Pipeline Safety: Intent To Approve Project and Environmental Assessment for the Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Project

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT

[Docket No. RSPA-99-5611; Notice 19]

Pipeline Safety: Intent To Approve Project and Environmental

Assessment for the Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Pipeline Risk

Management Demonstration Project

AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to approve project and environmental

assessment.

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

SUMMARY: As part of its Congressional mandate to conduct a Risk

Management Demonstration Program, the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)

has been authorized to conduct demonstration projects with pipeline

operators to determine how risk management might be used to complement

and improve the existing Federal pipeline safety regulatory process.

This Notice announces OPS's intent to approve Northwest Pipeline

Corporation (a part of Williams Gas Pipeline) as a participant in the

Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Program. This Notice also

provides an environmental assessment of Northwest's demonstration

project. Based on this environmental assessment, OPS has preliminarily

concluded that this proposed project will not have significant

environmental impacts.

This Notice explains OPS's rationale for approving this project,

and summarizes the demonstration project provisions that would go into

effect once OPS issues an order approving Northwest as a Demonstration

Program participant. OPS seeks public comment on the proposed

demonstration project so that it may consider and address these

comments before approving the project. The Northwest demonstration

project is one of several projects OPS plans to approve and monitor in

assessing risk management as a component of the Federal pipeline safety

regulatory program.

ADDRESSES: OPS requests that comments to this Notice or about this

environmental assessment be submitted on or before January 3, 2000 so

they can be considered before project approval. However, comments on

this or any other demonstration project will be accepted in the Docket

throughout the 4-year 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-99-5611. 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 10:00 a.m. to

5:00 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

The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is the Federal regulatory body

overseeing pipeline safety. As a critical component of its Federal

mandate, OPS administers and enforces a broad range of regulations

governing safety and environmental protection of pipelines. These

regulations have contributed to a good pipeline industry safety record

by

[[Page 67603]]

assuring that risks associated with pipeline design, construction,

operations, and maintenance are understood, managed, and reduced.

Preserving and improving this safety record is OPS's top priority. On

the basis of extensive research, and the experience of both government

and industry, OPS believes that a risk management approach, properly

implemented and monitored, offers opportunities to achieve:

(1) Superior safety, environmental protection, and service

reliability;

(2) Increased pipeline operation efficiency and improved efficiency

and utilization of industry and government resources; and

(3) Improved communication and dialogue among industry, the

government, and other stakeholders.

A key benefit of this approach is the opportunity for greater

levels of public participation.

As authorized by Congress, OPS is conducting a structured

Demonstration Program to evaluate the use of a comprehensive risk

management approach in the operations and regulation of interstate

pipeline facilities. This evaluation will be performed under strictly

controlled conditions through a set of Demonstration Projects to be

conducted with interstate pipeline operators. A Presidential Directive

to the Secretary of Transportation (October 16, 1996) stated that in

implementing the Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Program: ``The

Secretary shall require each project to achieve superior levels of

public safety and environmental protection when compared with

regulatory requirements that otherwise would apply.'' Thus, the process

to select operators for this Demonstration Program involves a

comprehensive review to ensure that the proposed project will provide

the superior safety and environmental protection required by this

Directive. OPS may exempt a participating operator from particular

regulations if the operator needs such flexibility in implementing a

comprehensive risk management program; however, regulatory exemption is

neither a goal nor requirement of the Demonstration Program. This

document summarizes the key points of this review for Northwest's

demonstration project, and evaluates the safety and environmental

impacts of this proposed project.

2. OPS Evaluation of Northwest's Demonstration Project Proposal

Using the consultative process described in Appendix A of the

Requests for Application for the Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration

Program (62 FR 14719), published on March 27, 1997, OPS has reached

agreement with Northwest on the provisions for a demonstration project

covering Northwest's entire transmission pipeline system that OPS

regulates. This section summarizes the key points considered in

evaluating the Northwest demonstration project.

Company History and Record

Northwest Pipeline Corporation operates approximately 3,900 miles

of interstate natural gas transmission line running through six western

States, originating at the Canadian border near Sumas, Washington. The

pipeline traverses the populated regions of western Washington and

Oregon, through the agricultural areas of eastern Oregon, Washington,

and Idaho States, and into the isolated areas of southwest Wyoming,

Utah and Colorado. The original pipeline was installed in 1956, with

parallel line segments added in the seventies, eighties, and nineties.

The pipeline system has 52 compressor stations and 407 meter stations.

Before entering into consultations with Northwest, OPS determined

that Northwest was a good demonstration program candidate based on an

examination of the company's safety and environmental compliance

record, its accident history, and its commitment to working with OPS to

develop a project meeting the Demonstration Program goals.

Northwest has experienced 22 reportable releases since OPS began

collecting accident data in 1984. Five of these releases were caused by

damage from third parties excavating near the line; two events resulted

from external corrosion; seven events were caused by construction or

material defects; seven events were due to landslides damaging the

pipeline; and one event occurred during routine maintenance, injuring

several workers. This event, which occurred in 1987, caused the only

injuries on record for any Northwest incident. Consequences of all but

the most recent incidents are recorded as monetary estimates of

property damage/loss, varying from $0.00 to $719,000.00. The reports

rarely identify the basis for the property damage/loss figures; in some

cases, these figures include the cost of pipeline excavation and

repair. OPS is aware of environmental consequences from two of these

incidents: a 1995 incident involving damage to land cover and a small

grove of trees near the release, and a 1999 incident that caused a fire

and damaged three to five acres of ground cover and trees. OPS has

records of service interruptions to customers from six of the

incidents; this year, 10,000 customers in Walla Walla, Washington were

affected when a pipeline lateral failed due to a construction defect.

OPS has not found any regulatory noncompliance with these events.

Northwest has attributed 14 reportable incidents to two causes:

construction or material defects (seven), and landslides damaging the

pipeline (seven). The company does not believe construction or material

defects represent a significant risk to its system. These seven

incidents were spread across six states over a 15-year period. Their

causes are typical for a pipeline constructed in 1956 and include

defective longitudinal seams in pipe received from the factory, a gouge

made during original construction, and defective welds made in the

field connecting pipe components to the mainline. The company has not

experienced deaths, injuries, or notable environmental damage as a

result of any of these incidents; in fact, two of these releases were

discovered during routine leak surveys. The most recent incident due to

a construction defect occurred on January 2, 1999, and resulted in the

disruption of natural gas service to approximately 10,000 customers in

Walla Walla, Washington. Although Northwest believes this failure was

an isolated incident (it was due to a defective field weld from 1958),

the company is evaluating other locations where similar construction

defects could be present. For any pipeline locations where Northwest is

proposing regulatory alternatives, the company has internally inspected

the pipeline using an in-line inspection tool and has failed to find

evidence of additional construction or material defects.

The company believes geologic hazards, or landslides, represent its

most significant risk. Hazards due to landslides and other geologic

activity receive very little emphasis in pipeline safety regulations

since they are not a widespread problem in the industry. Three

Northwest incidents due to landslides occurred in the early 1980's near

Rangely, Colorado. As a result of this experience, the company has

conducted an enhanced geological monitoring program and has not

experienced additional incidents at that site. Four additional

landslide incidents occurred between 1995 and 1999, all in western

Washington where Northwest is proposing regulatory alternatives as part

of this demonstration project.

The most recent landslide incident occurred on February 26, 1999,

near North Bonneville, Washington, about 30 miles northeast of

Portland, Oregon. The

[[Page 67604]]

26-inch mainline ruptured, resulting in a fire that damaged a newly-

constructed, unoccupied lodge and two mobile homes, and burned three to

five acres of ground cover and trees. Approximately 365 customers lost

natural gas service. In 1996, the company had identified the potential

for this slope failure and since then, has monitored pipe stress in the

vicinity of the release. Because record rainfall in the area for

December 1998 and January and February 1999 (244% in February)

significantly increased the potential for slide activity, the line was

helicopter patrolled a month before the failure.

The company is continuing its root cause analysis of the failure to

determine why its monitoring approach in this case was insufficient.

The company will include OPS in discussions about areas where it may

increase its focus on geologic hazards as a result of this incident.

Lessons learned from this incident will be applied to the risk

management program by improving strategies and approaches for

identifying the potential for and monitoring land movement (especially

in wet weather), training personnel to recognize potential signs of

land movement, and re-examining other areas identified as at risk for

landslide activity. OPS will include these activities in the audit plan

(see Section 6) it is developing for this project.

