Pipeline Safety: Design and Construction Standards To Reduce Internal Corrosion in Gas Transmission Pipelines, 74262-74265 [05-24063]
Download as PDF
74262
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 05–24076 Filed 12–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PHMSA–2005–22642; Notice 1]
RIN 2137–AE09
Pipeline Safety: Design and
Construction Standards To Reduce
Internal Corrosion in Gas
Transmission Pipelines
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document proposes
regulations on the control of internal
corrosion when designing and
constructing new and replaced gas
transmission pipelines. The proposed
rule would require an operator to take
steps in design and construction to
reduce the risk that liquids collecting
within the pipeline could result in
failures because of internal corrosion.
These changes would ease steps an
operator must take in operating and
maintaining the pipeline to minimize
internal corrosion.
DATES: Anyone interested in filing
written comments on the rule proposed
in this document must do so by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:18 Dec 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
February 13, 2006. PHMSA will
consider late filed comments so far as
practicable.
Comments should reference
Docket No. PHMSA–2005–22642 and
may be submitted in the following ways:
• DOT Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
To submit comments on the DOT
electronic docket site, click ‘‘Comment/
Submissions,’’ click ‘‘Continue,’’ fill in
the requested information, click
‘‘Continue,’’ enter your comment, then
click ‘‘Submit.’’
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: DOT Docket
Management System; Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• E-Gov Web Site: https://
www.Regulations.gov. This site allows
the public to enter comments on any
Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
Instructions: You should identify the
docket number, PHMSA–2005–22642, at
the beginning of your comments. If you
submit your comments by mail, you
should submit two copies. If you wish
to receive confirmation that PHMSA
received your comments, you should
include a self-addressed stamped
postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at https://
www.regulations.gov, and may access all
comments received by DOT at https://
dms.dot.gov by performing a simple
search for the docket number. Note: All
comments will be posted without
changes or edits to https://dms.dot.gov
including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act
heading in the Regulatory Analyses and
Notices section of the Supplemental
Information.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Betsock by phone at (202) 366–
4361 or by fax at (202) 366–4566, or by
e-mail at barbara.betsock@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Internal Corrosion
Corrosion can occur on the interior
wall of a steel pipeline when liquid
gathers within the pipeline. Whether
corrosion occurs in these circumstances
depends on the nature and amount of
contaminants inside the pipeline and
the operating conditions of the pipeline.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Current Regulations
Current pipeline safety regulations
found in 49 CFR part 192 require an
operator to take actions to address
internal corrosion in operating and
maintaining a gas transmission pipeline.
An operator must include the details of
its corrosion program in procedural
manuals and carry out the program.
Among the actions that an operator
must take to prevent corrosion are the
use of inhibitors in the gas, the use of
cleaning pigs, the removal of liquids
and solids from drips, and monitoring
the contaminants. When an operator
discovers internal corrosion, an operator
must take extra steps such as using
coupons to check for corrosion to
prevent internal corrosion-induced
failure. Besides these operation and
maintenance (O&M) requirements, an
operator must design and construct pipe
installed since 1994 to allow the passage
of internal inspection tools, commonly
known as ‘‘pigs’’. Therefore, all pipeline
installed since 1994 allow the use of
cleaning pigs.
On December 15, 2003, we issued
regulations on integrity management
programs for gas transmission pipelines.
These regulations are found at 68 FR
69816. Specifically, an operator must
include within its integrity management
program a means to discover whether
internal corrosion impacts the integrity
of its pipeline. The means may include
internal inspection or hydrostatic
testing. Where pipeline design does not
allow the use of pigs, internal corrosion
direct assessment (ICDA) is the likely
choice. The operator must then address
any corrosion found.
To prepare for ICDA, an operator must
evaluate whether the design and
construction of the pipeline contributes
to the risk of internal corrosion. These
design and construction features
include low points in which liquids
may gather, such as sags, drips, inclines,
valves, manifolds, dead-legs, and traps;
elevation profile; and pipe diameter. An
operator combines information about
design and construction with O&M
history such as places where cleaning
pigs have not been used, patterns of gas
quality, and the range of expected gas
velocities. An operator uses this
analysis to decide where to excavate
and examine the line for internal
corrosion.
