Policy Letters: Guidance for the Use of Liquefied Natural Gas as a Marine Fuel, 10131-10137 [2015-03852]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
Contact Person: William A. Greenberg,
Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4168,
MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–
1726, greenbergwa@csr.nih.gov.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine;
93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333,
93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844,
93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National
Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: February 19, 2015.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–03778 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Docket No. USCG–2013–1084]
Policy Letters: Guidance for the Use of
Liquefied Natural Gas as a Marine Fuel
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
On February 7, 2014, the
Coast Guard announced the availability,
in the docket, of two draft policy letters
for which it sought public comment.
This notice announces the availability
of the finalized Coast Guard policy
letters, including explanations of
changes made to the policy letters and
enclosures based on the public
comments received. The first policy
letter provides voluntary guidance for
liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuel transfer
operations on vessels using natural gas
as fuel in U.S. waters, and training of
personnel on those vessels. It
recommends transfer and personnel
training measures that we believe will
achieve a level of safety that is at least
equivalent to that provided for
traditional fueled vessels. It applies to
vessels equipped to receive LNG for use
as fuel, but not to vessels regulated as
LNG carriers that utilize boil-off gas as
fuel. The second policy letter discusses
voluntary guidance and existing
regulations applicable to vessels and
waterfront facilities conducting LNG
marine fuel transfer (bunkering)
operations. The second policy letter
provides voluntary guidance on safety,
security, and risk assessment measures
we believe will enhance safe LNG
bunkering operations. Both policy
letters are available on the public
docket. They have been updated to
reflect publication numbers of the
current year. Accordingly, as discussed
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
in this notice, Policy Letter 01–14
became Policy Letter 01–15 and Policy
Letter 02–14 became Policy Letter 02–
15.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice, call
or email Ken Smith, Vessel and Facility
Operating Standards Division (CG–
OES–2), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
202–372–1413, email Ken.A.Smith@
uscg.mil. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Viewing material in the docket: To
view the policy letters and related
material, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type the docket
number (USCG–2013–1084) in the
‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’
Click on ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ on the
line associated with this notice. If you
do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting
the Docket Management facility in
Room W12–140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of comments received
into any of our dockets by the name of
the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business,
labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice
regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal
Register (73 FR 3316).
Background and Purpose
The shipping industry is exploring
conversion from oil-based fuel to
cleaner burning natural gas, because the
use of natural gas as fuel would
substantially reduce carbon emissions,
sulfur emissions, and nitrogen oxide
emissions. This natural gas fuel would
be stored on and transferred to vessels
in the form of liquefied natural gas
(LNG). Existing regulations cover
design, equipment, operations, and
training of personnel on vessels that
carry LNG as cargo and at waterfront
facilities that handle LNG in bulk. They
also cover conventional oil fuel transfer
operations, but do not address LNG
transferred as fuel.1
1 33 CFR parts 127, 155 and 156; 46 CFR parts 10–
15, 30–39, and 154.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10131
On February 7, 2014, the Coast Guard
published two draft policy letters (CG–
OES 01–14 and CG–OES 02–14),
requesting comments, that
recommended the transfer procedures
and other operating guidelines for
vessels and waterfront facilities
providing LNG to vessels for use as fuel
and for vessels operating in U.S. waters
that will be fueled with natural gas that
will be stored onboard as LNG. The
Coast Guard has revised these policy
letters based on comments received and
now makes the final policy letters
available to the public.
The policy letters and voluntary
guidance do not apply to vessels
regulated as LNG carriers that utilize
their boil-off gas as fuel. They also do
not provide guidance on vessel design
criteria for natural gas fuel systems or
design of vessels providing LNG for use
as fuel. If you have questions about the
design of these systems, please contact
the Coast Guard’s Office of Design and
Engineering Standards (CG–ENG,
formerly CG–521). See FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for contact
information.
Discussion
The Coast Guard received 27 letters
from the public containing a combined
total of 185 individual comments which
are discussed below. We discuss more
fully the changes we made to the policy
letters in response to comments.
All letters received were generally
supportive of the Coast Guard’s effort to
provide guidance on the use and
transfer of LNG as a marine fuel and the
Coast Guard appreciates this important
feedback.
We also received various comments
recommending changes that cannot be
made in a policy document because the
Coast Guard would need to undergo
rulemaking to make these recommended
changes enforceable. For example, one
submitter suggested that we provide
specific details concerning the
information that risk assessments
should contain. Another submitter
suggested that we provide common
checklists for industry to follow when
conducting bunkering operations. The
Coast Guard will consider these
comments and determine whether any
further action is necessary.
Additionally, the Coast Guard received
comments on matters unrelated to the
two policy letters discussed in this
notice. Those comments have been
reviewed but did not effect any changes
to these policy letters. Examples of some
of the comments we received pertaining
to design were related to venting
arrangements, LNG tank design, and gas
detection.
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10132
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
Vessel design issues relating to the
technical aspects and problems inherent
in vessel design are not discussed in
Policy Letters 01–15 and 02–15. We do
not intend to include vessel design
recommendations or equivalencies in
either policy letter and thus comments
requesting design related revisions
cannot be incorporated. Information
concerning design criteria for natural
gas fuel systems can be found in CG–
521 Policy Letter 01–12, ‘‘Equivalency
Determination—Design Criteria For
Natural Gas Fuel Systems,’’ which can
be viewed at the following location:
https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/
docs/CG-521.PolicyLetter.01-12.pdf.
The Coast Guard also identified
certain non-substantive
recommendations in comments. Many
of these are useful and have been
incorporated where appropriate.
Six comments were submitted
recommending that Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG) and other alternative fuels be
addressed in our policy letters. The
Coast Guard believes it is better at this
time to evaluate other alternative fuels
on a case-by-case basis and will
continue to gather information on how
these alternative fuels are used to
determine whether guidance is
necessary and appropriate. One
submitter suggested that it would be
useful if we added language indicating
how LNG differs from other
‘‘conventional’’ liquid hydrocarbon
fuels. The Coast Guard agrees and added
additional information in Policy Letter
01–15, Enclosure (1).
Five comments were submitted on the
topic of hot work. Based on the
comments received, the Coast Guard
revised its discussion on hot work in
Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure (1) to
further clarify that hot work must be
conducted in accordance with the
existing regulations to which vessels are
inspected. Where no regulations are
specified, we recommend that the
regulations in 46 CFR 91.50–1 be
followed.
Six comments were received on the
Coast Guard’s use of the term ‘‘in bulk.’’
Three comments asked whether LNG
packaged in ISO tanktainers, and loaded
on a vessel, is not ‘‘in bulk’’ and
therefore not subject to 33 CFR Part 127.
The Coast Guard confirms that LNG in
packaged form such as LNG in ISO
tanktainers is not considered an ‘‘in
bulk’’ shipment and the facility where
those packages are loaded does not need
to comply with 33 CFR Part 127. The
Coast Guard further clarifies that LNG in
ISO tanktainers is a hazardous material
in packaged form and as such must be
loaded from a facility that complies
with 33 CFR Part 126. Three additional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
comments requested clarification on the
Coast Guard’s definition of the term
‘‘bulk.’’ In response to these requests,
the Coast Guard clarifies in Policy Letter
01–15, Enclosure (1) that ‘‘bulk’’ has the
meaning defined in the Marine Safety
Manual as a material that is transported
on board a vessel without mark or count
and which is directly loaded into a hold
or tank on a vessel without containers
or wrappers.
Six comments were received on LNG
tank truck operations. Three spoke to
matters involving the driving and
transfer of LNG from tank trucks
directly on a vessel, and one wanted to
know why the Coast Guard doesn’t
discuss the activity. The Coast Guard
does not discuss this type of operation
because the operation is not considered
as safe as other forms of transfer
operations available. Driving LNG tank
trucks aboard a vessel and conducting
LNG transfer operations while aboard is
considered to be a transfer involving a
greater risk than other forms of LNG
transfers because vessels and LNG tank
trucks cannot remove themselves from
the area in the event of an emergency.
The Coast Guard does not wish to
promote the operation in general, but
remains open to evaluating requests on
a case-by-case basis. One submitter
requested to know if all of 33 CFR Part
127 would apply to LNG tank truck and
rail car transfers. As discussed in
Enclosure 1 of Policy Letter 02–15,
existing regulatory standards may not be
appropriate for small scale (e.g., LNG
fuel transfer) operations and the Coast
Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) may
consider alternatives under 33 CFR
127.017.
Five comments were received
concerning ISO type tanks. One
submitter noted that ISO tanks need to
be properly approved and designed and
are not as robust as type ‘‘C’’ tanks. The
Coast Guard notes that LNG in portable
tanks must meet specifications outlined
by the Department of Transportation for
transport and carriage of hazardous
materials in accordance with the
Hazardous Material Regulations
contained in Title 49 of the U.S. Code
of Federal Regulations. The Coast Guard
Office of Design and Engineering (CG–
ENG) and/or the Marine Safety Center
will evaluate as part of their plan review
and approval process the design and
construction of tanks used to store LNG
as fuel on board U.S. vessels.
Four comments were received
concerning guidance to the COTP for
considering alternatives to the
requirements in 33 CFR Part 127. Of
those comments received, two
comments also recommended Coast
Guard Headquarters oversight so as to
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ensure greater consistency from port to
port. The Coast Guard recognizes the
need and desire for consistency from
port to port and throughout the Coast
Guard. To help COTPs understand
alternatives which may be considered
for the requirements in 33 CFR Part 127,
we have added a new enclosure.