OPS believes this incident should not affect Northwest's

eligibility to participate in the Demonstration Program. Rather, OPS

believes this incident reinforces the need for a demonstration project

focused on identifying geologic hazards and preventing failures that

are caused by land movement. Four of the five reportable incidents on

the western Washington segment in the vicinity of Northwest's proposed

regulatory alternatives have been due to land movement (the fifth was

due to excavator damage to the pipeline). The company has demonstrated

that its existing geologic monitoring approach (described in Section

5.2) has successfully averted three land movement failures in this

area. OPS believes Northwest can most effectively improve safety by

continuing to refine its approach to identifying and remediating

geologic hazards in western Washington.

Northwest and OPS also are collaborating on follow-up to a

corrosion incident that occurred on January 13, 1998, in Wolf Creek in

southwest Oregon. Northwest determined its cause to be stress corrosion

cracking, a condition difficult to predict and detect. Section 5.2

describes the stress corrosion cracking monitoring program that

Northwest has implemented. The company has not found indications of

stress corrosion cracking at any other sites along the pipeline.

After reviewing data on the remainder of Northwest's reported

incidents (which are due to corrosion and third party damage), OPS is

satisfied with the company's follow-up activities and that any lessons

learned have been appropriately factored into the company's risk

management program. Section 5 describes the in-line inspection program

Northwest is conducting to address corrosion risks, and the damage

prevention program the company is conducting to address excavation

risks.

Consultative Evaluation

During the consultations, a Project Review Team (PRT), consisting

of representatives from OPS Headquarters and Western Region, pipeline

safety officials from the Washington Utilities and Transportation

Commission and the Utah Department of Commerce, and risk management

experts, met with Northwest to discuss Northwest's existing Risk

Management Program and its expected development during the course of

the demonstration project. These discussions addressed the current risk

assessment and risk control processes Northwest uses, planned

expansion, improvement, and integration of these processes, proposed

regulatory alternatives, and proposed performance measures to ensure

superior performance is being achieved. The discussions addressed the

adequacy of Northwest's risk management systems and technical

processes, and communications with outside stakeholders. The

consultation process also included an environmental assessment, which

is described in Appendix B of this Notice.

The consultation process focused on three major review criteria:

1. Whether Northwest's proposed risk management demonstration

program is consistent with the Risk Management Program Standard and

compatible with the Guiding Principles set forth in that Standard;

2. Whether the risk control alternatives Northwest proposed can be

expected to produce superior safety, environmental protection, and

reliability of service compared to that achieved from compliance with

the current regulations; and

3. Whether Northwest's proposed risk management demonstration

program includes a company work plan and a performance monitoring plan

adequately assuring that the expectations for superior safety,

environmental protection, and service reliability are actually being

achieved during implementation.

The demonstration project provisions described in this Notice

evolved from these consultations, as well as from any public comments

received to date. Once OPS and Northwest consider comments received on

this Notice, OPS intends to issue an order approving the Northwest

demonstration project.

3. Statement of Project Goals

The Northwest Pipeline 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. Ensuring that pipeline leaks and ruptures do not

occur is the highest priority for OPS and Northwest. Through risk

management, Northwest intends to continuously improve the level of

safety in operating these lines. OPS and the company believe that by

applying and refining Northwest's Risk Management Program, and by

implementing the proposed risk control alternatives, the demonstration

project will exhibit superior protection.

4. Demonstration Project Locations

Northwest is proposing to include its entire natural gas

transmission system in the demonstration project. Northwest's pipeline

system originates at the Canadian border near Sumas, Washington, and

traverses the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and

Colorado. Northwest is focusing its proposed regulatory alternatives to

control the increased risk from population increases along the pipeline

(see Section 5.3) in six specific geographic locations in western

Washington State:

Four pipe segments (ranging from 1.2 to 2.1 miles each)

located between the Chehalis and Washougal Compressor Stations.

--In Clark County, 3 miles north of Camas, Washington.

--Along the border of Cowlitz and Clark Counties, in Woodland,

Washington.

--In Cowlitz County, about 1 mile north of Woodland, Washington.

--In Cowlitz County, about 3 miles southeast of Longview, Washington.

One pipe segment (about 3 miles) located between the

Washougal and Willard Compressor Stations in Skamania County in the

Columbia River Gorge.

One pipe segment (about 0.5 miles) located between the Mt.

Vernon and

[[Page 67605]]

Snohomish Compressor Stations in Skagit County north of Seattle.

As experience is gained from these segments, and as risks are

assessed for other portions of the Northwest gas transmission system,

additional class change locations may be proposed for regulatory

alternatives. OPS and Northwest will work together to establish

criteria and a process for demonstrating when regulatory alternatives

can provide superior protection at additional class change locations.

(See Section 6 of the Notice for a description of how OPS will oversee

this project.)

5. Project Description

5.1 Risk Management Program Development

Northwest's existing safety and pipeline integrity programs are

based on and utilize the expertise of the people most familiar with the

pipeline system's construction, operation, maintenance, and history to

identify the specific sources and causes of risk, and define projects

to reduce or control these risks. Corporate operating experience

supplements this knowledge and experience. A number of Northwest's

current risk control activities and programs build on and go beyond

compliance with current pipeline safety regulations.

Northwest has begun to expand, enhance, and integrate its existing

safety and integrity programs into a comprehensive risk management

program that will satisfy the requirements of the Program Standard over

the course of the demonstration project. During the demonstration

project, Northwest is committed to building on its existing risk

management system to improve how the company:

Critically analyzes and systematically investigates all

aspects of system design and operation for potential risks;

Integrates risk-related information from all parts of the

company into a comprehensive portrayal of risk, including the nature

and location of the most significant risks on the pipeline system;

Systematically and consistently considers public and

environmental protection in the company's approach to develop,

evaluate, and implement all capital improvement and risk reduction

projects; and

Enhances the communication and sharing of risk information

within the company to improve awareness and understanding of the

critical aspects of the company's operations that are essential to

prevent accidents.

Northwest's risk management program work plan, submitted with its

application and comprising Appendix A of this document, includes

activities and milestones for all of the major program development

activities that will be performed during the demonstration project.

5.2 Risk Control Programs for Improved Protection

In assessing the risks on its system, Northwest has

determined that some of the most significant risks are from geologic

hazards where ground movement could result in pipeline failures. In

1997 and 1999, the company experienced failures in western Washington

from landslides caused by high levels of rainfall on areas of slope

instability. To address these risks, Northwest has implemented a

comprehensive geologic hazard identification, monitoring, and

remediation program, and will continue to expand and improve this

program as part of the demonstration project.

The geologic hazards program helps identify where land movement

might be a threat to pipeline safety, and implements activities that

are designed to prevent failures in these locations. Northwest used

geotechnical consultants to conduct a survey of its pipeline right-of-

way to identify and prioritize areas susceptible to land movement. This

geotechnical review identified several areas having an immediate threat

of land movement where the company rerouted pipe, or took other actions

to stabilize slopes and prevent land movement near the pipeline.

The company is also implementing a comprehensive monitoring program

that measures precursors to land movement including pipe strain, soil

movement, and moisture level. Company personnel regularly monitor these

instruments for indication of potential land movement. Using this early

warning, the company is able to relieve stress on the pipe and prevent

ruptures. The company has demonstrated that through this warning and

remediation, it has prevented at least three ruptures in recent years.

One new element of the geological hazard monitoring program is a

collaborative project with OPS's Western Region to examine the

feasibility of remotely monitoring strain gauges. Through remote

monitoring, the company is immediately informed of indications of

potential land movement and is able to respond more rapidly to take

protective actions. Remote monitoring can be especially helpful in

areas that may be difficult to access locally. This project involves

transmitting strain gauge readings directly to the Northwest gas

control center in Salt Lake City. When strain gauge readings indicate

stresses on the pipe consistent with potential land movement, a

Northwest employee is dispatched immediately to the scene to assess the

situation, and begin remediation activities if appropriate. Through

this remote monitoring program, and its expanded and improved

geological hazards program, Northwest will improve protection for the

public and environment in the vicinity of geologic hazards.

To provide further non-required protection, Northwest is also

proposing a stress corrosion cracking coupon monitoring program. This

program warns of possible stress corrosion cracking, a failure

mechanism difficult to predict and detect. Through collaboration with

Northwest in this program, OPS will better understand the conditions

that contribute to stress corrosion cracking, thus, contributing to the

ongoing OPS initiatives to address stress corrosion cracking

nationwide.

5.3 Regulatory Alternatives Providing Superior Protection

In addition to the programs described in the previous section,

Northwest has also identified a few short pipe segments in Washington

where it believes alternatives to the current regulations addressing

population increase near a pipeline (49 CFR 192.611) would result in

superior safety, environmental protection, and reliability. These six

locations are described in Section 4.

