![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators With Less Than 500 Miles of Pipelines)
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 16, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 11)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 2136-2144] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16ja02-6] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Part 195 [Docket No. RSPA-00-7408; Amdt. No. 195-76] RIN 2137-AD49 Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators With Less Than 500 Miles of Pipelines) AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Our regulations for the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline require operators with 500 or more miles of regulated pipelines to establish a program for managing the integrity of pipelines that affect high consequence areas. The regulations require continual assessment and evaluation of pipeline integrity through inspection or testing, data integration and analysis, and follow-up remedial, preventive, and mitigative actions. This Final Rule extends those regulations to operators with less than 500 miles of regulated pipelines. We are taking this action because safety recommendations, statutory mandates, and accident analyses indicate that coordinated risk control measures are needed for public safety and environmental protection in addition to compliance with traditional safety standards. Broadening the coverage of the existing regulations will further enhance the protection of high consequence areas against the risk of pipeline failures. DATES: This Final Rule takes effect February 15, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow by phone at 202-366-4559, by fax at 202-366-4566, by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or by e-mail at buck.furrow@rspa.dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Last year we amended the regulations in 49 CFR part 195 to require each operator who owns or operates 500 or more miles of pipelines subject to part 195 to establish a program for managing the integrity of pipelines that could affect a high consequence area if a leak or rupture occurs (Docket No. RSPA-99-6355; 65 FR 75377; Dec. 1, 2000). High consequence areas include highly populated areas, areas unusually sensitive to environmental damage, and commercially navigable waterways (Sec. 195.450). Program standards require continual assessment, evaluation, correction, and validation of pipeline integrity (Sec. 195.452 and appendix C to part 195). The new standards took effect May 29, 2001 (66 FR 9532; Feb. 8, 2001). In addition, in a further rulemaking action (Docket No. RSPA-99-6355), we are revising the repair provisions of Sec. 195.452(h) and clarifying that Sec. 195.452 applies to carbon dioxide pipelines as well as hazardous liquid pipelines. We did not apply the new program standards to pipelines of operators with less than 500 miles of regulated pipelines primarily because we needed more information about the potential impact of the standards on these operators. We subsequently learned that these operators include, to a large extent, companies with ample resources and capabilities to carry out the standards. A wide range of persons who submitted comments to Docket No. RSPA- 99-6355 supported the need to apply the new program standards to all operators of regulated pipelines that could affect high consequence areas. Based on these comments and the impact information we had collected, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to extend the program standards to pipelines of operators with less than 500 miles of regulated pipelines (66 FR 15821; March 21, 2001). The NPRM did not propose any substantive change to the existing program standards. It merely proposed to establish later deadlines for developing programs under Sec. 195.452(b)(1), identifying pipelines under Sec. 195.452(b)(1)(i), completing baseline assessments under Sec. 195.452(d)(1), accepting prior assessments under Sec. 195.452(b)(2), and applying certain time limits on reviewing assessment results under Sec. 195.452(h)(3). We invited interested persons to submit written comments on the proposed rules until May 21, 2001. Although the NPRM proposed no substantive change to the program standards, in the earlier proceeding (Docket No. RSPA-99-6355), we invited comments until March 31, 2001, on the substance of the standard for remedial action (Sec. 195.452(h)). As indicated in the NPRM, if Sec. 195.452(h) is changed in that proceeding, the changes will apply to all operators of pipelines to which the program standards apply, including operators covered by the present Final Rule. Disposition of Comments This section of the preamble summarizes written comments we received in response to the NPRM. It also describes how we treated those comments in developing the final rules. However, comments related to costs and benefits and the impact of the proposed rules on small entities are addressed in the ``Regulatory Analyses and Notices'' section of this preamble. If a proposed rule is not mentioned, no significant comments were received on the proposal, and we are adopting the proposed rule as final. Eight persons submitted comments: a professional organization, the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE); a state pipeline safety agency, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC); a Washington State advisory committee, the Citizens Advisory Committee on Pipeline Safety (CAC); the Small Business Administration (SBA); the Department of Energy (DOE); an engineering firm, Wink, Incorporated (Wink); and two pipeline operators, the Laclede Pipeline Company (Laclede) and the Tosco Corporation (Tosco). ASSE did not comment on specific proposals in the NPRM, but strongly supported our goal of assuring the integrity of pipeline systems. ASSE also said improving pipeline safety would improve the United States' competitive position in the world economy. WUTC, CAC, Tosco, and DOE expressed general support for the NPRM but, along with Wink, suggested changes. DOE also commented on the costs of the proposed rules in their impact on small entities. Laclede opposed the integrity assessment proposal and took issue with our estimate of compliance costs. SBA's comments were limited to the impact of the proposed rules on small entities. Under proposed Secs. 195.452(b)(1) and (b)(1)(i), operators with less than 500 miles of pipelines would have 9 months after the effective date of the final rules to