Reasons for Regulation
Internal corrosion has been one of the
three leading causes of reportable
incidents in gas transmission pipelines
for the past five years, both in
percentage of incidents and their
consequences. In fact, in 2003 and 2004,
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
internal corrosion caused more property
damage than the other two most
frequent causes, third-party excavation
damage and external corrosion,
combined. Specifically, internal
corrosion caused $14.9 million in
property damage in 2003 versus $11.9
million in damage attributable to
external corrosion or third-party
excavation damage. In 2004, internal
corrosion caused $4.9 million in damage
versus $4.0 million for the other two
causes combined.
There is an increasing demand for
natural gas. As producers tap new
sources, there is a possibility the nature
and amount of contaminants in the gas
will vary. To ensure safe and reliable
delivery of gas, pipeline operators must
be vigilant in preventing internal
corrosion and monitoring its impact
when it occurs. Early planning for
corrosion control at the design and
construction stage would simplify the
O&M actions needed later for corrosion
control.
The integrity management regulations
require added O&M steps to control
internal corrosion. Designing and
constructing pipelines with internal
corrosion control in mind would ease
integrity management assessments
whether done by internal inspection or
ICDA. Planning at the design and
construction stage would also simplify
actions needed to address internal
corrosion during O&M. There are two
industry standards for considering
internal corrosion control during design
and construction. These are the
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) code for gas piping
(ASME B31.8, Gas Transmission and
Distribution Piping Systems) and the
American Gas Association’s Guide for
Gas Transmission and Distribution
Piping Systems. These standards already
provide guidance to operators. However,
clear performance-based design and
construction standards for internal
corrosion control will aid operators in
complying with the recent integrity
management regulations as well as the
existing O&M requirements.
Finally, in its report on the gas
transmission pipeline accident that
occurred in 2000 near Carlsbad, New
Mexico, the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) described physical
features that promoted internal
corrosion of the line. There were low
points just upstream of where the
pipeline crossed the Pecos River. The
original construction of the line
included a drip installed upstream of
these low points to prevent liquid from
gathering in the low points. At some
point, the operator modified the line to
allow the use of cleaning pigs upstream
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:18 Dec 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
of the Pecos River. The operator placed
the equipment used to remove cleaning
pigs at the valve upstream of the drip.
The NTSB concluded residue clogged
the drip allowing liquids to flow past
the drip and settle in the low points at
the river crossing. The NTSB
investigation after the pipeline ruptured
at the low points revealed severe
internal corrosion at the site. The line
where the cleaning pigs had been used
upstream did not experience internal
corrosion needing repair. Noting the
lack of Federal design and construction
standards aimed at internal corrosion,
the NTSB recommended the Department
change its regulations:
Revise 49 Code of Federal Regulations part
192 to require that new or replaced pipelines
be designed and constructed with features to
mitigate internal corrosion. At a minimum,
such pipelines should (1) be configured to
reduce the opportunity for liquids to
accumulate, (2) be equipped with effective
liquid removal features, and (3) be able to
accommodate corrosion monitoring devices
at locations with the greatest potential for
internal corrosion. (P–03–1).
We agree there should be Federal
standards to address internal corrosion
at the design and construction stage.
Statutory Considerations
PHMSA has broad authority to issue
safety standards on the design,
construction, operation, replacement,
and maintenance of gas transmission
pipelines. This authority is in 49 U.S.C.
60102(a). Under 49 U.S.C. 60104, a
design and construction standard may
not apply to a pipeline existing when
we issue the standard. Therefore, this
proposal imposes design and
construction requirements only on new
and replaced pipe and components. The
proposal does require an operator to
evaluate the potential impact on
existing pipelines by upstream changes
made to the pipeline and take actions to
address the impact. However, evaluating
and addressing impacts is an O&M need
rather than a design and construction
standard. The statute allows PHMSA to
regulate O&M for existing pipelines.
Under 49 U.S.C. 60102(b), a gas
pipeline safety standard must be
practicable and designed to meet the
need for gas pipeline safety and for
protection of the environment. To do
this, PHMSA must consider several
factors in issuing a safety standard.
