99-18024. Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 135 (Thursday, July 15, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38173-38175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18024]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket RSPA-99-5455]
RIN 2137-AC34


Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of initiating pilot testing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: RSPA is pilot testing a model that identifies areas unusually 
sensitive to environmental damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline 
release, commonly referred to as unusually sensitive areas (USAs). The 
USA model was created through a series of public workshops and the work 
of the American Petroleum Institute (API). RSPA and API will be working 
together on this pilot test. Other government agencies, environmental 
groups, and academia will be evaluating the final results of this pilot 
test. The pilot test will be conducted in three states: Texas, 
Louisiana, and California. The purpose of the pilot testing is to 
determine if the model can be used to identify and locate unusually 
sensitive drinking water and ecological resources using available data 
from government agencies and environmental organizations. The pilot 
test will also help evaluate the USA model, determine if the model 
identifies the majority of unusually sensitive drinking water and 
ecological resources, and the appropriateness and accessibility of 
environmental data to support the model. RSPA will publish for public 
comment the results of the pilot test, technical analysis, and the 
proposed USA model once the pilot test and analysis are complete.

ADDRESSES: Persons interested in receiving future information, 
including copies of the final pilot results, should send their name, 
affiliation, address, and phone number to Christina Sames, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, 400 Seventh 
Street SW, DPS-11, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Sames, [phone], or e-
mail [e-mail], about this document, or the Dockets 
Unit, U.S. Department of Transportation, Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001, [phone], for copies of this 
document or other material in the docket, including material from 
previous workshops. The public may also review material in the docket 
by accessing the Docket Management System's home page at http://
dms.dot.gov. An electronic copy of any document published in the 
Federal Register may be downloaded from the Government Printing Office 
Electronic Bulletin Board Service at [phone].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legislative History

    The pipeline safety statute (49 U.S.C. 60109) requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to prescribe standards that establish 
criteria for identifying each hazardous liquid pipeline facility and 
gathering line, whether or not the pipeline is subject to safety 
regulation under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601, located in an area that the 
Secretary, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), describes as unusually sensitive to environmental damage in the 
event of a hazardous liquid pipeline accident. When describing USAs, 
the Secretary is to

[[Page 38174]]

consider areas where a pipeline rupture would likely cause permanent or 
long-term environmental damage. These areas are to include:
    1. Locations near pipeline rights-of-way that are critical to 
drinking water, including intake locations for community water systems 
and critical sole source aquifer protection areas; and
    2. Locations near pipeline rights-of-way that have been identified 
as critical wetlands, riverine or estuarine systems, national parks, 
wilderness areas, wildlife preservation areas or refuges, wild and 
scenic rivers, or critical habitat areas for threatened and endangered 
species.

Public Workshops

    RSPA has held five public workshops on USAs. Participants at the 
workshops have included representatives from the EPA; the hazardous 
liquid pipeline industry; the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, 
Transportation, and Commerce; non-government agencies; academia; and 
the public.
    The first workshop was held on June 15 and 16, 1995, and focused on 
criteria being considered to determine USAs (60 FR 27948, May 26, 1995; 
Docket PS-140(a)). A second workshop held on October 17, 1995, focused 
on developing a process that could be used to determine whether an area 
is a USA (60 FR 44824, August 29, 1995; Docket PS-140(b)). The third 
workshop on January 18, 1996, focused on guiding principles for 
determining USAs (61 FR 342, January 4, 1996; Docket PS-140(c)). The 
fourth workshop held April 10-11, 1996, (61 FR 13144, March 26, 1996; 
Docket PS-140(d)) focused on criteria, components, and parameters of 
terms that have been used when describing USAs and the scope and 
objectives of additional USA workshops.
    A fifth workshop was held June 18-19, 1996, (61 FR 27323, May 31, 
1996; Docket PS-140(e)) and focused on identifying critical drinking 
water resources and possible filtering criteria that could be used to 
identify drinking water resources that are unusually sensitive to a 
hazardous liquid pipeline release. The critical drinking water 
resources that were identified in that workshop include public water 
systems, wellhead protection areas, and sole source aquifers. Filtering 
criteria include the depth and geology of a drinking water resource and 
if the public water system has an adequate alternative drinking water 
supply. Transcripts of and information presented at these public 
workshops are in the Docket.