5.3.1 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 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, or are areas where the pipeline lies within 100

yards of either a building or small, well-defined

[[Page 67606]]

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 apartment

buildings).

Some of the Northwest line segments described in Section 4 are

changing from Class 1 to 2 (in Skamania County, Washington, in the

Columbia River Gorge; and in Cowlitz County one mile north of Woodland,

Washington) and some are changing from Class 2 to 3 (in Clark County

three miles north of Camas, Washington; on the border of Cowlitz and

Clark Counties in Woodland, Washington; in Cowlitz County three miles

southeast of Longview; and in Skagit County north of Seattle).

Pipeline safety regulations place more stringent design and

operational requirements as the class location increases. When a pipe

segment changes to a higher class (e.g., from class 1 to class 2), the

operator must lower operating pressure to provide an additional margin

of safety, or reconfirm that an adequate safety margin exists through

pressure testing. In situations where it is not possible to reconfirm

through testing, the operator must replace the pipe with new, stronger

pipe if the operator does not want to lower operating pressure.

Because of the importance of providing reliable natural gas service

to its customers, Northwest is not considering 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, Northwest would have to replace pipe in four of

these short segments, and pressure test two others. Replacing older

pipe with stronger, new pipe eliminates the possibility that defects

from the original construction, as well as corrosion that may have

occurred since installation, will result in a failure. In pressure

tests, water is injected into the pipe at elevated pressures to test

whether existing pipe is in good enough condition to operate at the

elevated pressures.

5.3.2 Northwest's Risk Control Alternatives

For each class location change area described in Section 4,

Northwest has performed risk analyses to understand and characterize

the existing risks to the pipeline, and has defined specific

alternatives to replacing pipe or pressure testing for controlling

these risks. These activities are listed below, and summarized in Table

1.

Internally inspecting class location change segments using

geometry and magnetic flux leakage in-line inspection tools, which are

not required under current regulations. These tools will identify any

indications of wall loss (e.g. corrosion), as well as any 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 on either

side of each class change segment to further extend the benefits of the

better integrity analysis. The total length of pipe that has

been1 internally inspected is approximately 160 miles; of

this, 10.8 miles comprise the six class location change sections.

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

\1\ OPS reviewed the results of this internal pipe inspection

and a follow-up remediation project to repair damage. This review

confirmed that corrosion metal loss and construction defects are not

significant threats to the pipeline system's integrity. This was

confirmed not only in the six small segments, but across the entire

pipeline distance examined in the inspection program. OPS concluded

from these results that the regulatory-required solution to replace

pipe or pressure test would have little impact on the most

significant risks affecting Northwest's pipelines.

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

Repairing indications of corrosion or existing

construction and outside force damage identified by the internal

inspection. Northwest is using a conservative repair criteria in the

class location change sites that repairs small dents and anomalies that

are well below the threshold where pipeline integrity might be

compromised.

Conducting detailed, on-site geological hazard surveys for

each of the class location change sites. These surveys will identify

potential land movement and other geologic hazards, and will specify

monitoring and remediation activities to address significant threats to

the pipeline. Northwest has already installed strain gauges at known or

suspected geologic hazards in or near the class location change sites.

Near the Shirley Gordon class location change site, Northwest has

already remediated one potential landslide, and installed a remotely

monitored strain gauge (see discussion in Section 5.2).

Enhancing damage prevention activities in the class

location change sites, as well as system-wide. Damage caused by

excavators near the pipeline represents one of the highest risks to the

six class location change sites. This multi-faceted damage prevention

program includes:

--Improving communication with local, county, and state planning

commissions regarding future development plans near the pipeline so

Northwest can address potential excavation risks. Northwest has

recently obtained formal review status with the Washington Department

of Natural Resources, and now participates in reviewing proposed

projects such as logging, road development, and mining in the forested

areas near its pipeline right-of-way. This allows Northwest to get

involved at the planning stage to be sure such projects do not

adversely impact the safety of its pipeline.

--Improving outreach with local developers, excavators, and utilities

that may be working near the pipeline. Northwest is an active

participant and sponsor of damage prevention meetings. The company

distributes its Developer's Handbook which provides standards and

procedures to be followed when planning land use development near

Northwest's pipeline right-of-way. The Developer's Handbook also

provides explicit instruction for performing excavation activities near

the right-of-way to ensure that the pipeline is not damaged.

--Having more frequent face-to-face contact with landowners and

residents near the pipeline right-of-way in class location change

areas.

--Expanding distribution of information on pipeline awareness and

potential hazards to nearby residents. Residents within 220 yards on

either side of the pipeline receive pipeline safety information

annually in the class location change sites.

--Promoting ``green belts'' and other strategies with landowners to

protect pipeline easements from development and construction activity;

--Surveying landowners and residents near the class location change

sites, excavators and emergency personnel to assess the effectiveness

of public awareness and damage prevention programs. The feedback from

these surveys will be used to improve Northwest's damage prevention

program.

--Installing additional and more effective pipeline markers to alert

potential excavators of the line's presence in the class location

change sites; and

--Conducting more frequent aerial and local patrolling, including

weekend patrols.

Installing remote operators on its mainline block valves

to rapidly close valves and isolate a segment of line that experiences

a failure. This minimizes

[[Page 67607]]

the quantity of gas that is released and, in the event of ignition,

would minimize the duration of the fire and the associated

environmental damage and property loss; and

Engaging state and local emergency management

organizations to participate in training and exercises for a more

effective and coordinated response in an emergency.

Table 1--Alternative Activities

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

Prescriptive Alternative

Project site requirements activities

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

Snohomish to Mt. Vernon 46.2 Miles

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

1. Snohomish, Class 2 to 3, Pipe Replacement. o Run both wall loss

0.6 miles, Milepost 1394.7 to & geometry pigs.

1395.3, Highest risk: 3rd o Repair anomalies

party damage. 46mi (at exemption

site, use more

stringent repair

criteria than

standard industry

practice).

o Increase public

awareness.

o Work w/local

Emergency Mngmt.

Depts. in joint

training/

conferences.

o Implement

recommendations from

on-site hazard

surveys performed by

geologic experts.

Washougal to Chehalis 73 Miles

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

2. Camas, Class 2 to 3, 1.2 Pipe Replacement. Run both

miles, Milepost 1216.9 to wall loss & geometry

1218.1, Highest risk: 3rd pigs.

party damage. Repair

anomalies 73mi (at

exemption site, use

more stringent

repair criteria than

standard industry

practice).

Increase

public awareness.

3. Woodland, Class 2 to 3, 2.1 Pipe Replacement. Work w/local

miles, Milepost 1242.9 to Emergency Mngmt.

1245.0, Highest risk: 3rd Depts. in joint

party damage. training/

conferences.

Implement

recommendations from

on-site hazard

surveys performed by

geologic experts

(including

additional strain

gage at Shirley

Gordon).

4. Rose Valley, Class 2 to 3, Pipe Replacement. Increase/

2.3 miles, Milepost 1256.3 to improve signs

1258.6, Highest risk: 3rd marking pipeline

party damage. right-of-way.

Monitor for

stress corrosion

cracking.

Install two

remotely operated

valves to rapidly

isolate the pipeline

in the event of

rupture.

5. Shirley Gordon, Class 1 to Pipe

2, 1.8 miles, Milepost 1245.2 Requalification.

to 1247.0, Highest risk: land

movement.

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

Willard to Washougal 41 Miles

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

6. Gorge Area, Class 1 to 2, Pipe Run both wall loss &

2.8 miles, Milepost 1199.0 to Requalification. geometry pigs.

1201.8, Highest risk: land Repair

movement. anomalies 41mi (at

exemption site, use

more stringent

repair criteria than

standard industry

practice).

Increase

public awareness.

Work w/local

Emergency Mngmt.

Depts. in joint

training/

conferences.

Implement

recommendations from

on-site hazard

surveys performed by

geologic experts.

Monitor for

stress corrosion

cracking.

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

As part of the company's risk evaluation, Northwest 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 current regulations. Furthermore, because

of the resources saved by not having to replace pipe in these six

locations, Northwest is able to enhance its geological hazards and

stress corrosion cracking programs described in Section 5.2, and

conduct internal inspections on additional portions of its system.

OPS is proposing to exempt Northwest from the pressure confirmation

requirements of 49 CFR 192.611. In lieu of compliance with this

requirement, Northwest will implement and monitor the effectiveness of

the risk control alternatives described in this section as well as its

geologic hazards and stress corrosion cracking programs.