These factors include the relevant
available pipeline safety and
environmental information, the
appropriateness of the standard for the
type of pipeline, the reasonableness of
the standard, and reasonably
identifiable or estimated costs and
benefits. PHMSA has considered these
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74263
factors in developing this proposed rule
and provides its analysis in the
preamble. PHMSA must also consider
any comments received from the public
and any comments and
recommendations of the Technical
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee
(Committee). The Committee discussed
the ideas for this proposal following a
briefing at its meeting on June 15, 2005.
The transcript of, and briefing materials
for, the meeting are in the DOT DMS
Docket RSPA–98–4470. PHMSA
considered the Committee discussion in
developing this proposed rule. This
document seeks public comment on the
proposed rule; the Committee will
formally consider it in a future meeting.
PHMSA will address the public
comments and the Committee’s
recommendations when the agency
prepares a final rule.
The Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would add a new
section to subpart I—Requirements for
Corrosion Control in 49 CFR part 192.
The new section, § 192.476 would
require an operator to address internal
corrosion risk when designing and
constructing gas transmission pipelines.
Proposed paragraph (a) provides a
performance test for internal corrosion
prevention measures in design and
construction. The test is whether the
design and construction choices include
measures to reduce the risk that liquid
will collect inside the pipe. The
proposed rule would require an operator
to use measures that include, at the
least, arrangement to avoid collection of
liquids and the use of effective liquid
removal equipment. If an operator is
unable to avoid low spots, an operator
would explain why and identify the
alternative measures to reduce the risk.
There may be cases in which the design
avoids low spots, but during
construction the operator finds that it
cannot avoid low spots. In this case, the
operator would document the ‘‘as built’’
condition and the alternative measures
used.
Proposed paragraph (b) provides a
performance test for design and
construction measures to check any
internal corrosion that occurs. The test
is whether the design and construction
choices include measures to reduce the
risk of internal corrosion. The design
must allow for use of corrosion
detection equipment.
These design and construction
requirements would apply to all new
construction and to replaced pipe and
components. With one limited
exception, application to replaced pipe
would be the same as the rule on
designing to allow the passage of
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
74264
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
instrumented internal inspection tools.
PHMSA clarified the meaning of
replaced pipe in the final rule published
in the Federal Register on June 28, 2004
(69 FR 36024). The exception occurs
when replaced pipe changes the
physical features of an existing
downstream pipeline. Proposed
paragraph (c) clarifies that an operator
must consider the impact of line
changes on internal corrosion risks and
plan for these. Proposed paragraph (c)
would not require an operator to rebuild
the downstream pipeline to remove low
points, but would require an operator to
consider whether it should install liquid
removal equipment or tools to monitor
corrosion. After analysis, an operator
may decide O&M measures would
adequately address the impacts of the
changes upstream.
Paragraph (d) would require an
operator to record the decisions it makes
about internal corrosion control when
designing and constructing pipelines.
The operator would have to explain its
reasons for the decisions and justify
variance. For example, if an operator
did not use equipment to remove
liquids in designing a pipeline, the
operator would have to explain why the
use of the equipment would be
impracticable. Recording reasons for
decisions fosters better decisionmaking
and will provide needed information
about safety features of the line in the
future.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Privacy Act Statement
Anyone may search the electronic
form of all comments received for any
of our dockets. You may review DOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR19477) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735)
and, therefore, was not subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget. This proposed rule is not
significant under the Regulatory Policies
and Procedures of the Department of
Transportation (44 FR 11034).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA must
consider whether rulemaking actions
would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule would affect
operators of gas transmission pipelines
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:18 Dec 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
and onshore gas gathering pipelines.
There is not a substantial number of
small entities which operate these lines.
PHMSA expects the costs of compliance
with the proposed rule would be small.
PHMSA concludes that this proposed
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any small entity.
PHMSA invites public comment on
the number of small entities this
proposed rule would impact.
Executive Order 13175
PHMSA has analyzed this proposed
rulemaking according to Executive
Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.’’ Because the proposed
rulemaking would not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of the
Indian tribal governments nor impose
substantial direct compliance costs, the
funding and consultation requirements
of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule would affect
information collection that OMB has
approved under Control Numbers 2137–
0049 (recordkeeping under 49 CFR part
192). Operators of gas transmission
pipelines must keep records to show the
adequacy of corrosion control measures.