API Work

    In addition to the five public workshops, the American Petroleum 
Institute (API) held two meetings with technical experts to discuss 
unusually sensitive ecological resources. The meetings were held on 
October 23-24, 1996, and June 25-26, 1997. Representatives of RSPA, 
EPA, the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture, and The 
Nature Conservancy attended these meetings. Attendees discussed 
possible ecological USA candidates and filtering criteria that could be 
used to determine which ecological resources are unusually sensitive to 
damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release. The significant 
ecological resources that were identified during the meetings include 
threatened and endangered species, critically imperiled and imperiled 
species, depleted marine mammals, and areas containing a large percent 
of the world's population of a migratory waterbird species. Filtering 
criteria focused on the extent to which a species is endangered, areas 
that are critical to multiple sensitive species, and areas where a 
large percent of a species population could be impacted. Notes from 
these technical meetings are in the Docket.

Guiding Principles

    Attendees at the third public workshop identified guiding 
principles to be used in the process of determining USAs. Government 
agencies, industry, environmental groups and the public created these 
guiding principles to help us identify which resources we should 
concentrate on (areas of primary concern), determine which areas of 
primary concern are the most sensitive to a hazardous liquid release, 
decide how to collect and process resource data, and determine what 
happens to USAs after they are identified. The guiding principles 
created in the workshop discuss resources to be protected and a process 
for identifying USAs. The following is the list of the guiding 
principles that pertain to the pilot test:
     Human health and safety and serious threat of 
contamination are always to be considered.
     A functional definition of significant must be developed 
to determine USAs.
     Only areas in the trajectory of a potential spill, e.g. 
down gradient, should be considered.
     It is expected that no pipeline operator will be required 
to collect natural field resource data to determine USAs.
     USAs should be subject to a systematic review process. 
USAs may change through time as species migrate, change location or for 
other reasons. The USA definition should be explicit and practical in 
application.
     All phases of the USA definition process should be pilot 
tested for validity, practicality, and workability, to the extent 
practical.
     The government agencies must describe and identify USAs so 
that the data will be applied consistently and will not be subject to 
various interpretations. The standards and criteria for resource 
sensitivity should be uniform on a national basis such that equivalent 
resources receive equivalent sensitivity assessments regardless of 
regionally based response priorities.
     Sources of USA data must be readily available to the 
public and uniform in criteria and standards. The standards and 
criteria for resource sensitivity should be uniform on a national basis 
so that equivalent resources receive equivalent sensitivity assessments 
regardless of regionally based priorities.
    In addition to the guiding principles, workshop attendees discussed 
the following items, but did not consider them guiding principles:
     Workshops for each phase of developing a USA definition 
should include technical experts, representatives, and field personnel 
with appropriate experience from agencies as well as from industry.
     Public workshops should be used to gather information on 
the criteria that will determine USAs.
     The USA definition should be complete before its use in a 
rulemaking.
     The implementation of resource assessment and protection 
under the USA definition could be phased.
     All terms in the USA definition should be defined.
     National consistency in application of the USA definition 
should be the goal.
     Guidelines for data quality should include consistency, 
accuracy, and scope.
     Encourage open communication with land or resource 
managers in USAs.
     The ranking of resources or adding of values of several 
resources to reach a threshold USA quantity, as proposed in the May 
1995 workshop, is not practical for many pipeline operators.

Pilot Test

    RSPA and API will be working together on this pilot test. Other 
Federal and state government agencies, environmental organizations, and 
academia will be evaluating the final results of this pilot in a 
technical