6. Regulatory Perspective

Why Is OPS Considering This Project?

OPS has conducted a careful and extensive review of Northwest's

proposed Risk Management Demonstration Project. OPS believes that

Northwest, in accordance with its work plan, will continue to build on

its current risk management system to develop, document, and implement

a risk management program fully consistent with the requirements and

principles of the Risk Management Program Standard.

OPS believes that the proposed risk control alternatives should

improve protection for the environment and the communities in the

vicinity of Northwest's pipeline facilities. OPS believes Northwest's

risk-based justification of the alternatives to the class change

regulations is technically sound. During the demonstration project, OPS

will review the process that Northwest uses to verify superior

performance of the proposed risk control alternatives in reducing risk

to the public, workers, the environment, and service availability.

[[Page 67608]]

OPS also believes that the Northwest demonstration project will

help OPS achieve the overall goals of the Risk Management Demonstration

Program. In particular, as a result of this project there will be an

increased sharing of information between the company and government

about potential pipeline risks and activities to address those risks.

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.

Northwest will also further the development of analytical tools for

identifying and assessing risks. As part of this effort they will be

linking risk assessment analytical models directly to a geographical

information system that provides accurate, up-to-date, location-

specific information about pipe line design, operation, and right-of-

way environmental characteristics. Northwest also intends to enhance

its geologic hazard identification, monitoring, and remediation program

through this project, including expanding the Northwest/OPS remote

strain gauge monitoring project (described in Section 5.2). OPS will

also get better information about conditions contributing to stress

corrosion cracking (described in Section 5.2). Finally, OPS believes

that Northwest will develop and demonstrate systematic processes for

reallocating resources within the company to address the most

significant risks.

How Will OPS Oversee This Project

After approving the Northwest Risk Management Demonstration

Project, the PRT will continue to monitor the project. The PRT is

designed to be 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.

One of the primary functions of the PRT will be to conduct periodic

risk management audits. These risk management audits will be used to

observe company performance of the specific terms and conditions of the

OPS Order authorizing this Demonstration Project. OPS is developing a

detailed audit plan, tailored to the unique requirements of the

Northwest Demonstration Project. This plan will describe the audit

process (e.g., types of inspections, methods, observation of company

review of risks and risk control options, frequency of audits), and the

specific requirements for reporting performance measurement data,

lessons learned from incidents and other unexpected events, and

milestone and other information to OPS.

OPS retains its authority to enforce Northwest's compliance with

the pipeline safety regulations. OPS plans to exempt compliance from

those regulations previously described in Section 5 where Northwest has

demonstrated that its proposed risk alternatives are superior to the

regulations. 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 Northwest to again comply with those regulations from which

it had been exempted.

Information Provided to the Public

OPS has previously provided information to the public about the

Northwest project, and has requested public comment, using many

different sources. OPS aired an electronic town meeting on September

17, 1997 that enabled viewers of the two-way live broadcast to pose

questions and voice concerns about candidate companies (including

Northwest). An earlier Federal Register Notice (62 FR 40135; July 25,

1997) informed the public that Northwest was interested in

participating in the Demonstration Program, provided general

information about technical issues, and identified the geographic areas

the demonstration project would traverse.

Since August 1997, OPS has used an internet-accessible data system

called the Pipeline Risk Management Information System (PRIMIS) to

collect, update, and exchange information about all demonstration

candidates, including Northwest (PRIMIS can be accessed from the OPS

web site: http://ops.dot.gov). At a November 19, 1997, public meeting

hosted by OPS in Houston, Texas, Northwest officials presented a

summary of the proposed demonstration project and answered questions

from meeting attendees. (Portions of this meeting were broadcast on

January 15, 1998, and on March 26, 1998.) OPS has provided a

prospectus, which includes a map of the demonstration project system,

to State officials and community representatives who may be interested

in reviewing project information, providing input, or monitoring the

progress of the project. This Notice is OPS's final request for public

comment before OPS intends to approve Northwest's participation in the

Demonstration Program under the terms of the work plan.

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 23, 1999.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

[[Page 67609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02DE99.028

[[Page 67610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02DE99.029

[[Page 67611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02DE99.030

[[Page 67612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02DE99.031

BILLING CODE 4910-60-C

[[Page 67613]]

Appendix B: Environmental Assessment

A. Introduction and Background

As authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60126, the Office of Pipeline Safety

(OPS) is implementing a Risk Management Demonstration Program to

evaluate the use of risk management in the Federal pipeline safety

regulatory process. This evaluation is being performed under

strictly controlled conditions through a set of demonstration

projects being conducted with interstate pipeline operators. Through

the Demonstration Program, OPS will determine whether a risk

management approach, properly implemented and monitored through a

formal risk management framework, achieves superior safety and

environmental protection, as well as increased efficiency and

service reliability of pipeline operations. OPS also expects the

program to evaluate how well risk management improves communication

among industry, the government, and other stakeholders on important

pipeline safety and environmental issues and concerns.

A Presidential Directive to the Secretary of Transportation

(October 16, 1996) stated that in implementing the Risk Management

Demonstration Program: ``The Secretary shall require each project to

achieve superior levels of public safety and environmental

protection when compared with regulatory requirements that otherwise

would apply.'' Thus, the process to select operators for this

Demonstration Program involves a comprehensive review to ensure that

the proposed project will provide the superior safety and

environmental protection required by this Directive.

In April 1997, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest)

submitted a Letter of Intent to OPS asking to be considered as a

Demonstration Program candidate. Using the consultative process

described in Appendix A of the Requests for Application for the

Pipeline Risk Management Demonstration Program (62 FR 14719),

published on March 27, 1997, OPS worked extensively with the company

to develop a definition of a Demonstration Project that will provide

superior safety and environmental protection. OPS is prepared to

finalize an agreement with Northwest on the Demonstration Project

provisions and initiate this project.

This Environmental Assessment summarizes the OPS safety and

environmental review for the Demonstration Project proposed by

Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest). This document is

prepared in accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. Section 4332), the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Sections 1500-1508), and

Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1c, Procedures for

Considering Environmental Impacts. It was prepared to assist in the

agency's planning and decision-making. This document concisely

describes OPS' proposed action to approve a Risk Management

Demonstration Project with Northwest, addresses the alternative

approaches considered, the environment affected by this action, the

consequences to the environment of the alternatives considered, and

a list of the agencies and organizations consulted. This

Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence to determine

that approval of the Northwest Risk Management Demonstration Project

will have no significant impact on the environment.

B. Description of Proposed Action

This section summarizes the proposed Northwest Risk Management

Demonstration Project that has been established through the

consultative process with OPS. The project's primary purpose is to

demonstrate that Northwest's risk management program will improve

safety and environmental protection.

Northwest has begun to expand, enhance, and integrate its

existing safety and integrity programs into a comprehensive risk

management program that will satisfy the requirements of the Risk

Management Program Standard (distributed at a January 28, 1997,

public meeting in New Orleans, LA, and available on the OPS website

at http://ops.dot.gov) over the course of the four-year

demonstration project. During the demonstration project, Northwest

is committed to building on its existing risk management system to

improve how the company:

Critically analyzes and systematically investigates all

aspects of system design and operation for potential risks;

Integrates risk-related information from all parts of

the company into a comprehensive portrayal of risk, including the

nature and location of the most significant risks on the pipeline

system;

Systematically and consistently considers public and

environmental protection in the company's approach to develop,

evaluate, and implement all capital improvement and risk reduction

projects; and

Enhances the communication and sharing of risk

information within the company to improve awareness and

understanding of the critical aspects of the company's operations

that are essential to prevent accidents.

Northwest has described its vision for risk management program

enhancements over the next four years and beyond in its Risk

Management Demonstration Project Application, and in discussions

with OPS. Northwest's risk management program Work Plan, submitted

with its application, includes descriptions and milestones for all

of the major program development activities. In approving this

project, OPS will issue a Risk Management Order that requires:

Implementing all risk management program development

milestones included in the Northwest Work Plan, including specific

activities in the following areas:

1. Institutionalizing a Formalized Risk Program

2. Program Integration Across the Entire Pipeline System

3. Risk Assessment Processes and Tools

4. Risk Control Activity Selection Processes and Tools

5. Performance Measurement and Feedback Processes

6. Roles and Responsibilities

7. Training

8. Documentation

9. Communication

Sharing information with OPS about key risks on the

Northwest system and the most effective activities to manage these

risks.

Implementing Northwest's Performance Monitoring

Program, and reporting of all program-wide and project-specific

performance measures to OPS.