In addition, they must keep
construction records to make them
available to individuals operating and
maintaining the pipeline. The proposed
rule may require some added effort to
document decisions about internal
corrosion made during design and
construction. Because of existing
recordkeeping needs and prudent
business practice, PHMSA estimates the
added burden hours will be nominal.
PHMSA invites comments on this
estimate.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not impose
unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. It does not result in costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
to the private sector, and is the least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of the proposed
rulemaking.
National Environmental Policy Act
PHMSA has analyzed the proposed
rulemaking for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.). Because the proposed
rulemaking would require limited
physical change or other work that
would disturb pipeline rights-of-way,
PHMSA has preliminarily determined
the proposed rulemaking is unlikely to
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
affect the quality of the human
environment significantly. An
environmental assessment document is
available for review in the docket.
PHMSA will make a final determination
on environmental impact after
reviewing the comments to this
proposal.
Executive Order 13132
PHMSA has analyzed the proposed
rulemaking according to Executive
Order 13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). The
proposed rule does not have a
substantial direct effect on the States,
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The proposed rule
does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local
governments. The pipeline safety law
prohibits State safety regulation of
interstate pipelines. This proposed
regulation would not preempt state law
for intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
Executive Order 13211
Transporting gas impacts the nation’s
available energy supply. However, this
proposed rulemaking is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under
Executive Order 13211. It also is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 and is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has not identified this proposed
rule as a significant energy action.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
Internal corrosion, design and
construction, pipeline safety.
For the reasons provided in the
preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend
49 CFR Part 192 as follows:
PART 192—TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY
PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL
SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 192
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104,
60108, 60109, 60110, 60113, and 60118; and
49 CFR 1.53.
2. Add § 192.476 to read as follows:
§ 192.476 Internal corrosion control:
Design and construction.
(a) Avoiding liquids. An operator must
design and construct each new
transmission line and each replacement
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
of line pipe, valve, fitting, or other line
component in a transmission line to
reduce the risk that liquids will collect
in the line. At a minimum, unless an
operator shows that it is impracticable
or unnecessary to do so, an operator
must:
(1) Configure new pipeline or
replacement of line pipe, valve, fitting,
or other line component to reduce the
risk that liquids will collect in the line;
and
(2) Equip the new pipeline or
replacement pipe with effective liquid
removal features.
(b) Monitoring. An operator must
design and construct each new
transmission line and each replacement
of line pipe, valve, fitting, or other line
component in a transmission line to
reduce the risk of internal corrosion. At
a minimum, unless an operator shows
that it is impracticable or unnecessary to
do so, an operator must use pipeline
design and construction that allows use
of corrosion monitoring devices at
locations with significant potential for
internal corrosion.
(c) Change to existing system. An
operator must evaluate the impact that
new or replaced line pipe, valve, fitting,
or other line component may have on
internal corrosion risk to the
downstream portion of an existing
pipeline and use equipment to remove
liquids and to monitor corrosion as
appropriate.
(d) Records. An operator must
document the design and construction
decisions related to internal corrosion.
Documentation must include the
reasons, and any engineering analysis,
for each decision.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
12, 2005.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–24063 Filed 12–12–05; 1:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
[Docket No. PHMSA–04–18938]
RIN 2137–AE07
Integrity Management: Program
Modifications and Clarifications—
Request for Comments
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:18 Dec 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes revisions to
the current Pipeline Safety Regulations
for Pipeline Integrity Management in
High Consequence Areas. The revisions
address a petition from the hazardous
liquid pipeline industry. The revisions
are to: allow more flexibility in
reassessment intervals for hazardous
liquid pipelines by adding an eightmonth window to the five-year time
frame for operators to complete
reassessment; and require both
hazardous liquid pipeline and gas
transmission pipeline operators to
notify PHMSA whenever they reduce
pipeline pressure to make a repair and
to provide reasons for pressure
reduction. Another notification,
including reasons for repair delay,
would be required when a pressure
reduction exceeds 365 days.
Also, PHMSA proposes to correct
existing provisions for calculating a
pressure reduction when making an
immediate repair on a hazardous liquid
pipeline. The proposed correction
would allow operators to use another
acceptable method to calculate reduced
operating pressure when a specified
formula is not applicable or results in a
calculated pressure higher than
operating pressure.