Enclosure (4) to Policy letter 02–15 has
been added to provide COTPs with
guidance as to alternatives which may
be considered in lieu of the
requirements of 33 CFR Part 127 for
LNG fuel facilities. Through publication
of these policy letters and continued
work within the Coast Guard, we hope
to provide consistent application of
regulations and policies for LNG
operations throughout the country.
Ten comments were received on the
topic of conducting Risk Assessments.
One of the submitters recommended we
add more wording concerning
identification of hazards (HAZID’s),
operational hazards (HAZOP’s) and
quantitaive risk assessments (QRA’s).
The Coast Guard agrees and added
additional guidance and information
concerning the need to conduct risk
assessments. We have revised Enclosure
1 of Policy Letter 01–15 and Enclosures
1 and 2 of Policy Letter 02–15 to include
more information on recommendations
for risk assessments established by
recognized industry organizations.
Finally, one submitter stated that there
is no clearly defined or broadly
accepted standard for evaluating risk
assessments and noted that NFPA
standard 551 has some guidance which
should be considered. For the purpose
of harmonizing with the international
community, we recommend and
reference in the policy letters the
publications of the classification society
Det Norske Veritas—Germanischer
Lloyd (DNV–GL) and the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)
as guides which should be used to
conduct risk assessments.
The Coast Guard received twelve
comments on training and drills. One
submitter indicated that the Coast Guard
should establish and specify definite
training intervals in order to avoid
differing interpretations. The Coast
Guard agrees that guidance on
appropriate intervals would be helpful
and suggests as an example that the
drills be conducted quarterly. One
submitter indicated that they strongly
support having defined training
requirements and believe this will
significantly contribute to a safer
industry. The Coast Guard agrees. The
amendments to this policy include
recommended training provisions. This
guidance identifies a two-tier system—
basic and advanced training that
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
companies may use to structure their
training. In addition, the company is
also responsible for the vessel
familiarization of the crew members
which is ship and fuel specific and
tailored to each mariner’s onboard
duties. The recommendations are
consistent with the proposed
International Maritime Organization
(IMO) ‘‘Interim guidance on training for
seafarers on board ships using gases or
other low-flashpoint fuels’’, STCW.7/
Circ.23, the draft amendments to the
STCW Convention, and the MERPAC
recommendations on this issue. The
Coast Guard has added a new Enclosure
(3) to Policy Letter 01–15 which is based
upon ‘‘Interim guidance on training for
seafarers on board ships using gases or
other low-flashpoint fuels’’, STCW.7/
Circ.23. STCW.7/Circ.23 is the final
version of HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5 that
is referenced by the submitters. Another
submitter also indicated they believed
the Coast Guard should ensure the
transitional provisions are followed as
an interim measure until relevant STCW
requirements come into force to allow
for initial personnel training for the new
technology. The Coast Guard agrees and
is recommending interim steps as part
of this policy letter to help ensure an
orderly transition to future mandatory
requirements. One submitter suggested
that Enclosure (2) of Policy Letter 01–14
be deleted in its entirety because the
guidelines contained in Resolution
MSC.285(86) are expected to be
superseded by new interim guidance
recommended in HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5
once the guidance is adopted by MSC.
The Coast Guard agrees in part.
Enclosure 2 repeats Chapter 8 of IMO
Resolution MSC.285(86), ‘‘Interim
guidelines on safety for natural gasfuelled engine installations in ships,’’
which contains both training and
operational components. We’ve retained
the operational components from
Enclosure 2 and replaced the training
components with the product from
STCW.7/Circ.23, ‘‘Interim guidance on
training for seafarers on board ships
using gases or other low-flashpoint
fuels’’ as Enclosure (3). STCW.7/Circ.23
is the current IMO circular which is
based upon the HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5
that is being referenced by the
submitters. One submitter
recommended that the Coast Guard
work towards approving training
courses that meet the proposed
requirements of part A (Annex 4) of
HTW 1/WP.3 and look to begin issuing
endorsements as quickly as possible.
The Coast Guard agrees in principle but
is unable to approve courses or issue
endorsements until enabling regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
are in place. However, the Coast Guard
is endeavoring to provide within CG–
OES Policy Letter 01–15, interim
guidance that can be used by maritime
training providers, maritime companies
and mariners to develop training
courses and will review courses
submitted on a voluntary basis that are
designed to meet the training guidance
outlined in Enclosure (3). The Coast
Guard will issue a letter to maritime
training providers attesting to the Coast
Guard’s review and conformance of
these courses with the training
recommended in this guidance. One
submitter additionally noted that the
various means of transfer would require
various levels of qualification and
training specific to transfers. The Coast
Guard agrees that training guidelines
would be helpful to companies involved
in transfers. The Coast Guard has
expanded the training guidelines in line
with work currently ongoing at IMO and
MERPAC recommendations. MERPAC
provided recommendations on the
content of the training, transitional
provisions, and the proof of training.
Their recommendations are included in
the revised policy letter. As for mariners
holding tankerman PIC (LG), tankermanengineer (LG) and tankerman assistant
(LG) endorsements, transition
requirements have also been addressed.
One submitter presumed that the
Coast Guard will not require a special
endorsement on a license or Merchant
Mariner Document (MMD) for mariners
serving aboard an LNG powered vessel
other than the PIC, who must hold a
proper endorsement in order to conduct
the transfer operation. The submitter
also stated that the policy letter was
silent as to the level of competency that
each company must provide for other
shipboard personnel involved in LNG
bunkering operations. In response, the
Coast Guard has expanded the training
section of the policy letter to include
recommended training for members of
the vessel’s crew who have safety
responsibilities in regard to the gases or
low flashpoint fuels being used and that
documentary evidence such as course
completion certificates, company letters,
etc., should be issued indicating that the
holder has successfully completed the
basic or advanced training, as
appropriate—See Enclosure 3 of Policy
Letter 01–15. One submitter indicated
that care should be taken to assure that
training for personnel on board vessels
using gas fuels are differentiated from a
full tankerman (LG endorsement) as
appropriate and that referencing the
parts of 46 CFR that are for Tankerman
should be eliminated. The Coast Guard
agrees that vessel personnel on vessels
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10133
using gases and low flashpoint fuels
should be differentiated from full
tankerman. As a result,
recommendations specific to their
training have been provided in
Enclosure (3) accordingly.
The Coast Guard received three
comments concerning PICs. One
submitter indicated that the Coast Guard
needs to clarify the meaning of the word
‘‘enough’’ where it is stated that, ‘‘. . .
there must be enough Tankerman-PICs
on duty . . .’’ noting that the word
‘‘enough’’ is too vague. The Coast Guard
notes the submitters concern, and
understands that the term may be
ambiguous. However, the term is carried
forth from the existing regulations for
cargo handling operations in 46 CFR
35.35–1 allowing flexibilty to owners,
managing operators, masters, and PICs
in determining the number of qualified
personnel needed to safely transfer
liquid cargo based on the details of a
specific transfer operation. Enclosure 2
of Policy Letter 02–15, pertaining to
tank vessels transfering LNG, remains
unchanged in this regard and points to
the regulations in 46 CFR 35.35–1 and
154.1831 outlining the qualifications for
personnel involved in liquid cargo
transfer. However, aboard the receiving
vessel that uses gases or low flashpoint
fuels, the Coast Guard recommends in
Enclosure (1) of Policy Letter 01–15,
that the Master of a vessel using LNG as
fuel should ensure that all personnel
involved with LNG fuel use, transfer, or
emergency response meet the standards
of competence or advanced standards of
competence outlined in Enclosure (3) of
Policy Letter 01–15 for the duties to
which they are assigned. One submitter
noted that both the receiving vessel and
supplier of LNG have PICs but our
policy letters did not discuss an overall
PIC, and requested to know who the
overall PIC is. The Coast Guard does not
discuss designatation of an overall PIC,
because the Coast Guard does not
believe an overall PIC is necessary.
Similar to conventional fuel transfer
operations, no one individual is
designated as having overall control and
responsibility for the transfer. Each PIC
is responsible for their part of the
transfer operation (supplier and
receiver) and each side of the transfer
should have a means to stop the transfer
in the event of an emergency (See 33
CFR 127.205 and 155.780). Both
supplier and receiver must have a
means for dedicated voice
communication with each other in order
to maintain oversight and control of
LNG tanks and transfer lines (See 33
CFR 127.111 and 155.785). Given that
personnel on either side of the transfer
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10134
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
may not be familiar or experienced with
equipment on the other side, it would
be improper to assign one entity as
being in charge overall. For this reason,
the transfer operation should be an
event highly coordinated by both PICs.
One submitter suggested the Coast
Guard add three additional points
covering PIC responsibilities—
‘‘Establishment of safety zone
encompassing both supplier and
receiving vessel,’’ ‘‘Emergency response
personnel defined and readiness,’’ and
‘‘Monitoring of climatic conditions prior
to and during transfer operations.’’ The
Coast Guard agrees in part and has
modified the section in Enclosure (1) of
Policy Letter 01–15 discussing PIC
responsibilities to include checking for
climatic conditions and setting safety
and security areas around the LNG
transfer area. Information related to
emergency response is covered in item
2 of the same section.
Two comments were submitted on
portable gas detectors. Both expressed a
belief that it was unnecessary for all
personnel involved in an LNG transfer
to have a portable gas detector and
suggested that the policy letter align
with existing regulations (See 33 CFR
127.203 and 46 CFR 154.1345) which
require at least 2 portable gas detectors
in the marine transfer area. The Coast
Guard agrees and has modified the
policy letters to align with existing
regulations.