The remainder of this section describes the specific risk

control programs and activities Northwest will perform on its system

to achieve superior safety and environmental protection. Section B.1

discusses two major system-wide initiatives, while Section B.2

addresses specific risk control activities that are being proposed

in lieu of compliance with pipeline safety requirements when

population density increases in the vicinity of the pipeline.

B.1 Risk Management Programs for Improved Protection

In assessing the risks on its system, Northwest has determined

that some of the most significant risks are from geologic hazards

where ground movement could result in pipeline failures. In 1997 and

1999, the company experienced failures in western Washington from

landslides caused by high levels of rainfall on areas of slope

instability. To address these risks, Northwest has implemented a

comprehensive geologic hazard identification, monitoring, and

remediation program, and will continue to expand and improve this

program as part of the demonstration project.

The geologic hazards program helps identify where land movement

might be a threat to pipeline safety, and implements activities that

are designed to prevent failures in these locations. Northwest uses

geotechnical consultants to survey its pipeline right-of-way to

identify and prioritize areas susceptible to land movement. The

initial geotechnical review identified several areas having an

immediate threat of land movement where the company rerouted pipe,

or took other actions to stabilize slopes and prevent land movement

near the pipeline.

As part of its on-going geological hazard and assessment

program, the company may identify additional areas that require

remediation or rerouting. In these situations, the company considers

the local environmental conditions, interacts with the responsible

state and federal agencies, and takes appropriate precautions for

environmental protection. When pipeline rerouting is performed,

approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires a

review of environmental impacts posed by the project. Through the

Risk Management Demonstration Project, OPS will have a greater

awareness of these activities and will have an opportunity to

provide input to the geological hazards program.

The company is also implementing a comprehensive monitoring

program that measures precursors to land movement including pipe

strain, soil movement, and moisture level. As of early 1999,

Northwest

[[Page 67614]]

had installed 76 strain gauges, 21 piezometers, and 15 inclinometers

on their system at locations identified by the geological hazards

survey as being susceptible to land movement. Most of this

instrumentation is in the following locations:

In the vicinity of Douglas Pass between Rangely and

Grand Junction in northwest Colorado;

Between Vancouver, Washington and The Dalles, Oregon

(east of the Portland area along the Columbia River); and

Between Vancouver, Washington and Chehalis, Washington

(north of the Portland area along the I-5 corridor, west of the

Cascade Range).

Company personnel regularly monitor these instruments for

indication of potential land movement. Using this early warning, the

company is able to relieve stress on the pipe and prevent ruptures.

The company has demonstrated that through this advance warning and

remediation, it has prevented at least three ruptures in recent

years.

One new element of the geological hazard monitoring program is a

collaborative project with the OPS Western Region to examine the

feasibility of remotely monitoring strain gauges. Through remote

monitoring, the company is immediately informed of indications of

potential land movement and is able to respond more rapidly to take

protective actions. Remote monitoring can be especially helpful in

areas that may be difficult to access locally. The Northwest/OPS

project installed remote transmitters at the following three

locations:

Kalama Site, located approximately 25 miles north of

Portland, Oregon;

Mt. Pleasant Site, located approximately 26 miles north

of Portland, Oregon; and

Vail Mountain Site, located approximately 70 miles

north of Portland, Oregon.

Strain gauge readings are transmitted directly to the Northwest

gas control center in Salt Lake City. When strain gauge readings

indicate stresses on the pipe consistent with potential land

movement, a Northwest employee is dispatched immediately to the

scene to assess the situation, and begin remediation activities if

appropriate. These remediation activities typically involve slope

stabilization, or localized excavation to relieve excessive stresses

on the pipeline. Through this remote monitoring program, and its

expanded and improved geological hazards program, Northwest will

improve protection for the public and environment in the vicinity of

geologic hazards.

To provide further non-regulatory required protection, Northwest

is also proposing a stress corrosion cracking coupon monitoring

program. This program warns of possible stress corrosion cracking, a

failure mechanism that is difficult to predict and detect. This

program involves installing test coupons in the right-of-way (but

not attached to the pipeline itself) in locations where soil

conditions might be conducive to stress corrosion cracking.

Northwest has currently installed coupons at several locations in

western Oregon. Through collaboration with Northwest in this

program, OPS will better understand the conditions that contribute

to stress corrosion cracking, thus contributing to other OPS

initiatives to address stress corrosion cracking nationwide.

B.2 Risk Control Activities for Improved Protection

In addition to the geotechnical and stress corrosion cracking

programs previously described, Northwest has also identified a few

short pipe segments in Washington where it believes alternatives to

the current regulations addressing population increase near a

pipeline (49 CFR 192.611) would result in superior safety,

environmental protection, and reliability. These six locations are

described in Section D of this environmental assessment.

B.2.1 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 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, 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 apartment buildings).

The Northwest line segments described in Section D consist of

some which are changing from Class 1 to 2 (in Skamania County, WA,

in the Columbia River Gorge, and in Cowlitz County, one mile north

of Woodland, WA), and some which are changing from Class 2 to 3 (in

Clark County, three miles north of Camas, WA; on the border of

Cowlitz and Clark Counties in Woodland, WA; in Cowlitz County, three

miles southeast of Longview; and in Skagit County, north of

Seattle).

Pipeline safety regulations place more stringent design and

operational requirements as the class location increases. When a

pipe segment changes to a higher class (e.g., from class 1 to class

2), the operator must lower operating pressure to provide an

additional margin of safety, or reconfirm that an adequate safety

margin exists through pressure testing. In situations where it is

not possible to reconfirm through testing, the operator must replace

the pipe with new, stronger pipe if the operator does not want to

lower operating pressure.

Because of the importance of providing reliable natural gas

service to its customers, Northwest is not considering operating

pressure reduction as a realistic alternative since this would

decrease the quantity of gas that the company could deliver. Because

pipe wall thickness prevents the ability to pressure test the line,

Northwest would have to replace pipe in these short segments to

comply with pipeline safety regulations. Replacing older pipe with

stronger, new pipe eliminates the possibility that defects from the

original construction, as well as corrosion that may have occurred

since installation, will result in a failure.

B.2.2 Northwest's Risk Control Alternatives

For each class location change area described in Section D,

Northwest has performed risk analyses to understand and characterize

the existing risks to the pipeline, and defined the following

specific alternatives to replacing pipe for controlling these risks.

Internally inspecting class location change segments

using an in-line inspection tool;

Internally inspecting an extended length of pipe on

either side of each class change segment. The total length of pipe

that has been 1 internally inspected is approximately 160

miles.

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

\1\ OPS reviewed the results of this internal pipe inspection

and documentation of the follow-up remediation projects to repair

damage. This review confirmed that corrosion metal loss and

construction defects were not significant threats to the pipeline's

integrity. This was confirmed in the six small segments and across

the entire pipeline distance examined in the inspection program.

Based on these results, OPS concluded that the regulatory-required

solution to replace pipe would have little impact on the most

important risks affecting Northwest's pipeline.

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

Repairing indications of corrosion or existing

construction and outside force damage identified by the internal

inspection for the entire 160 mile distance which includes the six

class location change sites;

Performing enhanced damage prevention activities.

Damage caused by excavators near the pipeline represents one of the

highest risks to the six class location change sites. This multi-

faceted damage prevention program includes:

--Improving communication with local, county, and state planning

commissions regarding future development plans near the pipeline so

Northwest can better address potential excavation risks;

--Improving outreach with local developers, excavators, and

utilities that may be working near the pipeline;

--Having more frequent face-to-face contact with landowners and

residents near the pipeline right-of-way;

--Expanding distribution of information on pipeline awareness and

potential hazards to nearby residents;

--Promoting ``green belts'' and other strategies with landowners to

protect pipeline easements from development and construction

activity;

--Using more visible pipeline markers to alert potential excavators

of the line's presence; and

--Increasing aerial and local patrolling frequency including weekend

patrols.

Installing remote operators on its mainline block

valves to rapidly close valves and isolate a segment of line that

experiences

[[Page 67615]]

a failure. This minimizes the quantity of gas that is released, and,

in the event of ignition, would minimize the duration of the fire

and the associated environmental damage and property loss; and

Engaging state and local emergency management

organizations to participate in training and exercises for a more

effective and coordinated response in an emergency.

As part of the company's risk evaluation, Northwest 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 current regulations.

Furthermore, because of the resources saved by not having to replace

pipe in these six locations, Northwest is able to enhance its

geological hazards and stress corrosion cracking programs described

in Section B.1, and conduct internal inspections on additional

portions of its system.

