Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 213 / Monday, November 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules the preamble and regulatory text sections of this NPRM.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

3 Probable Environmental Impacts of the Action and Alternatives No Action Alternative If PHMSA were to select the No Action Alternative, current regulations would remain in place without suspension. As described in the FEA, the No Action Alternative could pose risks to public safety and the environment because the authorization under the HMR to offer shipments of LNG by rail tank car would remain in place. LNG poses potential hazards as a cryogenic liquefied flammable gas, including cryogenic temperature exposure, fire, and asphyxiation hazards. Transportation of any hazardous material introduces risk to safety and the environment, and each additional tank car theoretically increases the overall risk of an incident occurring and the quantity that could be released in the event of a derailment.
While this is true for all hazardous materials transportation, PHMSA seeks to better understand the risks inherent to LNG transportation in the DOT
113C120W9, especially given the LNG
by Rail final rule authorized large quantities to be transported at some point in the future. The 2020 FEA
explained that transporting LNG in rail tank cars is expected to be safer than transporting LNG by truck on highwayshowever, it is possible that allowing LNG to be transported in rail tank cars would increase the amount of LNG transported, and therefore a direct comparison of the risks by rail and highway may be misleading. PHMSA
will also consider, based on existing rail infrastructure locations and anticipated routes, whether transportation of LNG
in rail tank cars could pose disproportionate harm or risk to communities of color or low-income communities. As described in the preamble to this proposed rule, various market and other uncertainties exist regarding specific routes that may be used for the transport of LNG by rail tank car.
No release of LNG vapor to the environment is allowed during the normal transportation of LNG in tank cars whether by roadway or railway.
However, methane is odorless, and LNG
contains no odorant, making detection of a release resulting from an incident difficult without a detection device.
Releases of LNG due to venting or to accidents, without immediate ignition, involving either an MC338 cargo tank, a portable tank, or a DOT113C120W9
rail tank car have the potential to create
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:34 Nov 05, 2021

Jkt 256001

flammable vapor clouds of natural gas because recently gasified LNG does not dissipate in the atmosphere as quickly as ambient-temperature natural gas.
Large releases of LNG due to the breach of the inner tank of these transport vessels could result in a pool fire, vapor fire, and explosion hazards if methane vapors become confined. These flammability hazards pose a risk of higher potential impacts than localized cryogenic hazards.
Some commenters to the LNG by Rail final rule argued that the authorization of LNG by rail would further incentivize the production of natural gas, which is a fossil fuel. Methane has much greater heat trapping potential in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in the short term. Thus, methane is considered a potent GHG, and comprises a significant portion of the United States GHG emissions. While methane leaks are highly unlikely during transportation in the DOT113C120W9
due to tank car design, increased natural gas production could lead to indirect environmental impacts of increased methane emissions released during production, loading and unloading, or at other times during its life cycle. In considering whether the authorization could further incentivize the production of natural gas, PHMSA will consider the scope of existing natural gas production and transportation via natural gas pipeline and other modes of transportation.
The FEA for the LNG by Rail final rule discussed potential environmental benefits that could be associated with the authorization to transport LNG by rail tank car. First, PHMSA discussed that the authorization could allow for the delivery of natural gas to locations dependent on more polluting energy forms, such as coal, diesel, heating oil, or firewood.55 Use of natural gas in such areas, whether foreign or domestic, could allow for a reduction in polluting and climate-warming emissions.
Additionally, the authorization to transport LNG by rail tank car could potentially replace some shipments of LNG by highway. As discussed in the FEA for the LNG by Rail rule, highway 55 See, e.g., EPA, Press Release, State of Alaska and Fairbanks North Star Borough receive $14.7
Million EPA grant to improve air quality, Nov.
2020, https www.epa.gov/newsreleases/statealaska-and-fairbanks-north-star-borough-receive147-million-epa-grant-improve-air The Borough will use the grant funds to continue a woodstove changeout and conversion program focused on converting more wood burning appliances to cleaner burning liquid or gas-fueled heating appliances, which have a very low output of particulate pollution and higher fuel efficiency.
Wood smoke contributes up to 60 to 80 percent of fine particle pollution levels measured in the Fairbanks North Star Borough..

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

61741

transportation is less efficient in comparison to rail transportation when considering fuel use, combustion emissions, and climate change impacts.
However, in order to supplement, reduce, or replace highway transportation, rail infrastructure would need to exist between the origin and destination locations or be developed.
Finally, the FEA explored industry claims that the authorization could incentivize the capture, storage, and liquefaction of natural gas over venting and flaring of natural gas during oil production and other industrial activities, in areas where natural gas pipeline capacity is unavailable.
Facilitating the productive end use of by-product methane could reduce the venting and flaring of natural gas, which causes methane and carbon dioxide emissions. Similar to other abovedescribed benefits, it is difficult to predict the extent to which industries would invest in the equipment, technology, and expertise necessary to pursue natural gas capture, storage, and liquefaction necessary to pursue LNG
transportation by rail. A suspension of the authorization to transport LNG by rail could curtail these potential benefits in the near term.
Proposed Action Alternative Under the Proposed Action Alternative, PHMSA would amend the HMR to suspend authorization of LNG
transportation in rail tank cars pending further analysis and completion of a companion rulemaking or June 30, 2024, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the HMR would not authorize shippers to transport bulk quantities of LNG by rail tank car. Instead, LNG by rail would only be permitted pursuant to a DOT SP
or in portable tanks subject to FRA
approval. The Proposed Action Alternative would avoid the risks that transportation of LNG in rail tank cars, and particularly potential derailments of rail cars transporting LNG, could pose to public safety and the environment.
PHMSA would be able to further consider whether the transportation of LNG could pose disproportionate harm or risk to communities of color and communities with low incomes, which have historically borne the brunt of deleterious Federal policy decisions.
PHMSA would also be able to further consider whether shipping LNG in rail tank cars is consistent with public health and safety, environmental protection, and climate change mitigation; and to evaluate the results of ongoing and delayed research efforts and collaboration as part of an accompanying rulemaking under RIN
2137AF54.

E:FRFM08NOP1.SGM

08NOP1