Eight comments were received
concerning simultaneous operations. All
but one supported the need to conduct
simultaneous operations. The one
comment submitted against
simultaneous operations stated that
simultaneous operations create a
significant risk factor, dramatically
increasing the likelihood of a casualty
while fueling. The Coast Guard agrees
that simultaneous operations may
introduce increased risk, but believes
that performance of a risk analysis and
incorporation of risk mitigation
measures can be useful toward
decreasing the likelihood of a casualty
occurring while fueling. One comment
stated that simultaneous operations
should not be treated any differently
than current fueling operations. One
comment indicated that simultaneous
operations should only be allowed after
a detailed risk analysis and dispersion
analysis are completed. Two comments
indicated the need to have a definitive
statement that the Coast Guard
recognizes the need to allow
simultaneous operations. The Coast
Guard agrees with the majority of
commenters and has modified the
discussion of simultaneous operations
in Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure (1) to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
include a more definitive statement
concerning the need for considering
simultaneous operations and identifies
recommended industry standards which
may be used by facility owners to
conduct risk assessments. The Coast
Guard does not wish to specify what
operations may or may not be
conducted simultaneously while LNG
transfer operations are in progress and
the COTP will evaluate each proposal
on a case-by-case basis based on the
specific hazards involved.
Three comments were submitted on
emergency shutdown devices (ESD).
One submitter said all ESD components
are to be tested no more than 24 hours
before commencement of the actual
bunkering operation and that the tests
should be documented in accordance
with the bunkering procedure. The
Coast Guard agrees. In accordance with
33 CFR 127.315(i), and 156.120(r), the
ESD system is currently required to be
tested by the PIC prior to transfer which
should be well within the 24 hour
period suggested. One submitter
suggested that there could be an
exemption for testing bunker tanker ESD
equipment, provided evidence of
regular testing is available or alternative
requirements are deemed as an
acceptable equivalence. The Coast
Guard disagrees. As noted previously,
testing of the ESD system must be
conducted by the PIC prior to the
transfer as required by existing
regulations 33 CFR 127.315(i), and
156.120(r). One submitter suggested that
automatic activation of the ESD system
due to a gas detection alarm should be
reconsidered noting that gas detection
systems have been prone to false alarms,
particularly if located in humid areas,
and repeated shutdowns due to
erroneous alarms could create an
unanticipated hazard. The Coast Guard
is unaware of this being a widespread
problem attributed to the performance
of all gas detection systems available on
the market. However, we have amended
Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure (1) such
that gas detection is one of eight items
that can be considered as a means to
activate the ESD system.
Two comments were received on
checklists. One commenter indicated
that compatibility between the LNG
supplier and the vessel receiving LNG
must be ensured in terms of LNG
transfer system design, operational
manuals, emergency response
procedures and a common checklist for
the LNG transfer operation. Another
comment requested that we consider
adopting a professional industry
organization’s bunker checklists into
our policy letters. The Coast Guard
agrees that the use of checklists is
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
valuable. We have provided a hyperlink
in our policy letters recommending that
owners and operators involved in LNG
transfer operations consider using
checklists in order to help globally
standardize LNG transfer operations.
Five comments were submitted
concerning hazard zones, safety
distances, and transfer areas. One
submitter questioned whether or not the
transfer area is considered to be a
hazardous area and asserted that no
ignition sources should exist in the
transfer area. The Coast Guard agrees
and confirms that the transfer area is
considered to be a hazardous area.
Details concerning removal of ignition
sources associated with LNG supply are
addressed in Policy Letter 02–15 which
focuses on vessels and facilities
providing LNG as fuel. One submitter
noted that we refer to transfer area and
hazardous area, but believed that
consideration on ‘Determination of
safety and security zones’ should be
given. They also pointed out a key
aspect with regard to the responsibility
of the PIC is to establish the exchange
of sufficient information to allow
completion of a Declaration of Security
(if required), agreement on how and
between whom, communications
regarding security that are to be made
and actions to be taken in the event of
a breach of security. Another submitter
commented that there should be a
discussion about hazardous areas and
safety and security areas around the
LNG transfer area. The Coast Guard
agrees and has added a new paragraph
discussing the items in Enclosure (1) of
Policy Letter 01–15. One additional
submitter stated that advice needs to be
given regarding safety distances at
different transfer rates, due to increasing
‘‘largest credible spills’’ and that
dispersion analysis needs to be
included. The Coast Guard agrees with
the need to provide additional
information concerning safety and
security areas and has added
information in Policy Letter 01–15,
Enclosure (1) indicating they should be
established in accordance with industry
standards established by the
International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) which is a
recognized organization that has
published information related to
determining the size of safety and
security areas around LNG transfer
points. The Coast Guard doesn’t agree
with the need to require a declaration of
security at this time, and notes that
existing regulations concerning the
declaration of inspection (33 CFR
127.317, and 33 CFR 156.150) require
PICs to conduct a series of checks before
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
transfer operations, including ensuring
that communications are operable
between PICs involved in the transfer.
The Coast Guard agrees that breaches in
safety and security areas should be
evaluated and has included a
recommendation that a contingency
plan be developed concerning how to
handle and respond to them. One
submitter stated that consideration
should be given to include the scope for
interaction of a vessel’s hazardous areas,
emergency response equipment
(firefighting, mechanical ventilation,
etc.) emergency response procedures
and linked ESD systems. The Coast
Guard agrees. These items should be
considered as part of the compatability
assessment we recommend to be
conducted between suppliers and
receivers of LNG. We also recommend
that emergency response manuals be
developed and provide a list of
recommended information they should
contain.
Four comments were submitted
concerning pipelines. One comment
suggested that we delete references to
bonding of pipelines in Policy Letter
01–14, Enclosure (1) in the section
discussing detailed diagrams of the
transfer area. The submitter indicated it
was not clear how this would be shown
on a diagram. The Coast Guard agrees
and has removed the item as suggested.
One submitter addressed the discussion
on, ‘‘Conduct before a LNG Fuel
Transfer’’ under Regulations and
Recommendations for Vessels
Bunkering LNG, of Enclosure (2) to CG–
OES Policy Letter No. 02–14. The
submitter noted the policy letter states
that before transferring LNG to a vessel
for use of gas as fuel, the PIC for
transferring LNG should inspect the
accessible portions of the transfer piping
system and equipment to be used during
the transfer and ensure that any worn or
inoperable parts are replaced and any
leaks are identified. The Coast Guard
agrees and has added an item
recommending that the transfer piping
be tested for leaks prior to the transfer
of LNG. Finally, one comment was
received concerning Policy Letter 02–
14, Enclosure (2) section discussing,
‘‘Conduct after a LNG Fuel Transfer.’’
The submitter requested adding a
requirement to ensure that transfer
hoses, manifolds, and associated piping
are purged so that natural gas levels are
below the lower flammability level. The
Coast Guard has amended the section to
recommend these types of safety
measures.
We received one comment on loading
flanges. The submitter indicated the
existing regulations contain seemingly
contradictory provisions which could
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
complicate the siting, permitting and
operation of such facilities. The
submitter noted that Part 127 and Part
193 contain differing requirements in
terms of the location of LNG loading
flanges in relation to nearby bridges.
The Coast Guard understands the
concerns, but notes that any correction
to these regulations would need to go
through the Department of
Transporation or USCG rulemaking
process. Therefore, the noted
discrepancies cannot be rectified
through these policy letters.
We received one comment concerning
transfer hoses. The submitter referenced
an early draft version of our policy letter
suggesting that the transfer hose should
include provisions to prevent electrical
flow during connection or
disconnection of the transfer hose string
through the hose string or loading arm.
The insertion of one short length of nonconducting hose without internal
bonding in each hose string, or
installation of an insulating flange,
should be addressed. In addition, the
submitter suggested that each transfer
hose string should contain only one
electrically discontinuous length of hose
or insulating flange, to prevent
electrostatic build-up in the hose string.
The Coast Guard agrees and has
amended Policy Letter 02–15, Enclosure
(2) to include these recommendations.
One comment was received on
lighting whereby the submitter
suggested that the intensity levels
should not be specified. The Coast
Guard disagrees as the lighting intensity
levels specified in the policy letters
simply mirror existing federal
regulations already imposed for transfer
operations. See 33 CFR 127.109 and
155.790.
One comment was submitted
concerning operations manuals whereby
the submitter said there should be a
provision to demonstrate that all
relevant personnel are familiar with the
operations manual. The Coast Guard
agrees and has modified the opening
paragraph discussing operation,
emergency, and maintenance manuals
in policy letter 01–15, Enclosure (1)
indicating that the master of a vessel
using LNG as fuel should ensure that all
personnel involved with LNG fuel use,
transfer, or emergency response are
familiar with the contents of the LNG
fuel transfer system operations manual.
We received three comments
concerning emergency procedures. One
commenter stated that simultaneous
operations imposes the need for more
requirements, especially where
passengers, public or non-qualified/
briefed personnel are in proximity of the
bunkering operation. At a minimum, the
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10135
submitter stated a need to consider
emergency procedures for handling of
passengers in the event of an incident
during bunkering. The Coast Guard
agrees and has modified Policy Letter
01–15, Enclosure (1) to include a
provision in the emergency manual for
removing or relocating passengers in the
event of an LNG incident during
bunkering. One commenter suggested
that the LNG bunkering and emergency
response procedures take into account
the LNG bunkering system in place and
that the results of the risk assessment
studies are adequately managed. The
Coast Guard agrees and has included
reference to recognized standards for
conducting risk assessments which are
identified in Enclosure 1 of Policy Letter
01–15 and Enclosures 1 and 2 of Policy
Letter 02–15. The risk assessment we
recommend should be based on specific
details of the operation intended and
identify associated risks and hazards
and the means to mitigate those risks.