As part of approving the Northwest Risk Management Demonstration

Project, OPS is proposing to exempt Northwest from the pressure

confirmation requirements of 49 CFR 192.611. In lieu of compliance

with this requirement, Northwest will implement and monitor the

effectiveness of the risk control alternatives described in this

section as well as its geologic hazards and stress corrosion

cracking programs. Commitments for implementing these activities

will be included in the Risk Management Order authorizing the

Northwest Demonstration Project.

C. Alternatives Considered

The Northwest Risk Management Demonstration Project described in

the previous section (i.e., the ``proposed action'') evolved through

a consultative process that began in the fall of 1997 and concluded

in 1999. Consistent with the guiding principles established in the

Program Framework (62 FR 14719), the consultation was conducted in

partnership with the company. The process was not designed to be a

one-sided, review process in which OPS approves or rejects a

Demonstration Project proposal. Instead, the consultation process

uses the collective expertise and experience of the company, OPS,

and state pipeline safety representatives to define a Demonstration

Project that will achieve the OPS programmatic goals (including

superior safety and environmental protection) and be acceptable to

the company.

This consultation process was a highly iterative interaction

involving a number of meetings and discussions between OPS and

Northwest personnel. These reviews and discussions covered a broad

range of management systems and technical subjects, all of which

were important in defining the Demonstration Project. These subjects

included:

Existing safety, pipeline integrity, and risk

management programs and processes;

Pipeline design, operation and maintenance procedures

and practices;

Operating experience and compliance record;

Leak and incident history, including a thorough

discussion of ground movement related events that have occurred in

the last several years;

Potential risk management program and process

improvements;

The approach used to identify and evaluate risks on the

Northwest system (including a discussion of the computer model used

to assist in the risk assessment process);

The risk assessment results, including the most

important system-wide and location specific risks;

The risk control activities and programs proposed by

Northwest to address the most significant system-wide risks, as well

as risks in the six class location change sites;

Observation of the specific pipeline right-of-way

conditions in the class location change areas described in Section

D;

Performance measures for evaluating the effectiveness

of its risk management program, as well as the individual risk

control programs and activities designed to achieve superior

performance; and

Communication and outreach activities to inform the

public and solicit input on the project.

The starting point for the OPS/Northwest consultation was the

project definition proposed in Northwest's initial Letter of Intent.

Through a series of meetings, the Demonstration Project gradually

evolved. During the consultation, a number of alternative project

definitions were considered. The alternatives considered various

risk management programmatic approaches, different types and

combinations of risk control activities, and different approaches to

implement risk control activities. The final set of risk management

program improvements, and risk control activities and programs

described in Section B was the result of this evolutionary process.

All of the issues raised by OPS, state regulators, and other

stakeholders about Northwest's proposed project have been discussed

within the consultative process, resolved to OPS's satisfaction, and

are reflected in Northwest's application. Implementation of this

Risk Management Demonstration Project is OPS's preferred

alternative.

While the specific provisions in Section B represent a solid

starting point for a successful Demonstration Project, this does not

mean that additional changes will not be made over the four-year

demonstration period. It is important to recognize that the Risk

Management Demonstration Project includes a performance monitoring

and feedback element. Through performance measurement and

evaluation, OPS and Northwest will monitor the effectiveness of the

Demonstration Project provisions. Based on this experience and

feedback, changes to the specific risk control activities and

programs may be made to enhance the level of safety and

environmental protection provided by this project.

In addition, Northwest and OPS have agreed to work together to

continually evaluate the most significant risks on the Northwest

system and to identify cost-effective risk control activities

(beyond the current regulatory requirements) to address these risks.

Performance monitoring and feedback will lead to program

improvements and additional risk control activities. It is highly

likely that the Demonstration Project will continue to evolve over

the four-year period to provide enhanced protection of the people

and the environment in the vicinity of Northwest's facilities.

In addition to approval of the Northwest Demonstration Project,

OPS also considered denial of the Northwest Demonstration Project

application. Denial of this project would result in a considerable

loss of valuable information to OPS concerning the sources of risks

along the Northwest pipeline and the most effective means of

managing these risks. OPS believes that denial of this project will

result in a lost opportunity to provide superior safety and

environmental protection for the communities living along the

pipeline. Denial would also significantly diminish OPS's ability to

evaluate the effectiveness of an institutionalized, integrated, and

comprehensive risk management program in producing superior

performance, and would hinder OPS's ability to satisfy the

objectives of the risk management demonstration program, and the

requirements of the previously-mentioned Presidential Directive.

D. Affected Environment

The product transported in the Northwest Pipeline System is

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. Northwest's and

industry's experience demonstrates that pipeline rupture-initiated

fires almost always result in localized damage to the vegetation and

animal life immediately adjacent to the failure site. A review of

Northwest's recent ruptures showed that the area impacted by fire is

less than 7 acres. It is possible that a rupture occurring in a

heavily forested area in the dry summer season 2 could

result in a forest fire, which would have a more extensive impact on

wildlife and vegetation. However, the likelihood of a such an

occurrence is believed to be very low. Other than localized

vegetation damage in the event of a fire or explosion, there are no

significant environmental impacts from natural gas pipeline leaks or

ruptures.

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

\2\ Ground movement, which has been the most predominant cause

of incidents on the Northwest system, occurs in the rainy season

when landslide areas become active. The wet vegetation and saturated

conditions at this time of the year significantly reduce the

likelihood of the fire spreading beyond the immediate rupture site.

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

Even though the environmental impacts from natural gas pipeline

failures are minimal, Northwest and OPS have conducted a review of

the environment in the vicinity of the pipeline to understand the

resources which could be affected by pipeline failures on the

Northwest system. The remainder of this section summarizes the key

environmental features both system-wide and in the locations

impacted by the regulatory alternatives described in Section B.2.2.

Northwest Pipeline Corporation operates approximately 3,900

miles of interstate

[[Page 67616]]

natural gas transmission line running through six western states,

originating at the Canadian border near Sumas, Washington. The

Northwest pipeline system traverses various terrain ranging from the

forested foothills of the Cascade Range in Washington to rolling

farmlands of Oregon and Idaho to the high desert, rangeland and

Colorado Plateau areas in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. The Northwest

pipeline system could best be described by splitting the system into

three distinct segments. These segments are the forested areas of

western and southern Washington, rolling farmlands of eastern Oregon

and western Idaho, and the semi-arid rangelands of southeastern

Idaho, southern Wyoming and western Colorado. A summary of the

environmental features of each region is provided below.

The first segment cuts through forested areas of western and

southern Washington and the Columbia River Gorge along the Oregon-

Washington border. The pipeline system passes through numerous state

parks, the Fort Lewis Military Reservation, and the Columbia River

Gorge National Scenic Area. The forested areas can be characterized

as forests dominated by Douglas fir and Western hemlock and an

understory of common fern, Oregon grape, serviceberry, and others.

Numerous swift flowing rivers and streams are crossed that provide

habitat to numerous salmon and other game and non-game fish species.

The forests provide habitat to many bird species including the

Northern Spotted owl, peregrine falcon, bald eagles, and others. Due

to the large amount of annual rainfall many wetlands are associated

with the system; more than in any other area crossed by the pipeline

system.

The majority of the pipeline parallels Interstate 5 from the

Canadian border to the Columbia River and as such, this portion of

Northwest's system intersects areas of high residential, commercial

and industrial use. Population densities are higher throughout this

area than any other area of the system. Cultural resources have been

discovered throughout the area that are both pre-historic and

historic in nature.

The second segment begins where the pipeline system leaves the

Columbia River and climbs up the foothills of eastern Oregon,

including the Blue Mountains, and continues on to the rangelands of

southeastern Idaho. This area is characterized by rolling hills and

contains farmlands and dairies, the Snake River and Snake River

plain, agricultural lands, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, and low

to moderate population densities. The pipeline also crosses the

Umatilla Indian Reservation and Umatilla National Forest. Annual

precipitation is much lower than the first segment and most if not

all of the agricultural areas are irrigated. Vegetation types range

from agricultural crops to stands of spruce, fir and aspen to semi-

arid grasses and shrubs. Wildlife that could be encountered in this

segment includes mule deer, pheasants, small mammals, and birds of

prey. Few wetlands are associated with this segment and most rivers

and streams that are crossed are small. Only a few cultural resource

sites have been located throughout this area.

The third segment begins near Pocatello Idaho, located in the

southeast corner of the state and continues through southwestern

Wyoming into eastern Utah and southwest Colorado, ending near

Durango Colorado. Population densities near the pipeline are low.