Finally, PHMSA seeks the submittal
of engineering analyses and technical
data. These submittals are to provide the
basis for modifying the required time
periods for remediating certain
conditions found during a hazardous
liquid pipeline integrity assessment.
PHMSA will use this data to evaluate
the scope and scale of repair issues to
develop an accurate basis for
determining if any additional flexibility
is needed in the repair schedules.
DATES: Interested persons may submit
written comments on the proposed
regulatory changes by February 13,
2006. Interested persons may submit
written engineering analysis and
technical data by April 14, 2006. Latefiled comments will be considered to
the extent possible.
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference
Docket No. PHMSA–04–18938 and may
be submitted in the following ways:
• DOT Web site: https://dms.dot.gov.
To submit comments on the DOT
electronic docket site, click ‘‘Comment/
Submissions,’’ click ‘‘Continue,’’ fill in
the requested information, click
‘‘Continue,’’ enter your comment, then
click ‘‘Submit.’’
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74265
• Hand Delivery: DOT Docket
Management System, Room PL–401 on
the plaza of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• E-Gov Web site: https://
www.Regulations.gov. This site allows
the public to enter comments on any
Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
Instructions: You should identify
docket number PHMSA–04–18938 at
the beginning of your comments. If you
submit your comments by mail, you
should send two copies. If you wish to
receive PHMSA’s confirmation receipt
of your comments, you should include
a self-addressed stamped postcard.
Internet users may submit comments at
https://www.regulations.gov, and may
access all comments received by DOT at
https://dms.dot.gov by performing a
simple search for the docket number.
Note: All comments will be posted
without changes or edits to https://
dms.dot.gov including any personal
information provided. Please see the
Privacy Act heading under Section V,
Regulatory Analyses and Notices, of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may
search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our
dockets. You may review DOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (70 FR 19477) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shauna Turnbull by phone at (202) 366–
3731 or via e-mail at
shauna.turnbull@dot.gov. For questions
on technical issues, contact Mike Israni
at (202) 366–4571 or via e-mail at
mike.israni@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The Nation’s existing pipeline
infrastructure, much of which is over 50
years old, requires regular safety and
environmental reviews to ensure its
reliability. To address several statutory
mandates and National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations
on actions to improve pipeline safety,
PHMSA 1 issued Integrity Management
1 The former Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA) was the entity responsible
for issuing the hazardous liquid pipeline and gas
transmission pipeline integrity management
program regulations. RSPA divided into two new
agencies on February 20, 2005. The newly formed
PHMSA assumed responsibility for pipeline safety
and hazardous materials management regulatory
oversight.
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74262-74265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24063]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PHMSA-2005-22642; Notice 1]
RIN 2137-AE09
Pipeline Safety: Design and Construction Standards To Reduce
Internal Corrosion in Gas Transmission Pipelines
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes regulations on the control of internal
corrosion when designing and constructing new and replaced gas
transmission pipelines. The proposed rule would require an operator to
take steps in design and construction to reduce the risk that liquids
collecting within the pipeline could result in failures because of
internal corrosion. These changes would ease steps an operator must
take in operating and maintaining the pipeline to minimize internal
corrosion.
DATES: Anyone interested in filing written comments on the rule
proposed in this document must do so by February 13, 2006. PHMSA will
consider late filed comments so far as practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2005-22642 and
may be submitted in the following ways:
DOT Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov. To submit comments on
the DOT electronic docket site, click ``Comment/Submissions,'' click
``Continue,'' fill in the requested information, click ``Continue,''
enter your comment, then click ``Submit.''
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System; Room PL-401
on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
E-Gov Web Site: https://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
Instructions: You should identify the docket number, PHMSA-2005-
22642, at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments
by mail, you should submit two copies. If you wish to receive
confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, you should include a
self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at
https://www.regulations.gov, and may access all comments received by DOT
at https://dms.dot.gov by performing a simple search for the docket
number. Note: All comments will be posted without changes or edits to
https://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading in the Regulatory Analyses and Notices
section of the Supplemental Information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Betsock by phone at (202) 366-
4361 or by fax at (202) 366-4566, or by e-mail at
barbara.betsock@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Internal Corrosion
Corrosion can occur on the interior wall of a steel pipeline when
liquid gathers within the pipeline. Whether corrosion occurs in these
circumstances depends on the nature and amount of contaminants inside
the pipeline and the operating conditions of the pipeline.