The risk assessment is expected to be
used as a guide to assist owners and
operators in developing their bunkering
and emergency response procedures.
One commenter asked for guidance on
what security requirements, if any, will
be required for the vessel arriving at the
facility to receive LNG for fuel. If
applicable, the security requirements for
vessels may be based on the
requirements of 33 CFR part 104—
Maritime Security: Vessels.
Additionally, a safety or security zone
may be established around a vessel by
the COTP if it is determined necessary
based on the results of a risk
assessment.
Six comments were received
concerning the topic of LNG bunkering.
One commenter suggested that LNG
bunkering procedures should ensure
that unauthorized and non-essential
personnel cannot enter the bunkering
area. The Coast Guard agrees and has
amended Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure
(1) to include a recommendation that
procedures be established for setting,
securing, and clearing safety and
security areas around the LNG transfer
point. Two commenters recommended
that the operator define the operational
envelope under which transfer can take
place noting that this should be
indicated as a ‘‘permissible range of
motion where transfer operations can
proceed (to be defined for the operation
as well as the transfer equipment)’’, and
be included in the Operations manual.
The Coast Guard agrees and has
amended Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure
(1) recommending that the operations
manual define the operating envelope
for which safe transfer operations can
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10136
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
and cannot occur. One submitter
suggested that paragraph 5b. of Policy
Letter No. 01–14 be modified to impose
a mutual obligation on both the
transferring vessel operator and the
receiving vessel operator to ensure that
both parties have the personnel and
equipment to safely conduct LNG
bunkering operations. The Coast Guard
agrees and has added recommended
information related to the declaration of
inspection which must be signed and
completed by both persons in charge of
the transfer in accordance with 33 CFR
156.150 signifying a mutal obligation on
the part of both parties. One commenter
stated that it is critical to have a
common set of regulatory procedures for
all LNG bunkering operations in all
ports in the United States (as exists
today under 33 CFR part 127 and
elsewhere) which companies could
incorporate into their operational plans
and crew training. The Coast Guard
agrees that standardized procedures
help ensure safe transfer operations and
believes the policy letters will help
establish guidelines for standardized
industry procedures.
Eight comments were submitted
concerning referenced standards. The
Coast Guard received one comment
pointing out that the reference to
SIGTTO’s LNG Ship to Ship Transfer
Guidelines, 1st Edition, 2011, was
outdated and should be replaced with
SIGTTO’s ‘‘Ship to Ship Transfer
Guide—Petroleum, Chemicals, &
Liquefied Gases,’’ 1st Edition, 2013,
whenever referenced. The Coast Guard
agrees and has modified the policy
letters as suggested to reflect the
updated industry standard. One
comment requested referencing NFPA
59A, the ‘‘Standard for the Production,
Storage, and Handling of Liquefied
Natural Gas’’ and SIGTTO’s ‘‘Liquid Gas
Fire Hazard Management’’ in our
discussion of firefighting equipment in
Policy Letter 02–14, Enclosure (2). The
Coast Guard agrees in part and has
added a reference to the SIGTTO
publication, but does not reference
NFPA 59A because the standard refers
to shore based LNG storage and
production facilities and Enclosure (2)
of Policy Letter 02–15 is focused on
vessels providing LNG as fuel. We
received a comment suggesting that we
add a reference to SIGTTO 2009
publication, ‘‘ESD Arrangements &
Linked Ship/Shore Systems for
Liquefied Gas Carriers’’ in the
discussion of emergency shutdown
devices in Enclosure (1) of Policy Letter
01–14. The Coast Guard agrees and has
modified the section as requested. Two
comments suggested full incorporation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
of International Maritime Organization
(IMO) standards and guidelines. Policy
letter 01–15 outlines these operational
items in great detail but we have added
a recommendation to better align with
IMO guidance noting that procedures
for confined space entry should be
included in the operations manual. One
submitter provided a list of industry
standards and guides which the Coast
Guard should consider recognizing. The
Coast Guard has provided a hyperlink to
a free publication provided by the LNG
Ship Fuel Advisory Group, titled,
‘‘Standards and Guidelines for Natural
Gas Fuelled Ship Projects’’ which
identifies many of these standards and
recommends that owners and operators
become familiar with its contents. This
change can be found in Policy Letter
01–15, Enclosure (1), and Policy Letter
02–15, Enclosures (1) and (2) under the
section labeled Job Aides.
One submitter suggested Policy Letter
01–14, Enclosure (1) not recommend
installation of firefighting equipment on
unmanned barges because potential
operating scenarios of a barge may
include operations away from the LNG
facility and firefighting capabilities of a
towing vessel during vessel-to-vessel
operations could be difficult to ensure.
The Coast Guard disagrees and believes
operators should consider all
firefighting equipment available in the
vicinity of an LNG transfer operation
whether the transfer is off port or at
shore. When conducting a safety
assessment for a particular operation, all
available firefighting equipment and
emergency response equipment should
be considered.
One comment suggested that due to
the cryogenic properties of LNG,
personal protective equipment should
be listed with more specificity,
including such items as leather working
boots (no canvas sneakers should be
worn during fueling or transfer
operations), loose fitting fire resistant
gloves, full face shields, and fit-for
purpose multi-layer clothing. The Coast
Guard agrees and has modified the
sections in Policy Letter 01–15,
Enclosure (1) and Policy Letter 02–15,
Enclosure (2) discussing recommended
personal protective equipment.
The Coast Guard received comments
about how the policy letters will be
enforced. One commenter raised
concerns regarding the notice and
comment process of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, et
seq., with regard to the guidance
document process and Due Process
concerns of appealing a Coast Guard
decision. The Coast Guard notes that
guidance documents are by their nature
non-binding as they are created to assist
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the industry in absence of other sources
or in explaining existing regulatory
requirements. These policy letters
provide clarification to industry of
existing requirements and how to apply
them in this quickly changing
environment. These policy letters do not
impose legally binding requirements
and a company can choose not to adopt
the recommendations in the policy
letter if it desires. There is no
enforcement action associated with
these recommendations and thus no
appeal process is necessary. However, it
is important to note that anyone affected
by a direct decision of an OCMI/COTP
can appeal that decision to the District
Commander as provided for in 46 CFR
1.03–20 and 33 CFR 127.015. Finally,
the Coast Guard received one comment
requesting clarification on the statement
in Policy Letter 01–14 indicating that it
is the responsibility of the operator of
the facility and/or the transferring vessel
to ensure that the receiving vessel has
the necessary personnel and equipment
to safely and securely participate in the
conduct of an LNG transfer operation.
While the regulations in 33 CFR Part
127, Subpart B, indicate the primary
responsibility for ensuring appropriate
LNG transfer protocols are followed lies
with the facility operator, the receiving
vessel is required by 33 CFR 156.120
and 156.150 to identify a PIC of transfer
operations on the vessel who will assist
the PIC of shoreside transfer operations
in conducting the preliminary transfer
inspection required and completing the
declaration of inspections required by
33 CFR 127.317 and 156.150. The
qualifications set forth at 33 CFR
127.301 and 33 CFR 155.710
(Qualifications of person in charge) are
good guidance for assigning a PIC.
Addtionally, this policy sets forth
recommended personnel training
guidelines for those personnel who will
participate in the transfer operation.
We received one comment asking for
guidance on the topic of roll over. As a
result of this comment, the Coast Guard
added roll over to the list of items in
Policy Letter 01–15, Enclosure (1) for
which emergency actions and response
measures should be described in the
emergency manual.
One comment suggested that the
word, ‘‘if used’’ be deleted in enclosure
(1) to CG–OES Policy Letter No. 01–14,
on page 2, under the heading,
‘‘Operations, Emergency, and
Maintenance Manuals,’’ noting that
inert gas must be used to prevent
potentially explosive conditions. The
Coast Guard agrees and has amended
the policy letter as suggested.
Finally, one comment was submitted
requesting that the Coast Guard
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
elaborate what is meant by the boundary
of a facility conducting bunkering. In
response, the Coast Guard provides that
the boundaries of an LNG facility
handling LNG should be based on the
requirements for design and spacing in
NFPA 59A as outlined in 33 CFR Part
127 and any risk or fire safety
assessments that may be prepared for
the specific operation. The boundary of
each facility conducting bunkering
should be based on details of the
specific bunkering operation.
Voluntary Policy
The Coast Guard’s intent in issuing
these policy letters is to assist the
industry, public, Coast Guard, and other
Federal and State regulators in applying
existing statutory and regulatory
requirements. Following the policy and
guidance recommended in these policy
letters is voluntary. The policy letters
are not a substitute for applicable legal
requirements nor are they regulations
themselves. The policy letters, however,
do contain references to existing
requlations which may require certain
action where applicable. The Coast
Guard notes those instances where it
discusses requirements under existing
regulations instead of policy or
guidance. Nothing in the policy letters
and guidance they contain are meant to
override or subvert the discretion of the
COTP when addressing the unique
safety and security concerns of an LNG
operation.
This notice is issued under authority
of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Dated: February 19, 2015.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and
Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015–03852 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
[USCG–2014–0941]
Port Access Route Study: In the
Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait and Bering
Sea
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of public meeting.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard announces
three public meetings to receive
comments on a port access route study
(PARS) published in the Federal
Register on December 5, 2014, under the
title ‘‘Port Access Route Study: In the
Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait and Bering
Sea.’’ The goal of this study is to help
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
reduce the risk of marine casualties and
increase the efficiency of vessel traffic
in the region. The recommendations of
the study may lead to future rulemaking
action or appropriate international
agreements.