identify all pipeline segments that could affect high consequence areas. They would have 1 year after the effective date to develop a written integrity management program that addresses the risks of those segments. Tosco said the identification of pipeline segments should occur after, not before, integrity management programs are completed, and suggested we allow operators 1 year to complete the identifications. In considering this comment, we noted that operators with 500 or more miles of pipelines have not indicated they expect any significant difficulties in meeting the 9-month identification rule. Tosco's comment [[Page 2137]] does not give us reason to believe the 9-month rule might be too burdensome for operators with less than 500 miles of pipelines. While Tosco is correct that operators will need to have relevant program elements in place to guide them in identifying pipeline segments, we believe 9 months is enough time to complete those elements and to carry out the identifications. The additional 3 months the existing rule provides for program development gives operators enough time to complete program elements other than those concerning identification. We do not think this additional time is also needed to identify pipeline segments. CAC suggested we require operators to seek input from potentially affected communities in identifying high consequence areas. CAC believed the input would help operators identify areas of population at risk and areas of economic importance. Although we recognize community input is valuable in many situations involving pipelines, particularly in site selection and emergency response, we do not feel it is necessary to mandate that operators seek the input CAC envisioned for two reasons. First, the definition of ``high consequence area'' in Sec. 195.450 covers CAC's concern about the population-at-risk. That definition refers to areas of high or concentrated population that the U.S. Census Bureau has defined and delineated. Operators should be able to identify these areas quite easily using Census Bureau data. If additional information is needed from community records to complete the identifications, the proposed rule would implicitly obligate operators to seek this information, making an explicit requirement unnecessary. Secondly, the NPRM did not propose to require integrity management of pipelines that could affect areas of economic significance other than commercially navigable waterways. These waterways, which operators also can readily identify without community input, arguably are the nation's foremost economic resources potentially at risk from pipeline spills. Other significant economic resources that may be affected by pipelines are less certain, and we feel the present regulations in Part 195 provide those resources adequate protection against the risk of pipeline spills. Similarly, in directing DOT to require additional inspection of certain pipelines, Congress did not include pipelines that affect economic resources other than commercially navigable waterways (49 U.S.C. 60102(f)(2) and 60109). If in the future there is a need to apply the integrity management rules to pipelines affecting other significant economic resources, we will consider whether operators should seek community input in identifying those resources. Although we did not adopt CAC's recommendations, it is important to note that in a separate proceeding we are considering the need for regulations on better communication of pipeline information by operators to local officials and the public. We have formed a communications work team, consisting of representatives from environmental and public safety organizations, pipeline companies, and government to aid our own hazardous liquid pipeline safety advisory committee in examining communications issues. Notices of meetings of the work group are published in the Federal Register, and minutes of the meetings are posted on this Web site: http://ops.dot.gov. WUTC suggested we require baseline integrity assessments of new pipelines as soon after they are constructed as possible, and for existing pipelines as soon as practicable after the final rules take effect. WUTC stated that early baseline assessment would provide the best basis for comparing subsequent assessment results. The NPRM proposed, in Sec. 195.452(d), that operators with less than 500 miles of pipeline complete baseline assessments within 7 years after the effective date of the final rule, with half the line pipe, selected by risk, assessed within 42 months after the effective date. Alternatively, operators could use as a baseline assessment any qualified integrity assessment completed within the 5 years prior to the effective date. For newly constructed pipelines, hydrostatic testing completed as required by other regulations in Part 195 will fulfill the baseline assessment requirement. Since this testing is normally part of the construction process, it should meet WUTC's objective of early assessment. For existing pipelines, we proposed 7 years to complete baseline assessments because of the volume of assessments, the limited availability of in-line inspection tools, and the time needed to schedule pressure testing to minimize service disruptions. Although we agree with WUTC that earlier baseline assessment would be beneficial, we do not think requiring earlier baseline assessments would be reasonable under present circumstances. To assure that only qualified persons develop integrity management programs and make program decisions, Wink suggested we require operators to use registered professional engineers with demonstrated technical pipeline expertise and experience. Wink further suggested we require operators to submit their integrity management programs for review by RSPA certified entities. We did not adopt either suggestion because to do so would go beyond the scope of the NPRM. While Sec. 195.452(f)(8) requires operators to use persons qualified to evaluate assessment results and analyze information, the NPRM did not address specific qualifications or program review by certified entities. Based on our experience in other areas of pipeline regulation, we believe operators will use qualified engineers with pipeline experience to assist in developing integrity management programs and recommend critical decisions under the programs. Moreover, persons carrying out regulated assessment and mitigation activities on pipelines are subject to the existing qualification requirements in