[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 231 (Thursday, December 2, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67602-67618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30906]


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

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