The first meeting will be held in
Juneau, Alaska on March 9, 2015 from
2 p.m. to 7 p.m. The second meeting
will be held in Anchorage, Alaska on
March 30, 2015 from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The third and final meeting will be held
in Nome, Alaska on April 2, 2015 from
3 p.m. to 6 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Meeting Locations: Juneau
Meeting: Elizabeth Peratrovich Event
Center located at 320 W. Wiloughby
Ave, Juneau, AK 99801; Anchorage
Meeting: Hotel Captain Cook located at
939 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK
99501; Nome Meeting: City Of Nome
Council Chambers located at 102
Division St, Nome, AK 99762.
Comment submission: You may
submit comments associated with
docket number USCG–2014–0941 using
any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice of
study or any of the meetings, call or
email LT Kody Stitz, Seventeenth Coast
Guard District (dpw); telephone (907)
463–2270; email Kody.J.Stitz@uscg.mil
or Mr. David Seris, Seventeenth Coast
Guard District (dpw); telephone (907)
463–2267; email David.M.Seris@
uscg.mil. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this study by submitting comments and
related materials as well as attending a
public meeting. All comments received
will be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10137
any personal information you have
provided.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Requirement for Port Access Route
Studies
Under the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1223(c)), the
Commandant of the Coast Guard may
designate necessary fairways and traffic
separation schemes (TSSs) to provide
safe access routes for vessels proceeding
to and from U.S. ports.
Schematic of proposed vessel routing
system: A chart showing the Coast
Guard’s proposed two-way route can be
downloaded from https://
www.regulations.gov, type ‘‘USCG–
2014–0941’’ into the search bar and
click search, next to the displayed
search results click ‘‘Open Docket
Folder’’, which will display all
comments and documents associated
with this docket.
Information on Service for Individuals
With Disabilities
For information on facilities or
services for individuals with disabilities
or to request special assistance at the
public meeting, contact LT Kody Stitz at
the telephone number or email address
provided under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
Meeting Details
All meetings are open to the public.
The purpose of the meetings is to
increase awareness of the PARS and to
receive feedback and comments from
the public regarding the PARS. Each
meeting will begin with the Coast Guard
meeting facilitator presenting an
explanation of and the purpose for the
PARS along with an overview of the
Coast Guard’s proposed two-way route
through the region. Public participants
will then be able to provide comments
and feedback to the meeting facilitator.
Public participants are not required to
stay for the entire meeting duration as
the process of the meeting facilitator
presenting the PARS information
followed by a public comment period
will be repeated hourly throughout the
allotted meeting time.
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10131-10137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03852]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Docket No. USCG-2013-1084]
Policy Letters: Guidance for the Use of Liquefied Natural Gas as
a Marine Fuel
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 7, 2014, the Coast Guard announced the
availability, in the docket, of two draft policy letters for which it
sought public comment. This notice announces the availability of the
finalized Coast Guard policy letters, including explanations of changes
made to the policy letters and enclosures based on the public comments
received. The first policy letter provides voluntary guidance for
liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuel transfer operations on vessels using
natural gas as fuel in U.S. waters, and training of personnel on those
vessels. It recommends transfer and personnel training measures that we
believe will achieve a level of safety that is at least equivalent to
that provided for traditional fueled vessels. It applies to vessels
equipped to receive LNG for use as fuel, but not to vessels regulated
as LNG carriers that utilize boil-off gas as fuel. The second policy
letter discusses voluntary guidance and existing regulations applicable
to vessels and waterfront facilities conducting LNG marine fuel
transfer (bunkering) operations. The second policy letter provides
voluntary guidance on safety, security, and risk assessment measures we
believe will enhance safe LNG bunkering operations. Both policy letters
are available on the public docket. They have been updated to reflect
publication numbers of the current year. Accordingly, as discussed in
this notice, Policy Letter 01-14 became Policy Letter 01-15 and Policy
Letter 02-14 became Policy Letter 02-15.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Ken Smith, Vessel and Facility Operating Standards
Division (CG-OES-2), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1413, email
Ken.A.Smith@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Viewing material in the docket: To view the policy letters and
related material, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type the docket
number (USCG-2013-1084) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.''
Click on ``Open Docket Folder'' on the line associated with this
notice. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting the Docket Management facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Background and Purpose
The shipping industry is exploring conversion from oil-based fuel
to cleaner burning natural gas, because the use of natural gas as fuel
would substantially reduce carbon emissions, sulfur emissions, and
nitrogen oxide emissions. This natural gas fuel would be stored on and
transferred to vessels in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Existing regulations cover design, equipment, operations, and training
of personnel on vessels that carry LNG as cargo and at waterfront
facilities that handle LNG in bulk. They also cover conventional oil
fuel transfer operations, but do not address LNG transferred as
fuel.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 33 CFR parts 127, 155 and 156; 46 CFR parts 10-15, 30-39,
and 154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 7, 2014, the Coast Guard published two draft policy
letters (CG-OES 01-14 and CG-OES 02-14), requesting comments, that
recommended the transfer procedures and other operating guidelines for
vessels and waterfront facilities providing LNG to vessels for use as
fuel and for vessels operating in U.S. waters that will be fueled with
natural gas that will be stored onboard as LNG. The Coast Guard has
revised these policy letters based on comments received and now makes
the final policy letters available to the public.
The policy letters and voluntary guidance do not apply to vessels
regulated as LNG carriers that utilize their boil-off gas as fuel. They
also do not provide guidance on vessel design criteria for natural gas
fuel systems or design of vessels providing LNG for use as fuel. If you
have questions about the design of these systems, please contact the
Coast Guard's Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG,
formerly CG-521). See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
contact information.
Discussion
The Coast Guard received 27 letters from the public containing a
combined total of 185 individual comments which are discussed below. We
discuss more fully the changes we made to the policy letters in
response to comments.
All letters received were generally supportive of the Coast Guard's
effort to provide guidance on the use and transfer of LNG as a marine
fuel and the Coast Guard appreciates this important feedback.
We also received various comments recommending changes that cannot
be made in a policy document because the Coast Guard would need to
undergo rulemaking to make these recommended changes enforceable. For
example, one submitter suggested that we provide specific details
concerning the information that risk assessments should contain.
Another submitter suggested that we provide common checklists for
industry to follow when conducting bunkering operations. The Coast
Guard will consider these comments and determine whether any further
action is necessary. Additionally, the Coast Guard received comments on
matters unrelated to the two policy letters discussed in this notice.
Those comments have been reviewed but did not effect any changes to
these policy letters. Examples of some of the comments we received
pertaining to design were related to venting arrangements, LNG tank
design, and gas detection.
[[Page 10132]]
Vessel design issues relating to the technical aspects and problems
inherent in vessel design are not discussed in Policy Letters 01-15 and
02-15. We do not intend to include vessel design recommendations or
equivalencies in either policy letter and thus comments requesting
design related revisions cannot be incorporated. Information concerning
design criteria for natural gas fuel systems can be found in CG-521
Policy Letter 01-12, ``Equivalency Determination--Design Criteria For
Natural Gas Fuel Systems,'' which can be viewed at the following
location: https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/docs/CG-521.PolicyLetter.01-12.pdf.
The Coast Guard also identified certain non-substantive
recommendations in comments. Many of these are useful and have been
incorporated where appropriate.
Six comments were submitted recommending that Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG) and other alternative fuels be addressed in our policy
letters. The Coast Guard believes it is better at this time to evaluate
other alternative fuels on a case-by-case basis and will continue to
gather information on how these alternative fuels are used to determine
whether guidance is necessary and appropriate. One submitter suggested
that it would be useful if we added language indicating how LNG differs
from other ``conventional'' liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The Coast Guard
agrees and added additional information in Policy Letter 01-15,
Enclosure (1).
Five comments were submitted on the topic of hot work. Based on the
comments received, the Coast Guard revised its discussion on hot work
in Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) to further clarify that hot work
must be conducted in accordance with the existing regulations to which
vessels are inspected. Where no regulations are specified, we recommend
that the regulations in 46 CFR 91.50-1 be followed.
Six comments were received on the Coast Guard's use of the term
``in bulk.'' Three comments asked whether LNG packaged in ISO
tanktainers, and loaded on a vessel, is not ``in bulk'' and therefore
not subject to 33 CFR Part 127. The Coast Guard confirms that LNG in
packaged form such as LNG in ISO tanktainers is not considered an ``in
bulk'' shipment and the facility where those packages are loaded does
not need to comply with 33 CFR Part 127. The Coast Guard further
clarifies that LNG in ISO tanktainers is a hazardous material in
packaged form and as such must be loaded from a facility that complies
with 33 CFR Part 126. Three additional comments requested clarification
on the Coast Guard's definition of the term ``bulk.'' In response to
these requests, the Coast Guard clarifies in Policy Letter 01-15,
Enclosure (1) that ``bulk'' has the meaning defined in the Marine
Safety Manual as a material that is transported on board a vessel
without mark or count and which is directly loaded into a hold or tank
on a vessel without containers or wrappers.