Current Regulations
Current pipeline safety regulations found in 49 CFR part 192
require an operator to take actions to address internal corrosion in
operating and maintaining a gas transmission pipeline. An operator must
include the details of its corrosion program in procedural manuals and
carry out the program. Among the actions that an operator must take to
prevent corrosion are the use of inhibitors in the gas, the use of
cleaning pigs, the removal of liquids and solids from drips, and
monitoring the contaminants. When an operator discovers internal
corrosion, an operator must take extra steps such as using coupons to
check for corrosion to prevent internal corrosion-induced failure.
Besides these operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements, an operator
must design and construct pipe installed since 1994 to allow the
passage of internal inspection tools, commonly known as ``pigs''.
Therefore, all pipeline installed since 1994 allow the use of cleaning
pigs.
On December 15, 2003, we issued regulations on integrity management
programs for gas transmission pipelines. These regulations are found at
68 FR 69816. Specifically, an operator must include within its
integrity management program a means to discover whether internal
corrosion impacts the integrity of its pipeline. The means may include
internal inspection or hydrostatic testing. Where pipeline design does
not allow the use of pigs, internal corrosion direct assessment (ICDA)
is the likely choice. The operator must then address any corrosion
found.
To prepare for ICDA, an operator must evaluate whether the design
and construction of the pipeline contributes to the risk of internal
corrosion. These design and construction features include low points in
which liquids may gather, such as sags, drips, inclines, valves,
manifolds, dead-legs, and traps; elevation profile; and pipe diameter.
An operator combines information about design and construction with O&M
history such as places where cleaning pigs have not been used, patterns
of gas quality, and the range of expected gas velocities. An operator
uses this analysis to decide where to excavate and examine the line for
internal corrosion.
Reasons for Regulation
Internal corrosion has been one of the three leading causes of
reportable incidents in gas transmission pipelines for the past five
years, both in percentage of incidents and their consequences. In fact,
in 2003 and 2004,
[[Page 74263]]
internal corrosion caused more property damage than the other two most
frequent causes, third-party excavation damage and external corrosion,
combined. Specifically, internal corrosion caused $14.9 million in
property damage in 2003 versus $11.9 million in damage attributable to
external corrosion or third-party excavation damage. In 2004, internal
corrosion caused $4.9 million in damage versus $4.0 million for the
other two causes combined.
There is an increasing demand for natural gas. As producers tap new
sources, there is a possibility the nature and amount of contaminants
in the gas will vary. To ensure safe and reliable delivery of gas,
pipeline operators must be vigilant in preventing internal corrosion
and monitoring its impact when it occurs. Early planning for corrosion
control at the design and construction stage would simplify the O&M
actions needed later for corrosion control.
The integrity management regulations require added O&M steps to
control internal corrosion. Designing and constructing pipelines with
internal corrosion control in mind would ease integrity management
assessments whether done by internal inspection or ICDA. Planning at
the design and construction stage would also simplify actions needed to
address internal corrosion during O&M. There are two industry standards
for considering internal corrosion control during design and
construction. These are the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) code for gas piping (ASME B31.8, Gas Transmission and
Distribution Piping Systems) and the American Gas Association's Guide
for Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems. These standards
already provide guidance to operators. However, clear performance-based
design and construction standards for internal corrosion control will
aid operators in complying with the recent integrity management
regulations as well as the existing O&M requirements.