The pipeline crosses sections of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest,

Caribou National Forest, Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, the

Colorado River, Ashley National Forest, Arches National Park and the

Southern Ute Indian Reservation. The terrain varies from rolling

hills, to steep mountain ranges containing pinyon-juniper woodlands,

lodgepole pine, and Engleman spruce. The understory is shrub

woodland. Western high desert and the Colorado Plateau characterize

the majority of this section. Most of the land crossed is managed by

the Bureau of Land Management and is used primarily as rangeland for

cattle and sheep. Sagebrush is the dominant plant species and

overall vegetation is sparse. Annual precipitation is generally less

than 15 inches per year with the majority coming in the form of

snow. Wildlife species include mule deer, antelope, moose, small

mammals and foraging raptors. Only a small amount of agricultural

lands are crossed. This area contains many cultural resource sites

and most are pre-historic.

Although Northwest is including its entire pipeline system in

the Demonstration Project, locations at which OPS is considering

regulatory alternatives are limited to specific geographic locations

in western Washington. As described in Section B, Northwest is

proposing alternative ways to control the increased risk due to

population increases along the pipeline at six specific locations.

In addition, Northwest is performing internal inspection and repair

activities for extended segments of their pipeline around each of

these class location change sites. The local environmental features

for these extended areas and the six specific class location change

sites are described below.

Right-of-way between the Chehalis and Washougal Compressor

Stations (73 miles). Northwest has performed internal inspection and

repair activities for this section of their system as described in

Section B.2.2. The pipeline route from Northwest's Chehalis

compressor station to the Washougal compressor station traverses

mostly areas of mixed forests containing Douglas fir, western

hemlock, sword fern, maples, oaks and other hardwoods as well as

native shrubs.

A good portion of the 53 miles of forested lands are considered

commercial timber land owned by both large timber corporations and

small local forest product companies. The pipeline also traverses 12

miles of agricultural land and 8 miles that are considered

residential, industrial or commercial lands. Much of the pipeline

route is accessible to the public. There are areas of low population

densities beyond the designated residential areas where housing is

typically located on large view lots throughout this segment.

This section of Northwest's pipeline crosses the Fort Lewis

Military Reservation for 4.4 miles. This area is wooded and used

primarily for training military personnel. No designated state parks

or state recreational areas are crossed, although many of the larger

streams are used for recreation.

Within this 73 miles section are 75 stream or river crossings

and 30 wetland areas covering approximately 10,300 feet of right-of-

way. The significant river crossings include the Little Washougal

river, East Fork of the Lewis river, Lewis river, Kalama river,

Coweman river, Toutle river and the Cowlitz river.

Within the Chehalis to Washougal section are four segments

ranging in length from 1.2 to 2.3 miles where OPS is considering

alternatives to the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611. These locations

and the specific environmental features at each site are described

below:

--3 miles north of Camas, WA in Clark County: This 1.2 mile segment

is changing from class location 2 to 3 (See section B.2.1 for

definition of class locations). This segment contains 50 houses on

large lots evenly dispersed across the class location change area.

Within this segment are two stream crossings. One of these streams

is habitat for the Coho Salmon and Steelhead Trout. The Hairy-

Stemmed Checkermallow (listed as an endangered species by Washington

state) also grows in the vicinity of the pipeline right-of-way.

There are no known cultural or paleontological resources in the

class location change area.

--Along the border of Cowlitz and Clark Counties in Woodland, WA:

This 2.1 mile segment is changing from class location 2 to 3. This

segment contains approximately 90 houses, the majority of which are

near the center of the segment. Homes are sparse toward both ends of

the 2.1 mile segment. However, additional construction continues.

The Lewis River (a tributary of the Columbia River) passes through

this segment. There is also one wetland area, that experiences

seasonal flooding. There are no threatened or endangered plant or

aquatic species in this segment. There are no known cultural or

paleontological resources in the class location change area.

--1 mile north of Woodland in Cowlitz County: This 1.8 mile segment

is changing from class location 1 to 2. The section contains 22

houses evenly dispersed throughout the area, with several new large

lots planned. This segment contains one creek crossing. There are no

threatened or endangered plant or aquatic species in this segment.

There are no known cultural or paleontological resources in the

class location change area.

--3 miles southeast of Longview, WA: This 2.3 mile segment is

changing from class location 2 to 3. There are 73 houses on large

lots evenly dispersed throughout the class location change segment.

This segment contains three stream crossings. There are no

threatened or endangered plant or aquatic species in this segment.

There are no known cultural or paleontological resources in the

class location change area.

Right-of-way between the Washougal and Willard Compressor

Stations (41 Miles): As part of its risk control alternatives,

Northwest performed an internal inspection and repair project over

this section in 1999. The right-of-way between the Willard and

Washougal compressor stations features approximately 31 miles of

dense stands of Douglas fir, western hemlock, sword fern, and

associated understory. The pipeline crosses rugged,

[[Page 67617]]

rocky terrain and sections of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest as

well as 26 miles of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

Due to the steep terrain, public access is low.

Other notable areas crossed are one mile of Washington State's

Beacon Rock State park, and a small section of land owned by the

City of North Bonneville. The pipeline is near the city of

Stevenson, Washington and the Willard National Fishery.

Approximately seven miles of crop and pastureland are crossed, and

about three miles of the pipeline system are cross-residential or

commercial lands. Population densities within this section are low.

Within this 41 mile section are 31 stream crossings and 6 wetland

areas. This section of Northwest's system receives more annual

rainfall than any other location.

Within the Washougal to Willard section there is one 2.8 mile

segment located in Skamania County in the Columbia River Gorge where

OPS is considering alternatives to the requirements of 49 CFR

192.611. This segment is changing from class location 1 to 2. This

segment has 26 houses dispersed evenly throughout the area on large

lots. Within this class location change site are six stream

crossings, each draining into the Columbia River, and two wetland

areas. One of these creeks is habitat to the Chum and Coho Salmon.

There are no known cultural or paleontological resources in the

class location change area.

Right-of-way between the Mt. Vernon and Snohomish Compressor

Stations (46 miles): Northwest has performed internal inspection and

repair activities for this section of their system as described in

Section B.2.2. The Mt. Vernon to Snohomish portion of the Northwest

system can be characterized as mainly forested lands, including

about four miles of evergreen forest, 22 miles of mixed forest, and

12 miles of deciduous forest. No national forests are crossed, but

this section contains many areas that are commercially logged. Also

in this section are small areas of crop and pastureland

(approximately 3 miles) and residential areas (3 miles). This

section also crosses a small commercial quarry for approximately 0.3

miles. The terrain varies from the coastal foothills of the Cascade

Range to gently sloping to level pastureland. This section of the

line also parallels Interstate 5.

Within the 46 mile section, there are 29 stream and river

crossings. The major rivers are the North Fork Stillaguamish River,

the South Fork Stillaguamish River, and the Snohomish River. There

are 37 designated wetlands that intersect the pipeline right-of-way

between the Snohomish and Mt. Vernon compressor stations.

In the Mt. Vernon to Snohomish section there is one 0.6 mile

pipe segment in Skagit County, north of Seattle, WA where OPS is

considering alternatives to the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611. This

segment is changing from class location 2 to 3. This segment

contains a combination of housing with acreage, large lots, and

subdivision housing. This site contains no stream crossings or

wetlands. There are no endangered or threatened species, cultural or

paleontological resources near the right-of-way.

OPS believes Northwest's Demonstration Project is unlikely to

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of

designated critical habitat. OPS has briefed the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on this

project, and they agree with OPS's assessment.

E. Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action and Alternative

This section describes the environmental impacts of the two

alternatives described in this Environmental Assessment: approval or

denial of the Northwest Risk Management Demonstration Project. As

stated in the previous section, the environmental impacts of natural

gas pipeline failures are minimal, restricted to the vegetation and

fauna in the immediate vicinity of the failure location that may

burn if a fire or explosion occurs. The more significant risk

impacts affecting this decision relate to public safety, property

protection, and service reliability.

E.1 Environmental Impact of Project Approval

OPS's preferred alternative is to approve the Northwest

Demonstration Project described in Section B. OPS believes that the

risk control activities Northwest is proposing for the Demonstration

Project will provide superior safety and environmental protection

when compared to current regulatory requirements. This additional

environmental protection comes primarily from reducing the

likelihood that pipeline failures will occur. If the number of

failures is reduced, the cumulative environmental damage from these

failures will also be reduced. The reduction in the likelihood of

future pipeline failures is expected to be realized system-wide

through several activities and programs that exceed regulatory

requirements, including:

An expanded and enhanced geological hazards program.