Six comments were received on LNG tank truck operations. Three
spoke to matters involving the driving and transfer of LNG from tank
trucks directly on a vessel, and one wanted to know why the Coast Guard
doesn't discuss the activity. The Coast Guard does not discuss this
type of operation because the operation is not considered as safe as
other forms of transfer operations available. Driving LNG tank trucks
aboard a vessel and conducting LNG transfer operations while aboard is
considered to be a transfer involving a greater risk than other forms
of LNG transfers because vessels and LNG tank trucks cannot remove
themselves from the area in the event of an emergency. The Coast Guard
does not wish to promote the operation in general, but remains open to
evaluating requests on a case-by-case basis. One submitter requested to
know if all of 33 CFR Part 127 would apply to LNG tank truck and rail
car transfers. As discussed in Enclosure 1 of Policy Letter 02-15,
existing regulatory standards may not be appropriate for small scale
(e.g., LNG fuel transfer) operations and the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port (COTP) may consider alternatives under 33 CFR 127.017.
Five comments were received concerning ISO type tanks. One
submitter noted that ISO tanks need to be properly approved and
designed and are not as robust as type ``C'' tanks. The Coast Guard
notes that LNG in portable tanks must meet specifications outlined by
the Department of Transportation for transport and carriage of
hazardous materials in accordance with the Hazardous Material
Regulations contained in Title 49 of the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations. The Coast Guard Office of Design and Engineering (CG-ENG)
and/or the Marine Safety Center will evaluate as part of their plan
review and approval process the design and construction of tanks used
to store LNG as fuel on board U.S. vessels.
Four comments were received concerning guidance to the COTP for
considering alternatives to the requirements in 33 CFR Part 127. Of
those comments received, two comments also recommended Coast Guard
Headquarters oversight so as to ensure greater consistency from port to
port. The Coast Guard recognizes the need and desire for consistency
from port to port and throughout the Coast Guard. To help COTPs
understand alternatives which may be considered for the requirements in
33 CFR Part 127, we have added a new enclosure. Enclosure (4) to Policy
letter 02-15 has been added to provide COTPs with guidance as to
alternatives which may be considered in lieu of the requirements of 33
CFR Part 127 for LNG fuel facilities. Through publication of these
policy letters and continued work within the Coast Guard, we hope to
provide consistent application of regulations and policies for LNG
operations throughout the country.
Ten comments were received on the topic of conducting Risk
Assessments. One of the submitters recommended we add more wording
concerning identification of hazards (HAZID's), operational hazards
(HAZOP's) and quantitaive risk assessments (QRA's). The Coast Guard
agrees and added additional guidance and information concerning the
need to conduct risk assessments. We have revised Enclosure 1 of Policy
Letter 01-15 and Enclosures 1 and 2 of Policy Letter 02-15 to include
more information on recommendations for risk assessments established by
recognized industry organizations. Finally, one submitter stated that
there is no clearly defined or broadly accepted standard for evaluating
risk assessments and noted that NFPA standard 551 has some guidance
which should be considered. For the purpose of harmonizing with the
international community, we recommend and reference in the policy
letters the publications of the classification society Det Norske
Veritas--Germanischer Lloyd (DNV-GL) and the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) as guides which should be used to conduct
risk assessments.
The Coast Guard received twelve comments on training and drills.
One submitter indicated that the Coast Guard should establish and
specify definite training intervals in order to avoid differing
interpretations. The Coast Guard agrees that guidance on appropriate
intervals would be helpful and suggests as an example that the drills
be conducted quarterly. One submitter indicated that they strongly
support having defined training requirements and believe this will
significantly contribute to a safer industry. The Coast Guard agrees.
The amendments to this policy include recommended training provisions.
This guidance identifies a two-tier system--basic and advanced training
that
[[Page 10133]]
companies may use to structure their training. In addition, the company
is also responsible for the vessel familiarization of the crew members
which is ship and fuel specific and tailored to each mariner's onboard
duties. The recommendations are consistent with the proposed
International Maritime Organization (IMO) ``Interim guidance on
training for seafarers on board ships using gases or other low-
flashpoint fuels'', STCW.7/Circ.23, the draft amendments to the STCW
Convention, and the MERPAC recommendations on this issue. The Coast
Guard has added a new Enclosure (3) to Policy Letter 01-15 which is
based upon ``Interim guidance on training for seafarers on board ships
using gases or other low-flashpoint fuels'', STCW.7/Circ.23. STCW.7/
Circ.23 is the final version of HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5 that is referenced
by the submitters. Another submitter also indicated they believed the
Coast Guard should ensure the transitional provisions are followed as
an interim measure until relevant STCW requirements come into force to
allow for initial personnel training for the new technology. The Coast
Guard agrees and is recommending interim steps as part of this policy
letter to help ensure an orderly transition to future mandatory
requirements. One submitter suggested that Enclosure (2) of Policy
Letter 01-14 be deleted in its entirety because the guidelines
contained in Resolution MSC.285(86) are expected to be superseded by
new interim guidance recommended in HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5 once the
guidance is adopted by MSC. The Coast Guard agrees in part. Enclosure 2
repeats Chapter 8 of IMO Resolution MSC.285(86), ``Interim guidelines
on safety for natural gas-fuelled engine installations in ships,''
which contains both training and operational components. We've retained
the operational components from Enclosure 2 and replaced the training
components with the product from STCW.7/Circ.23, ``Interim guidance on
training for seafarers on board ships using gases or other low-
flashpoint fuels'' as Enclosure (3). STCW.7/Circ.23 is the current IMO
circular which is based upon the HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5 that is being
referenced by the submitters. One submitter recommended that the Coast
Guard work towards approving training courses that meet the proposed
requirements of part A (Annex 4) of HTW 1/WP.3 and look to begin
issuing endorsements as quickly as possible. The Coast Guard agrees in
principle but is unable to approve courses or issue endorsements until
enabling regulations are in place. However, the Coast Guard is
endeavoring to provide within CG-OES Policy Letter 01-15, interim
guidance that can be used by maritime training providers, maritime
companies and mariners to develop training courses and will review
courses submitted on a voluntary basis that are designed to meet the
training guidance outlined in Enclosure (3). The Coast Guard will issue
a letter to maritime training providers attesting to the Coast Guard's
review and conformance of these courses with the training recommended
in this guidance. One submitter additionally noted that the various
means of transfer would require various levels of qualification and
training specific to transfers. The Coast Guard agrees that training
guidelines would be helpful to companies involved in transfers. The
Coast Guard has expanded the training guidelines in line with work
currently ongoing at IMO and MERPAC recommendations. MERPAC provided
recommendations on the content of the training, transitional
provisions, and the proof of training. Their recommendations are
included in the revised policy letter. As for mariners holding
tankerman PIC (LG), tankerman-engineer (LG) and tankerman assistant
(LG) endorsements, transition requirements have also been addressed.
One submitter presumed that the Coast Guard will not require a
special endorsement on a license or Merchant Mariner Document (MMD) for
mariners serving aboard an LNG powered vessel other than the PIC, who
must hold a proper endorsement in order to conduct the transfer
operation. The submitter also stated that the policy letter was silent
as to the level of competency that each company must provide for other
shipboard personnel involved in LNG bunkering operations. In response,
the Coast Guard has expanded the training section of the policy letter
to include recommended training for members of the vessel's crew who
have safety responsibilities in regard to the gases or low flashpoint
fuels being used and that documentary evidence such as course
completion certificates, company letters, etc., should be issued
indicating that the holder has successfully completed the basic or
advanced training, as appropriate--See Enclosure 3 of Policy Letter 01-
15. One submitter indicated that care should be taken to assure that
training for personnel on board vessels using gas fuels are
differentiated from a full tankerman (LG endorsement) as appropriate
and that referencing the parts of 46 CFR that are for Tankerman should
be eliminated. The Coast Guard agrees that vessel personnel on vessels
using gases and low flashpoint fuels should be differentiated from full
tankerman. As a result, recommendations specific to their training have
been provided in Enclosure (3) accordingly.
The Coast Guard received three comments concerning PICs. One
submitter indicated that the Coast Guard needs to clarify the meaning
of the word ``enough'' where it is stated that, ``. . . there must be
enough Tankerman-PICs on duty . . .'' noting that the word ``enough''
is too vague. The Coast Guard notes the submitters concern, and
understands that the term may be ambiguous. However, the term is
carried forth from the existing regulations for cargo handling
operations in 46 CFR 35.35-1 allowing flexibilty to owners, managing
operators, masters, and PICs in determining the number of qualified
personnel needed to safely transfer liquid cargo based on the details
of a specific transfer operation. Enclosure 2 of Policy Letter 02-15,
pertaining to tank vessels transfering LNG, remains unchanged in this
regard and points to the regulations in 46 CFR 35.35-1 and 154.1831
outlining the qualifications for personnel involved in liquid cargo
transfer. However, aboard the receiving vessel that uses gases or low
flashpoint fuels, the Coast Guard recommends in Enclosure (1) of Policy
Letter 01-15, that the Master of a vessel using LNG as fuel should
ensure that all personnel involved with LNG fuel use, transfer, or
emergency response meet the standards of competence or advanced
standards of competence outlined in Enclosure (3) of Policy Letter 01-
15 for the duties to which they are assigned. One submitter noted that
both the receiving vessel and supplier of LNG have PICs but our policy
letters did not discuss an overall PIC, and requested to know who the
overall PIC is. The Coast Guard does not discuss designatation of an
overall PIC, because the Coast Guard does not believe an overall PIC is
necessary. Similar to conventional fuel transfer operations, no one
individual is designated as having overall control and responsibility
for the transfer. Each PIC is responsible for their part of the
transfer operation (supplier and receiver) and each side of the
transfer should have a means to stop the transfer in the event of an
emergency (See 33 CFR 127.205 and 155.780). Both supplier and receiver
must have a means for dedicated voice communication with each other in
order to maintain oversight and control of LNG tanks and transfer lines
(See 33 CFR 127.111 and 155.785). Given that personnel on either side
of the transfer
[[Page 10134]]
may not be familiar or experienced with equipment on the other side, it
would be improper to assign one entity as being in charge overall. For
this reason, the transfer operation should be an event highly
coordinated by both PICs. One submitter suggested the Coast Guard add
three additional points covering PIC responsibilities--``Establishment
of safety zone encompassing both supplier and receiving vessel,''
``Emergency response personnel defined and readiness,'' and
``Monitoring of climatic conditions prior to and during transfer
operations.'' The Coast Guard agrees in part and has modified the
section in Enclosure (1) of Policy Letter 01-15 discussing PIC
responsibilities to include checking for climatic conditions and
setting safety and security areas around the LNG transfer area.