Finally, in its report on the gas transmission pipeline accident
that occurred in 2000 near Carlsbad, New Mexico, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) described physical features that
promoted internal corrosion of the line. There were low points just
upstream of where the pipeline crossed the Pecos River. The original
construction of the line included a drip installed upstream of these
low points to prevent liquid from gathering in the low points. At some
point, the operator modified the line to allow the use of cleaning pigs
upstream of the Pecos River. The operator placed the equipment used to
remove cleaning pigs at the valve upstream of the drip. The NTSB
concluded residue clogged the drip allowing liquids to flow past the
drip and settle in the low points at the river crossing. The NTSB
investigation after the pipeline ruptured at the low points revealed
severe internal corrosion at the site. The line where the cleaning pigs
had been used upstream did not experience internal corrosion needing
repair. Noting the lack of Federal design and construction standards
aimed at internal corrosion, the NTSB recommended the Department change
its regulations:
Revise 49 Code of Federal Regulations part 192 to require that
new or replaced pipelines be designed and constructed with features
to mitigate internal corrosion. At a minimum, such pipelines should
(1) be configured to reduce the opportunity for liquids to
accumulate, (2) be equipped with effective liquid removal features,
and (3) be able to accommodate corrosion monitoring devices at
locations with the greatest potential for internal corrosion. (P-03-
1).
We agree there should be Federal standards to address internal
corrosion at the design and construction stage.
Statutory Considerations
PHMSA has broad authority to issue safety standards on the design,
construction, operation, replacement, and maintenance of gas
transmission pipelines. This authority is in 49 U.S.C. 60102(a). Under
49 U.S.C. 60104, a design and construction standard may not apply to a
pipeline existing when we issue the standard. Therefore, this proposal
imposes design and construction requirements only on new and replaced
pipe and components. The proposal does require an operator to evaluate
the potential impact on existing pipelines by upstream changes made to
the pipeline and take actions to address the impact. However,
evaluating and addressing impacts is an O&M need rather than a design
and construction standard. The statute allows PHMSA to regulate O&M for
existing pipelines.
Under 49 U.S.C. 60102(b), a gas pipeline safety standard must be
practicable and designed to meet the need for gas pipeline safety and
for protection of the environment. To do this, PHMSA must consider
several factors in issuing a safety standard. These factors include the
relevant available pipeline safety and environmental information, the
appropriateness of the standard for the type of pipeline, the
reasonableness of the standard, and reasonably identifiable or
estimated costs and benefits. PHMSA has considered these factors in
developing this proposed rule and provides its analysis in the
preamble. PHMSA must also consider any comments received from the
public and any comments and recommendations of the Technical Pipeline
Safety Standards Committee (Committee). The Committee discussed the
ideas for this proposal following a briefing at its meeting on June 15,
2005. The transcript of, and briefing materials for, the meeting are in
the DOT DMS Docket RSPA-98-4470. PHMSA considered the Committee
discussion in developing this proposed rule. This document seeks public
comment on the proposed rule; the Committee will formally consider it
in a future meeting. PHMSA will address the public comments and the
Committee's recommendations when the agency prepares a final rule.
The Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would add a new section to subpart I--
Requirements for Corrosion Control in 49 CFR part 192. The new section,
Sec. 192.476 would require an operator to address internal corrosion
risk when designing and constructing gas transmission pipelines.
Proposed paragraph (a) provides a performance test for internal
corrosion prevention measures in design and construction. The test is
whether the design and construction choices include measures to reduce
the risk that liquid will collect inside the pipe. The proposed rule
would require an operator to use measures that include, at the least,
arrangement to avoid collection of liquids and the use of effective
liquid removal equipment. If an operator is unable to avoid low spots,
an operator would explain why and identify the alternative measures to
reduce the risk. There may be cases in which the design avoids low
spots, but during construction the operator finds that it cannot avoid
low spots. In this case, the operator would document the ``as built''
condition and the alternative measures used.
Proposed paragraph (b) provides a performance test for design and
construction measures to check any internal corrosion that occurs. The
test is whether the design and construction choices include measures to
reduce the risk of internal corrosion. The design must allow for use of
corrosion detection equipment.
These design and construction requirements would apply to all new
construction and to replaced pipe and components. With one limited
exception, application to replaced pipe would be the same as the rule
on designing to allow the passage of
[[Page 74264]]
instrumented internal inspection tools. PHMSA clarified the meaning of
replaced pipe in the final rule published in the Federal Register on
June 28, 2004 (69 FR 36024). The exception occurs when replaced pipe
changes the physical features of an existing downstream pipeline.
Proposed paragraph (c) clarifies that an operator must consider the
impact of line changes on internal corrosion risks and plan for these.
Proposed paragraph (c) would not require an operator to rebuild the
downstream pipeline to remove low points, but would require an operator
to consider whether it should install liquid removal equipment or tools
to monitor corrosion. After analysis, an operator may decide O&M
measures would adequately address the impacts of the changes upstream.