[[Page 38175]]

review. The purpose of the pilot test is to determine if the model can 
be used to identify and locate unusually sensitive drinking water and 
ecological resources using available data from government agencies and 
environmental organizations.
    RSPA and API will conduct the pilot test in the states of Texas, 
California, and Louisiana. These states were chosen because of the 
large number of liquid pipelines and drinking water and ecological 
resources within these states. API will use the results of the pilot 
test to create a voluntary industry guidance document on USAs. RSPA 
will use the pilot results to verify that the model identifies the 
majority of unusually sensitive areas, the accessibility and 
appropriateness of environmental data to support the model, and to move 
toward completing a definition of unusually sensitive areas.
    The USA pilot test will include the following tasks:
     Identify pertinent drinking water data that have been 
created and maintained by Federal or state government agencies, 
environmental groups, or private organizations. This includes data on 
public drinking water systems, aquifers, sole source aquifers, wellhead 
protection areas, alternative drinking water resources, and aquifer 
vulnerabilities.
     Identify pertinent ecological data that have been created 
and maintained by Federal or state government agencies, environmental 
groups, or private organizations. This includes data on threatened and 
endangered species, critically imperilled and imperilled species, 
depleted marine mammal species, and areas containing a large percentage 
of the world's population of a migratory waterbird species.
     Identify data on land features, such as the location of 
wetlands, rivers, transportation networks, and water routes (including 
flow direction).
     Obtain, where possible, all pertinent drinking water, 
ecological, and land feature data. Document all problems encountered in 
gathering the data.
     Determine if the obtained data can be used with the draft 
USA model to identify and locate USAs. This would include reviewing the 
data for accuracy, attributes, format, restrictions on use, and 
determining if the resources and features were mapped with sufficient 
precision.
     Process the data, using a geographic information system 
(GIS), according to the draft USA model. Identify all problems 
encountered in processing the data.
     Compare the USA pilot results to other preservation area 
identification efforts, where possible, and to all threatened and 
endangered specie areas.
     Provide the final USA pilot results to other drinking 
water and ecological resource experts within Federal and state 
government agencies (e.g., the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, 
Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, state drinking water 
agencies), academia, environmental organizations (e.g., The Nature 
Conservancy, state heritage programs), and private industry for review 
of whether the model results identify the majority of ``unusually'' 
sensitive areas within the three states.
     Modify, if necessary, the USA model based on the pilot 
test and comments received from drinking water and ecological resource 
experts.
     Publish the results of the pilot test, the technical 
review, and the draft USA model for public comment.

Technical Review

    Drinking water and ecological resource experts will conduct a 
technical review of the pilot test to determine whether the model 
results identify the majority of ``unusually'' sensitive areas within 
the three states. These experts include the Department of Interior's 
Office of the Secretary, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park 
Service; the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service; the Department 
of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service; the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, Office of 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and regional offices; state nature 
conservancies and heritage programs; state drinking water resource 
agencies; academia and other environmental experts.
    These peer reviewers will help to identify other data sets that 
might be utilized and other resources that might be considered, and to 
improve the model's capability to identify the majority of 
``unusually'' sensitive areas within the three states. The technical 
review will include experts that have not been directly involved in 
drafting the USA model.
    RSPA will publish for public comment the final pilot test results 
and the USA model, including the criteria for defining unusually 
sensitive drinking water and ecological resources. Persons interested 
in receiving and reviewing this information should send their name, 
affiliation, address, and phone number to Christina Sames, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, 400 Seventh 
Street SW, DPS-11, Washington, DC 20590-0001. RSPA will also publish 
the final results of the USA pilot on the Office of Pipeline Safety's 
Web page: http://ops.dot.gov. RSPA will use the final pilot results and 
comments received to move toward completing a USA model and definition 
through publication of a NPRM. RSPA intends to publish the NPRM by the 
end of this year.
    RSPA will also present the USA pilot project and its results to the 
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 
(THLPSSC). The THLPSSC is responsible for reviewing proposed federal 
hazardous liquid pipeline safety standards and reporting on their 
feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability. Representatives on the 
THLPSSC include the Minerals Management Service, City of Fredericksburg 
Virginia, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Virginia State Corporation Commission, Environmental Defense Fund, The 
Nature Conservancy, Kenai Peninsula, Atlantic Consultants, Southwest 
Research Institute, Buckeye Pipe Line, Lakehead Pipe Line, Kinder 
Morgan Energy Partners, and Mobil Pipe Line.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Director, Policy, Regulations and Training.
[FR Doc. 99-18024 Filed 7-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P