Information related to emergency response is covered in item 2 of the
same section.
Two comments were submitted on portable gas detectors. Both
expressed a belief that it was unnecessary for all personnel involved
in an LNG transfer to have a portable gas detector and suggested that
the policy letter align with existing regulations (See 33 CFR 127.203
and 46 CFR 154.1345) which require at least 2 portable gas detectors in
the marine transfer area. The Coast Guard agrees and has modified the
policy letters to align with existing regulations.
Eight comments were received concerning simultaneous operations.
All but one supported the need to conduct simultaneous operations. The
one comment submitted against simultaneous operations stated that
simultaneous operations create a significant risk factor, dramatically
increasing the likelihood of a casualty while fueling. The Coast Guard
agrees that simultaneous operations may introduce increased risk, but
believes that performance of a risk analysis and incorporation of risk
mitigation measures can be useful toward decreasing the likelihood of a
casualty occurring while fueling. One comment stated that simultaneous
operations should not be treated any differently than current fueling
operations. One comment indicated that simultaneous operations should
only be allowed after a detailed risk analysis and dispersion analysis
are completed. Two comments indicated the need to have a definitive
statement that the Coast Guard recognizes the need to allow
simultaneous operations. The Coast Guard agrees with the majority of
commenters and has modified the discussion of simultaneous operations
in Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) to include a more definitive
statement concerning the need for considering simultaneous operations
and identifies recommended industry standards which may be used by
facility owners to conduct risk assessments. The Coast Guard does not
wish to specify what operations may or may not be conducted
simultaneously while LNG transfer operations are in progress and the
COTP will evaluate each proposal on a case-by-case basis based on the
specific hazards involved.
Three comments were submitted on emergency shutdown devices (ESD).
One submitter said all ESD components are to be tested no more than 24
hours before commencement of the actual bunkering operation and that
the tests should be documented in accordance with the bunkering
procedure. The Coast Guard agrees. In accordance with 33 CFR
127.315(i), and 156.120(r), the ESD system is currently required to be
tested by the PIC prior to transfer which should be well within the 24
hour period suggested. One submitter suggested that there could be an
exemption for testing bunker tanker ESD equipment, provided evidence of
regular testing is available or alternative requirements are deemed as
an acceptable equivalence. The Coast Guard disagrees. As noted
previously, testing of the ESD system must be conducted by the PIC
prior to the transfer as required by existing regulations 33 CFR
127.315(i), and 156.120(r). One submitter suggested that automatic
activation of the ESD system due to a gas detection alarm should be
reconsidered noting that gas detection systems have been prone to false
alarms, particularly if located in humid areas, and repeated shutdowns
due to erroneous alarms could create an unanticipated hazard. The Coast
Guard is unaware of this being a widespread problem attributed to the
performance of all gas detection systems available on the market.
However, we have amended Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) such that
gas detection is one of eight items that can be considered as a means
to activate the ESD system.
Two comments were received on checklists. One commenter indicated
that compatibility between the LNG supplier and the vessel receiving
LNG must be ensured in terms of LNG transfer system design, operational
manuals, emergency response procedures and a common checklist for the
LNG transfer operation. Another comment requested that we consider
adopting a professional industry organization's bunker checklists into
our policy letters. The Coast Guard agrees that the use of checklists
is valuable. We have provided a hyperlink in our policy letters
recommending that owners and operators involved in LNG transfer
operations consider using checklists in order to help globally
standardize LNG transfer operations.
Five comments were submitted concerning hazard zones, safety
distances, and transfer areas. One submitter questioned whether or not
the transfer area is considered to be a hazardous area and asserted
that no ignition sources should exist in the transfer area. The Coast
Guard agrees and confirms that the transfer area is considered to be a
hazardous area. Details concerning removal of ignition sources
associated with LNG supply are addressed in Policy Letter 02-15 which
focuses on vessels and facilities providing LNG as fuel. One submitter
noted that we refer to transfer area and hazardous area, but believed
that consideration on `Determination of safety and security zones'
should be given. They also pointed out a key aspect with regard to the
responsibility of the PIC is to establish the exchange of sufficient
information to allow completion of a Declaration of Security (if
required), agreement on how and between whom, communications regarding
security that are to be made and actions to be taken in the event of a
breach of security. Another submitter commented that there should be a
discussion about hazardous areas and safety and security areas around
the LNG transfer area. The Coast Guard agrees and has added a new
paragraph discussing the items in Enclosure (1) of Policy Letter 01-15.
One additional submitter stated that advice needs to be given regarding
safety distances at different transfer rates, due to increasing
``largest credible spills'' and that dispersion analysis needs to be
included. The Coast Guard agrees with the need to provide additional
information concerning safety and security areas and has added
information in Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) indicating they
should be established in accordance with industry standards established
by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) which is a
recognized organization that has published information related to
determining the size of safety and security areas around LNG transfer
points. The Coast Guard doesn't agree with the need to require a
declaration of security at this time, and notes that existing
regulations concerning the declaration of inspection (33 CFR 127.317,
and 33 CFR 156.150) require PICs to conduct a series of checks before
[[Page 10135]]
transfer operations, including ensuring that communications are
operable between PICs involved in the transfer. The Coast Guard agrees
that breaches in safety and security areas should be evaluated and has
included a recommendation that a contingency plan be developed
concerning how to handle and respond to them. One submitter stated that
consideration should be given to include the scope for interaction of a
vessel's hazardous areas, emergency response equipment (firefighting,
mechanical ventilation, etc.) emergency response procedures and linked
ESD systems. The Coast Guard agrees. These items should be considered
as part of the compatability assessment we recommend to be conducted
between suppliers and receivers of LNG. We also recommend that
emergency response manuals be developed and provide a list of
recommended information they should contain.
Four comments were submitted concerning pipelines. One comment
suggested that we delete references to bonding of pipelines in Policy
Letter 01-14, Enclosure (1) in the section discussing detailed diagrams
of the transfer area. The submitter indicated it was not clear how this
would be shown on a diagram. The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the
item as suggested. One submitter addressed the discussion on, ``Conduct
before a LNG Fuel Transfer'' under Regulations and Recommendations for
Vessels Bunkering LNG, of Enclosure (2) to CG-OES Policy Letter No. 02-
14. The submitter noted the policy letter states that before
transferring LNG to a vessel for use of gas as fuel, the PIC for
transferring LNG should inspect the accessible portions of the transfer
piping system and equipment to be used during the transfer and ensure
that any worn or inoperable parts are replaced and any leaks are
identified. The Coast Guard agrees and has added an item recommending
that the transfer piping be tested for leaks prior to the transfer of
LNG. Finally, one comment was received concerning Policy Letter 02-14,
Enclosure (2) section discussing, ``Conduct after a LNG Fuel
Transfer.'' The submitter requested adding a requirement to ensure that
transfer hoses, manifolds, and associated piping are purged so that
natural gas levels are below the lower flammability level. The Coast
Guard has amended the section to recommend these types of safety
measures.
We received one comment on loading flanges. The submitter indicated
the existing regulations contain seemingly contradictory provisions
which could complicate the siting, permitting and operation of such
facilities. The submitter noted that Part 127 and Part 193 contain
differing requirements in terms of the location of LNG loading flanges
in relation to nearby bridges. The Coast Guard understands the
concerns, but notes that any correction to these regulations would need
to go through the Department of Transporation or USCG rulemaking
process. Therefore, the noted discrepancies cannot be rectified through
these policy letters.
We received one comment concerning transfer hoses. The submitter
referenced an early draft version of our policy letter suggesting that
the transfer hose should include provisions to prevent electrical flow
during connection or disconnection of the transfer hose string through
the hose string or loading arm. The insertion of one short length of
non-conducting hose without internal bonding in each hose string, or
installation of an insulating flange, should be addressed. In addition,
the submitter suggested that each transfer hose string should contain
only one electrically discontinuous length of hose or insulating
flange, to prevent electrostatic build-up in the hose string. The Coast
Guard agrees and has amended Policy Letter 02-15, Enclosure (2) to
include these recommendations.
One comment was received on lighting whereby the submitter
suggested that the intensity levels should not be specified. The Coast
Guard disagrees as the lighting intensity levels specified in the
policy letters simply mirror existing federal regulations already
imposed for transfer operations. See 33 CFR 127.109 and 155.790.
One comment was submitted concerning operations manuals whereby the
submitter said there should be a provision to demonstrate that all
relevant personnel are familiar with the operations manual. The Coast
Guard agrees and has modified the opening paragraph discussing
operation, emergency, and maintenance manuals in policy letter 01-15,
Enclosure (1) indicating that the master of a vessel using LNG as fuel
should ensure that all personnel involved with LNG fuel use, transfer,
or emergency response are familiar with the contents of the LNG fuel
transfer system operations manual.