Subpart G of Part 195. To assure that operators carry out their programs in accordance with the rules, we will use our own engineers and technical specialists to evaluate operators' programs and require changes that may be needed for safety. This type of evaluative process has been satisfactory for other programs and plans required by Part 195. We prefer to continue this approach to assure the quality of integrity management programs rather than establish additional personnel qualifications or a new federal certification program. Wink asked to what extent operators would have to consider potential terrorist activities in their ongoing assessments of pipeline integrity. Under one of the integrity management program requirements (Sec. 195.452(e)(1)), operators must schedule integrity assessments based on ``all risk factors that reflect the risk conditions on the pipeline.'' Therefore, if an operator knows or it is reasonable to anticipate that there is a threat to the integrity of the pipeline from terrorist activity, the operator must consider that risk in developing its integrity program. Since the events of September 11, 2001, we are working with DOT, the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and State agencies, to consider the need for minimum security standards for critical facilities. Wink postulated that construction permit timing could interfere with an operator's ability to meet remediation deadlines. Section 195.452(h) deals with this potential problem. Under this rule, if justifiable circumstances preclude an operator from meeting specified repair deadlines, the operator may reasonably extend the repair schedule if it [[Page 2138]] temporarily reduces operating pressure to a safe level or notifies us of the delay in making a permanent repair. Finally, Wink suggested we establish a program review process in which operators would meet with our technical specialists to examine whether the program meets applicable requirements. In response to Wink's first comment, we mentioned we will use our own engineers and technical specialists to evaluate operators' programs and require changes that may be needed for safety. We expect this review process will involve meeting with operators' representatives. Laclede, who operates a 28-mile propane pipeline serving a gas distribution system, believed it would be unreasonable to apply the proposed integrity assessment requirement (Sec. 195.452(c)) to its pipeline. Laclede said the design of 70 percent of its pipeline cannot accommodate internal inspection tools, and difficulties in de-watering the line after hydrostatic testing would cause control valve and instrument freeze-ups during critical cold weather periods. Laclede suggested we exempt from internal inspection or hydrostatic testing requirements all pipelines directly serving gas distribution systems if the pipeline is cathodically protected and inspected according to our standards or is equipped with emergency flow restricting or shutdown devices. We did not adopt this comment because providing adequate cathodic protection and meeting current inspection requirements cannot assure a pipeline is free from all potentially harmful defects that internal inspection or hydrostatic testing can disclose, such as mechanical damage or fatigue cracks. Also, while emergency flow restricting or shutdown devices are useful in mitigating the consequences of a pipeline rupture, these devices do nothing to prevent ruptures, which is the purpose of periodic internal inspection or hydrostatic testing. Laclede's comment did not fully explain the particular difficulties in de-watering, or drying, its pipeline after hydrostatic testing. Drying pipelines is not an uncommon problem in the industry and not one we believe makes the proposed testing rule unreasonable. Many companies are available to provide expert drying services, using techniques that depend on operating conditions. However, if an operator's circumstances are so unusual that hydrostatic testing would result in unavoidable damage to pipeline facilities and internal inspection is not a viable alternative, the operator may apply for a waiver of the testing requirement as permitted by 49 U.S.C. 60118. DOE was concerned that construction of new pipelines within the next few years to meet the growing demand for fossil fuels could tax available technical expertise and equipment needed to meet various assessment deadlines in the existing and proposed rules. DOE said available resources could be stretched to a point where meeting the deadlines would not be possible, or at least not possible without significantly increased costs. Therefore, DOE suggested we expand the present provisions for extending deadlines (e.g., Sec. 195.452(j)(4)) to include situations in which meeting a deadline would result in supply disruptions. We agree that by shifting resources away from new construction or shutting down vital pipelines for hydrostatic testing or repair, supply disruptions could occur. However, at this stage we believe the impact of such an eventuality is too speculative to warrant changing the rules to add supply disruption as an acceptable reason for extending deadlines. Also, over the next few years new technologies might become available that would enable acceptable integrity assessments with no effect on supply. If in the future a supply problem appears more likely, the operator involved may petition us for necessary relief or latitude under the rules. DOE also commented on our plan to identify high consequence areas on it's National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) and to make the information available to the public via the Internet. DOE recommended that before implementing this plan, we fully evaluate issues of critical infrastructure protection. Indeed, we designed the NPMS with infrastructure protection issues in mind. For example, to avoid creating a tool for intentional misuse of information with tragic results, critical pipeline components and operating data would not be shown on the NPMS. However, the events of September 11, 2001, have caused even greater concern about the security of critical infrastructure systems. As a result, the NPMS no longer provides open access to pipeline-related data. These data are only available to pipeline operators and local, state, and federal government officials. More information on the availability of data and how operators and officials can access it is on the NPMS home page: http:// www.npms.rspa.dot.gov