mngmt.
Depts.
Public Education
Program for Schools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana #1 Line (45 miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Liberty County, TX, Class 2 Pipe replacement. Run both wall loss &
to 3, 4.4 miles, Milepost 23- geometry in-line
28, Highest risk: corrosion, inspection tools.
3rd party damage.
Repair anomalies
within 45 mile
segment (at
exemption site, use
more stringent
investigation and
repair criteria than
standard company
practice).
Close Interval Survey
45 miles.
Hydrostatic test 14.4
miles.
Enhanced damage
prevention.
Work w/local
Emergency Mngmt.
Depts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43298]]
Louisiana #2 Line (45 miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Liberty County, TX, Class 2 Pipe replacement. Run both wall loss &
to 3, 4.4 miles, Milepost 23- geometry in-line
28, Highest risk: corrosion, inspection tools.
3rd party damage.
Repair anomalies
within 45 mile
segment (at
exemption site, use
more stringent
investigation and
repair criteria than
standard company
practice).
Close Interval Survey
45 miles.
Hydrostatic test 14.4
miles.
Enhanced damage
prevention.
Work w/local
Emergency Mngmt.
Depts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the company's risk evaluation, NGPL has compared the
risk reduction produced by these alternatives to that achieved by the
current regulations. OPS has reviewed this evaluation in detail and
concluded that the alternative risk control activities can be expected
to reduce safety and environmental risk below that which would be
achieved by compliance with 49 CFR 192.611. Furthermore, because of the
resources saved by not having to replace pipe in these five locations,
NGPL is able to conduct internal inspections and pressure tests on
additional portions of its system.
Based on the PRT's evaluation of the these alternatives, OPS
intends to exempt NGPL from the pressure confirmation requirements of
49 CFR 192.611. In lieu of compliance with this requirement, NGPL will
implement the Alternatives and, along with OPS, monitor their
effectiveness.
6. Regulatory Perspective
Why Is OPS Considering This Project Modification?
OPS believes that the proposed risk control alternatives will
improve protection for the environment and the communities in the
vicinity of NGPL's pipelines. OPS believes NGPL's risk-based
justification of the alternatives to the class change regulations is
technically sound. OPS also believes that this modification to the NGPL
demonstration project will help OPS further the overall goals of the
Risk Management Demonstration Program. In particular, as a result of
this modification there will be an increased sharing of information
between the company and government about potential pipeline risks and
activities to address those risks, as OPS reviews the results of the
inspection and testing activities that are part of the Alternatives.
This sharing will increase OPS's knowledge and awareness about
potential pipeline threats, and thereby support a more effective
regulatory role in improving safety and environmental protection.
How Will OPS Oversee the Alternatives?
After approving the proposed modifications, the PRT will monitor
the implementation and results of the Alternatives, as part of its
continued monitoring of the Demonstration Project. The PRT is a more
comprehensive oversight process that draws maximum technical experience
and perspective from all affected OPS regional and headquarters
offices, and from any affected state agencies that would not normally
provide oversight on interstate transmission projects.
OPS retains its authority to enforce NGPL's compliance with the
pipeline safety regulations. OPS plans to exempt compliance from 49 CFR
192.611 at those five segments where NGPL has demonstrated that its
proposed risk alternatives should provide superior protection. Should
the demonstration project performance measures or other information
subsequently indicate that superior protection has not been achieved or
is unlikely to continue to be achieved, then OPS can require NGPL to
again comply with 49 CFR 192.611.
Information Provided to the Public
(1) NGPL ``Application and Work Plan for DOT-OPS Risk Management
Demonstration Program'', available in Docket No. RSPA-98-3893 at the
Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Plaza 401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-5046.
(2) Pipeline Safety: Intent to Approve and Environmental Assessment
for the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America Pipeline Risk
Management Demonstration Project, [63 FR 46497, September 1, 1998].
(3) Pipeline Safety: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America;
Approved for Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Program (includes
Finding of No Significant Impact) [64 FR 1067, January 7, 1999].
(4) ``Risk Management Demonstration Project Order,'' Reference No.
RMD 98-4, December 31, 1998.
(5) Pipeline Safety: Remaining Candidates for the Pipeline Risk
Management Demonstration Program, [62 FR 53052, October 10, 1997].
This Notice is OPS's final request for public comment before OPS
intends to approve the described modification of NGPL's Risk Management
Demonstration Project.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2001.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 01-20721 Filed 8-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P