Overview
Title
Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is asking people for their thoughts on whether a gas pipeline company should be allowed to use certain pipes in a different area without following all the usual safety rules. They want to know what everyone thinks by February 26, 2021, before they decide what to do.
Summary AI
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is requesting public input on a special permit application from the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (NGPL), a part of Kinder Morgan, Inc. This application seeks exceptions from some federal safety standards for pipeline operation in Arkansas. The special permit would allow NGPL to use existing pipes designed for a Class 1 area in a Class 3 area without replacing them. Public comments are welcome until February 26, 2021, and PHMSA will consider all relevant feedback before making a decision.
Abstract
PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on a request for special permit received from the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (NGPL). The special permit request is seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is an official notice from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), soliciting public comments on a special permit application submitted by the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (NGPL). This application seeks a waiver from specific federal pipeline safety standards for a pipeline segment located in White County, Arkansas. The primary goal is to allow existing pipes, originally installed under less stringent requirements (Class 1), to continue operating in an area now designated under stricter safety regulations (Class 3), without needing to replace them or reduce pressure.
General Summary
The PHMSA's notice informs the public about the NGPL's request for an exemption from compliance with certain federal safety regulations that concern pipeline operations. The special permit would enable NGPL to maintain operations with existing infrastructure designed for a lower classification in a more restrictive area. This request is open for public comment until February 26, 2021, after which the PHMSA will consider all feedback before deciding whether to grant or deny the application.
Issues and Concerns
One significant concern highlighted in the document is the lack of detailed justification from NGPL explaining why deviations from existing pipeline safety regulations are necessary or advantageous for this segment in Arkansas. Further clarification on why sticking with existing compliance measures is unfeasible or inefficient would be beneficial for public understanding and evaluation.
Additionally, the document briefly discusses the concept of Confidential Business Information (CBI), but this explanation could be simplified or expanded with examples to help the public better understand what entails CBI and the importance of its protection.
The procedure for marking and submitting confidential information is described in technical detail that may overwhelm or confuse laypersons. Simplifying this process could encourage more meaningful public participation.
There is a significant amount of procedural detail regarding how the public can submit comments, but the document could do more to explain the potential implications or consequences of either granting or denying the special permit. This would provide more context for why public input is important.
Lastly, the document ought to address potential environmental and safety concerns associated with operating a Class 1 pipeline in a Class 3 location. Failing to adequately explain these aspects could raise apprehension among the public, as pipeline safety and environmental health are paramount issues.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this document calls for public involvement in regulatory decision-making, highlighting the importance of community engagement in infrastructure projects that could affect public safety and local environments. However, the complexity of the language and concepts used in the document may limit public understanding and, consequently, participation.
Impact on Stakeholders
For the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC and Kinder Morgan, Inc., the special permit represents a potential reduction in operational costs associated with upgrading or replacing infrastructure to meet higher safety standards. If granted, it allows the company to maintain operational capabilities without significant financial investment in new pipeline infrastructure.
Local communities near the pipeline might be directly concerned about safety given the proposal to continue operating under a lower compliance standard. This could pose problems if there are valid safety or environmental risks, underscoring the necessity for transparent risk assessments.
Regulators and policymakers are tasked with balancing industry interests with public safety and environmental standards. Denying the permit could reinforce strict compliance standards, while granting it may be seen as setting a precedent for leniency in regulatory compliance, potentially impacting future decisions.
Overall, the notice serves as a critical point of contact between the PHMSA, industries involved in pipeline management, and the communities they serve, emphasizing the ongoing dialogue necessary for managing public utilities responsibly.
Issues
• The document mentions a special permit request from the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (NGPL), but it lacks detailed justification for why relief from compliance with specific Federal pipeline safety regulations is necessary or beneficial.
• Language such as 'CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner' could be made more clear by providing examples or further elaboration on what constitutes CBI.
• The process for marking information as 'Confidential' and submitting it as CBI is mentioned but could be simplified for better public understanding.
• The technical terms related to pipeline specifications and regulations (e.g., 'Class 1 pipe in the Class 3 location', 'maximum allowable operating pressure') might be overly complex for readers unfamiliar with such terms; simpler explanations or a glossary could facilitate better understanding.
• The document contains substantial procedural details regarding public comments and submissions, but does not clearly state the potential consequences if the special permit is granted or denied.
• The document could better address possible environmental and safety impacts of allowing operation of the original Class 1 pipe in the Class 3 location, which might raise public concern or interest.