Paragraph (d) would require an operator to record the decisions it
makes about internal corrosion control when designing and constructing
pipelines. The operator would have to explain its reasons for the
decisions and justify variance. For example, if an operator did not use
equipment to remove liquids in designing a pipeline, the operator would
have to explain why the use of the equipment would be impracticable.
Recording reasons for decisions fosters better decisionmaking and will
provide needed information about safety features of the line in the
future.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Privacy Act Statement
Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for
any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR19477) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) and, therefore, was
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This
proposed rule is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and
Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA
must consider whether rulemaking actions would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule would affect operators of gas transmission pipelines and
onshore gas gathering pipelines. There is not a substantial number of
small entities which operate these lines. PHMSA expects the costs of
compliance with the proposed rule would be small. PHMSA concludes that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any
small entity.
PHMSA invites public comment on the number of small entities this
proposed rule would impact.
Executive Order 13175
PHMSA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking according to Executive
Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.'' Because the proposed rulemaking would not significantly
or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments nor
impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule would affect information collection that OMB has
approved under Control Numbers 2137-0049 (recordkeeping under 49 CFR
part 192). Operators of gas transmission pipelines must keep records to
show the adequacy of corrosion control measures. In addition, they must
keep construction records to make them available to individuals
operating and maintaining the pipeline. The proposed rule may require
some added effort to document decisions about internal corrosion made
during design and construction. Because of existing recordkeeping needs
and prudent business practice, PHMSA estimates the added burden hours
will be nominal. PHMSA invites comments on this estimate.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the proposed rulemaking.
National Environmental Policy Act
PHMSA has analyzed the proposed rulemaking for purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Because the
proposed rulemaking would require limited physical change or other work
that would disturb pipeline rights-of-way, PHMSA has preliminarily
determined the proposed rulemaking is unlikely to affect the quality of
the human environment significantly. An environmental assessment
document is available for review in the docket. PHMSA will make a final
determination on environmental impact after reviewing the comments to
this proposal.
Executive Order 13132
PHMSA has analyzed the proposed rulemaking according to Executive
Order 13132 (``Federalism''). The proposed rule does not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the
national government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed
rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments. The pipeline safety law prohibits State safety
regulation of interstate pipelines. This proposed regulation would not
preempt state law for intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the consultation
and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
Executive Order 13211
Transporting gas impacts the nation's available energy supply.
However, this proposed rulemaking is not a ``significant energy
action'' under Executive Order 13211. It also is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not identified this proposed rule as a
significant energy action.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
Internal corrosion, design and construction, pipeline safety.
For the reasons provided in the preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend
49 CFR Part 192 as follows:
PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Add Sec. 192.476 to read as follows:
Sec. 192.476 Internal corrosion control: Design and construction.
(a) Avoiding liquids. An operator must design and construct each
new transmission line and each replacement
[[Page 74265]]
of line pipe, valve, fitting, or other line component in a transmission
line to reduce the risk that liquids will collect in the line. At a
minimum, unless an operator shows that it is impracticable or
unnecessary to do so, an operator must:
(1) Configure new pipeline or replacement of line pipe, valve,
fitting, or other line component to reduce the risk that liquids will
collect in the line; and
(2) Equip the new pipeline or replacement pipe with effective
liquid removal features.
(b) Monitoring. An operator must design and construct each new
transmission line and each replacement of line pipe, valve, fitting, or
other line component in a transmission line to reduce the risk of
internal corrosion. At a minimum, unless an operator shows that it is
impracticable or unnecessary to do so, an operator must use pipeline
design and construction that allows use of corrosion monitoring devices
at locations with significant potential for internal corrosion.
(c) Change to existing system. An operator must evaluate the impact
that new or replaced line pipe, valve, fitting, or other line component
may have on internal corrosion risk to the downstream portion of an
existing pipeline and use equipment to remove liquids and to monitor
corrosion as appropriate.
(d) Records. An operator must document the design and construction
decisions related to internal corrosion. Documentation must include the
reasons, and any engineering analysis, for each decision.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 12, 2005.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-24063 Filed 12-12-05; 1:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P