Northwest should improve its ability to anticipate when land

movement near its pipeline might occur, and take appropriate action

to prevent failure. Since some of the more significant geological

hazards are in forested lands, a fire resulting from a pipeline

failure could cause localized damage to the flora and fauna in the

immediate vicinity of the failure site. Although highly unlikely, a

failure in a heavily forested area could result in a larger forest

fire with more severe consequences. Northwest's geological hazard

program should reduce the likelihood of such an event.

The surveying, monitoring, and remediation activities

associated with the Northwest geological hazards program have

minimal environmental impact. The surveys to identify locations

susceptible to ground motion are conducted on foot or from the air,

and involve no ground disturbance. Installing monitoring equipment

(strain gauges, piezometers, and inclinometers) involves only

localized soil disturbance. The extent of ground disturbance

associated with remediation activities depends on the geologic

features of the site and the action taken to minimize the likelihood

of land movement. Mitigation of landslides or other geologic hazards

sometimes involves heavy equipment and soil disturbance for grading

slopes, installing surface and subsurface drains, and stabilizing

streams and riverbanks. However, this disturbance is confined to

well-defined areas near the right-of-way, and is necessary to help

prevent even larger disturbances that might be caused by a

landslide. When remediation activities are required, Northwest

consults with appropriate federal, state, and local environmental

and land use agencies to ensure the proposed work provides

appropriate protection for the area affected by the remediation.

The stress corrosion cracking coupon monitoring

program. Northwest should be able to better understand when this

condition might occur, and thus take appropriate remedial action.

Conducting the stress corrosion cracking coupon monitoring

program has minimal environmental impact. Installation and removal

of the coupons involves localized ground disturbance within the

right-of-way on ground that has already been disturbed during the

pipeline construction. Northwest also constructs a small enclosure

over the coupon installation site to house instrumentation and other

test equipment. This structure covers an area approximately five by

seven feet. Stress corrosion cracking coupon testing is not

performed near areas with sensitive environmental resources.

In addition, Northwest is proposing specific activities to

reduce the risk from increased population at the specific sites

identified in Section D. These specific activities are being

proposed in lieu of pipe replacement at these sites (See Section

B.2.1)

Enhanced third party damage prevention activities

should reduce the likelihood that excavators will damage the line.

Internal inspection and repair of anomalies will

produce additional protection from corrosion, construction and

material defects, and prior outside force damage.

In addition, Northwest is also proposing to install remote

operators on block valves near areas of relatively high land

movement potential. These remotely operated valves will allow the

gas control center to rapidly isolate a section of the line if a

failure occurs, thereby minimizing the duration of any fire that

might occur. In some situations, the ability to rapidly isolate the

failed segment of line might minimize the associated environmental

damage caused by a fire. Installation of remote operators on valves

involves no environmental impact.

Northwest will also be conducting improved training and

exercises with emergency personnel on how to respond effectively to

pipeline failures. A more effective, coordinated response effort

could also be important in limiting the extent of environmental

damage, should a fire result.

Finally, the cleaning tool that is run prior to conducting the

pipeline internal inspection also provides some indirect

environmental benefits. This tool removes liquid hydrocarbons that

collect in the line. These liquids could be discharged through the

relief valves and thus dispersed to the

[[Page 67618]]

environment during a system blowdown. Northwest has experienced such

a release in the past. Without the system modifications performed to

allow internal inspection, this cleaning operation can not be

performed. For the Chehalis to Washougal section that was inspected

in 1998, this cleaning recovered 1900 gallons of liquids.

For these reasons, OPS is satisfied that the proposed project

will provide superior protection for people living near the

Northwest pipeline system. Although the project is expected to

provide environmental benefits, due to the minimal environmental

impact associated with gas pipeline failures, these beneficial

impacts are not expected to be significant.

E.2 Environmental Impact of Project Denial

If OPS denies this Demonstration Project, Northwest would be

required to replace or requalify pipe in the six class location

change segments. OPS has determined that the risk control programs

and activities described in Section B.1 and B.2.2 will reduce risk

more than replacing or requalifying pipe. Thus, if required to

replace or requalify pipe, the level of environmental protection

would be slightly less than with the proposed action.

Pipe replacement also introduces some adverse environmental

impacts that are avoided with the proposed action. Pipe replacement

involves excavation of the right-of-way to replace the pipe segment.

This results in disturbance of the vegetation and wildlife in the

immediate vicinity of the pipeline.

To illustrate the reduction in construction-related

environmental impacts, Northwest estimates that replacement and

requalification of the four class location change segments in the

Chehalis to Washougal section would impact approximately 110 acres

of vegetation.

Denial of this project would also result in a loss of access to

information to OPS concerning the sources of risks along the

Northwest pipeline, as well as information on stress corrosion

cracking and geological hazards that would be useful in addressing

these hazards on the nation's other pipeline systems.

F. Environmental Justice Considerations

In accordance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income

Populations), OPS has considered the effects of the demonstration

project on minority and low-income populations. As explained above,

approval of this project is expected to result in improved safety

and environmental protection compared to currently applicable

regulations, along all sections of the Northwest gas pipeline

transmission system. Residents near the facility will have a

comparable or greater level of protection than they presently have,

regardless of the residents' income level or minority status.

Therefore, the proposed project does not have any disproportionately

high or adverse health or environmental effects on any minority or

low-income populations near the demonstration facility.

G. Information Made Available to States, Local Governments, and

Individuals

OPS has made the following documents publicly available, and

incorporates them by reference into this environmental assessment:

(1) ``Demonstration Project Prospectus: Northwest Pipeline

Corporation'', October 1999, available by contacting Elizabeth M.

Callsen at 202-366-4572. Purpose is to reach the public, local

officials, and other stakeholders, and to solicit their input about

the proposed project. Mailed to over 300 individuals, including

Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) and other local safety

officials, Regional Response Teams (RRT) representing other Federal

agencies, state pipeline safety officials, conference attendees, and

members of public interest groups.

(2) Northwest ``Application and Work Plan for DOT-OPS Risk

Management Demonstration Program'', available in Docket No. RSPA-99-

5611 at the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202)

366-5046.

OPS has previously provided information to the public about the

Northwest project and has requested public comment, using many

different sources. OPS aired four electronic broadcasts (June 5,

1997; September 17, 1997; December 4, 1997; and March 1998.)

reporting on demonstration project proposals (the last three of

which provided specific information on Northwest's proposal). Two

earlier Federal Register notices (62 FR 40135; July 25, 1997, and 62

FR 53052; October 10, 1997) informed the public that Northwest was

interested in participating in the Demonstration Program, provided

general information about technical issues and risk control

alternatives to be explored, and identified the geographic areas the

demonstration project would traverse.

Since August 1997, OPS has used an internet-accessible data

system called the Pipeline Risk Management Information System

(PRIMIS) to collect, update, and exchange information about all

demonstration candidates, including Northwest (PRIMIS can be

accessed from the OPS website at http://ops.dot.gov).

At a November 19, 1997, public meeting OPS hosted in Houston,

TX, Northwest officials presented a summary of the proposed

demonstration project and answered questions from meeting attendees.

(Portions of this meeting were broadcast on December 4, 1997, and

March 1998.)

H. Listing of the Agencies and Persons Consulted, Including Any

Consultants

Persons/Agencies Directly Involved in Project Evaluation

Stacey Gerard, OPS/U.S. Department of Transportation

Tom Fortner, OPS/U.S. Department of Transportation

Ed Ondak, OPS/U.S. Department of Transportation

Bruce Hansen, OPS/U.S. Department of Transportation

Linda Daugherty, OPS/U.S. Department of Transportation

Chris Hoidal, OPS/U.S. Department of Transportation/Western Region

Zack Barrett, OPS/U.S. Department of Transportation/Western Region

Joe Robertson, OPS/U.S. Department of Transportation/Western Region

Kent Evans, Utah Department of Commerce

Dennis Lloyd, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission

Robert Brown, Cycla Corporation (consultant)

Jim Quilliam, Cycla Corporation (consultant)

Jim vonHerrmann, Cycla Corporation (consultant)

Persons/Agencies Receiving Briefings/Project Prospectus/Requests

for Comment

Regional Response Team (RRT), Regions 8 and 10, representing the

Environmental Protection Agency; the Coast Guard; the U.S.

Departments of Interior (including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service), Commerce (including National Marine Fisheries Service),

Justice, Transportation, Agriculture, Defense, State, Energy, Labor;

Health and Human Services; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the

General Services Administration; and the Federal Emergency

Management Agency.

I. Conclusion

Based on the above-described analysis of the proposed

demonstration project, OPS has determined that there are no

significant impacts associated with this action.

[FR Doc. 99-30906 Filed 12-1-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P