We received three comments concerning emergency procedures. One
commenter stated that simultaneous operations imposes the need for more
requirements, especially where passengers, public or non-qualified/
briefed personnel are in proximity of the bunkering operation. At a
minimum, the submitter stated a need to consider emergency procedures
for handling of passengers in the event of an incident during
bunkering. The Coast Guard agrees and has modified Policy Letter 01-15,
Enclosure (1) to include a provision in the emergency manual for
removing or relocating passengers in the event of an LNG incident
during bunkering. One commenter suggested that the LNG bunkering and
emergency response procedures take into account the LNG bunkering
system in place and that the results of the risk assessment studies are
adequately managed. The Coast Guard agrees and has included reference
to recognized standards for conducting risk assessments which are
identified in Enclosure 1 of Policy Letter 01-15 and Enclosures 1 and 2
of Policy Letter 02-15. The risk assessment we recommend should be
based on specific details of the operation intended and identify
associated risks and hazards and the means to mitigate those risks. The
risk assessment is expected to be used as a guide to assist owners and
operators in developing their bunkering and emergency response
procedures. One commenter asked for guidance on what security
requirements, if any, will be required for the vessel arriving at the
facility to receive LNG for fuel. If applicable, the security
requirements for vessels may be based on the requirements of 33 CFR
part 104--Maritime Security: Vessels. Additionally, a safety or
security zone may be established around a vessel by the COTP if it is
determined necessary based on the results of a risk assessment.
Six comments were received concerning the topic of LNG bunkering.
One commenter suggested that LNG bunkering procedures should ensure
that unauthorized and non-essential personnel cannot enter the
bunkering area. The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Policy Letter
01-15, Enclosure (1) to include a recommendation that procedures be
established for setting, securing, and clearing safety and security
areas around the LNG transfer point. Two commenters recommended that
the operator define the operational envelope under which transfer can
take place noting that this should be indicated as a ``permissible
range of motion where transfer operations can proceed (to be defined
for the operation as well as the transfer equipment)'', and be included
in the Operations manual. The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Policy
Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) recommending that the operations manual
define the operating envelope for which safe transfer operations can
[[Page 10136]]
and cannot occur. One submitter suggested that paragraph 5b. of Policy
Letter No. 01-14 be modified to impose a mutual obligation on both the
transferring vessel operator and the receiving vessel operator to
ensure that both parties have the personnel and equipment to safely
conduct LNG bunkering operations. The Coast Guard agrees and has added
recommended information related to the declaration of inspection which
must be signed and completed by both persons in charge of the transfer
in accordance with 33 CFR 156.150 signifying a mutal obligation on the
part of both parties. One commenter stated that it is critical to have
a common set of regulatory procedures for all LNG bunkering operations
in all ports in the United States (as exists today under 33 CFR part
127 and elsewhere) which companies could incorporate into their
operational plans and crew training. The Coast Guard agrees that
standardized procedures help ensure safe transfer operations and
believes the policy letters will help establish guidelines for
standardized industry procedures.
Eight comments were submitted concerning referenced standards. The
Coast Guard received one comment pointing out that the reference to
SIGTTO's LNG Ship to Ship Transfer Guidelines, 1st Edition, 2011, was
outdated and should be replaced with SIGTTO's ``Ship to Ship Transfer
Guide--Petroleum, Chemicals, & Liquefied Gases,'' 1st Edition, 2013,
whenever referenced. The Coast Guard agrees and has modified the policy
letters as suggested to reflect the updated industry standard. One
comment requested referencing NFPA 59A, the ``Standard for the
Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas'' and
SIGTTO's ``Liquid Gas Fire Hazard Management'' in our discussion of
firefighting equipment in Policy Letter 02-14, Enclosure (2). The Coast
Guard agrees in part and has added a reference to the SIGTTO
publication, but does not reference NFPA 59A because the standard
refers to shore based LNG storage and production facilities and
Enclosure (2) of Policy Letter 02-15 is focused on vessels providing
LNG as fuel. We received a comment suggesting that we add a reference
to SIGTTO 2009 publication, ``ESD Arrangements & Linked Ship/Shore
Systems for Liquefied Gas Carriers'' in the discussion of emergency
shutdown devices in Enclosure (1) of Policy Letter 01-14. The Coast
Guard agrees and has modified the section as requested. Two comments
suggested full incorporation of International Maritime Organization
(IMO) standards and guidelines. Policy letter 01-15 outlines these
operational items in great detail but we have added a recommendation to
better align with IMO guidance noting that procedures for confined
space entry should be included in the operations manual. One submitter
provided a list of industry standards and guides which the Coast Guard
should consider recognizing. The Coast Guard has provided a hyperlink
to a free publication provided by the LNG Ship Fuel Advisory Group,
titled, ``Standards and Guidelines for Natural Gas Fuelled Ship
Projects'' which identifies many of these standards and recommends that
owners and operators become familiar with its contents. This change can
be found in Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1), and Policy Letter 02-
15, Enclosures (1) and (2) under the section labeled Job Aides.
One submitter suggested Policy Letter 01-14, Enclosure (1) not
recommend installation of firefighting equipment on unmanned barges
because potential operating scenarios of a barge may include operations
away from the LNG facility and firefighting capabilities of a towing
vessel during vessel-to-vessel operations could be difficult to ensure.
The Coast Guard disagrees and believes operators should consider all
firefighting equipment available in the vicinity of an LNG transfer
operation whether the transfer is off port or at shore. When conducting
a safety assessment for a particular operation, all available
firefighting equipment and emergency response equipment should be
considered.
One comment suggested that due to the cryogenic properties of LNG,
personal protective equipment should be listed with more specificity,
including such items as leather working boots (no canvas sneakers
should be worn during fueling or transfer operations), loose fitting
fire resistant gloves, full face shields, and fit-for purpose multi-
layer clothing. The Coast Guard agrees and has modified the sections in
Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) and Policy Letter 02-15, Enclosure
(2) discussing recommended personal protective equipment.
The Coast Guard received comments about how the policy letters will
be enforced. One commenter raised concerns regarding the notice and
comment process of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
551, et seq., with regard to the guidance document process and Due
Process concerns of appealing a Coast Guard decision. The Coast Guard
notes that guidance documents are by their nature non-binding as they
are created to assist the industry in absence of other sources or in
explaining existing regulatory requirements. These policy letters
provide clarification to industry of existing requirements and how to
apply them in this quickly changing environment. These policy letters
do not impose legally binding requirements and a company can choose not
to adopt the recommendations in the policy letter if it desires. There
is no enforcement action associated with these recommendations and thus
no appeal process is necessary. However, it is important to note that
anyone affected by a direct decision of an OCMI/COTP can appeal that
decision to the District Commander as provided for in 46 CFR 1.03-20
and 33 CFR 127.015. Finally, the Coast Guard received one comment
requesting clarification on the statement in Policy Letter 01-14
indicating that it is the responsibility of the operator of the
facility and/or the transferring vessel to ensure that the receiving
vessel has the necessary personnel and equipment to safely and securely
participate in the conduct of an LNG transfer operation. While the
regulations in 33 CFR Part 127, Subpart B, indicate the primary
responsibility for ensuring appropriate LNG transfer protocols are
followed lies with the facility operator, the receiving vessel is
required by 33 CFR 156.120 and 156.150 to identify a PIC of transfer
operations on the vessel who will assist the PIC of shoreside transfer
operations in conducting the preliminary transfer inspection required
and completing the declaration of inspections required by 33 CFR
127.317 and 156.150. The qualifications set forth at 33 CFR 127.301 and
33 CFR 155.710 (Qualifications of person in charge) are good guidance
for assigning a PIC. Addtionally, this policy sets forth recommended
personnel training guidelines for those personnel who will participate
in the transfer operation.
We received one comment asking for guidance on the topic of roll
over. As a result of this comment, the Coast Guard added roll over to
the list of items in Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) for which
emergency actions and response measures should be described in the
emergency manual.
One comment suggested that the word, ``if used'' be deleted in
enclosure (1) to CG-OES Policy Letter No. 01-14, on page 2, under the
heading, ``Operations, Emergency, and Maintenance Manuals,'' noting
that inert gas must be used to prevent potentially explosive
conditions. The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the policy letter as
suggested.
Finally, one comment was submitted requesting that the Coast Guard
[[Page 10137]]
elaborate what is meant by the boundary of a facility conducting
bunkering. In response, the Coast Guard provides that the boundaries of
an LNG facility handling LNG should be based on the requirements for
design and spacing in NFPA 59A as outlined in 33 CFR Part 127 and any
risk or fire safety assessments that may be prepared for the specific
operation. The boundary of each facility conducting bunkering should be
based on details of the specific bunkering operation.
Voluntary Policy
The Coast Guard's intent in issuing these policy letters is to
assist the industry, public, Coast Guard, and other Federal and State
regulators in applying existing statutory and regulatory requirements.
Following the policy and guidance recommended in these policy letters
is voluntary. The policy letters are not a substitute for applicable
legal requirements nor are they regulations themselves. The policy
letters, however, do contain references to existing requlations which
may require certain action where applicable. The Coast Guard notes
those instances where it discusses requirements under existing
regulations instead of policy or guidance. Nothing in the policy
letters and guidance they contain are meant to override or subvert the
discretion of the COTP when addressing the unique safety and security
concerns of an LNG operation.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Dated: February 19, 2015.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015-03852 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
