[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69660-69665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32274]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
[Docket No. RSPA-98-4733; Amdt. 192-88; 195-68]
RIN 2137-AD25
Pipeline Safety: Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Repair
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting a safety performance standard for the repair
of corroded or damaged steel pipe in gas or hazardous liquid pipelines.
Because present safety standards specify particular methods of repair,
operators must get approval from government regulators to use
innovative repair technologies. The performance standard is likely to
encourage technological innovations and reduce repair costs without
reducing safety.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule takes effect January 13, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow at (202) 366-4559 or
furrowl@rspa.dot.gov. You can read comments and other material in the
docket at this internet web address: http://dms.dot.gov. General
information about our pipeline safety program can be obtained at http:/
/ops.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Listed below are safety standards in 49 CFR part 192 for gas
transmission and distribution lines and 49 CFR part 195 for hazardous
liquid pipelines that specify methods of repairing corrosion and other
defects in metallic pipe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Pipe Defect Repair Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 192.309(b)..... Certain steel Dent of Remove by
transmission particular cutting out
lines or mains. characteristic. length of pipe
Sec. 192.485(a)..... Metallic Large area of Remove by
transmission general cutting out
lines. corrosion does length of
not support pipe, unless
maximum operating
allowable pressure is
operating reduced
pressure
(MAOP).
Sec. 192.487(a)..... Metallic Large area of Remove by
distribution general cutting out
lines (except corrosion does length of pipe
cast or not support
ductile iron). MAOP or has
more than 70%
wall loss.
Sec. 192.713........ High-stress Imperfection or Remove by
steel damage impairs cutting out
transmission serviceability. length of
lines.. pipe, or
install full-
encirclement
split sleeve
Sec. 192.717........ Steel Leaking defect. Remove by
transmission cutting out
lines. length of
pipe, install
full-
encirclement
welded split
sleeve, or
apply other
specified
repair methods
Sec. 195.416(f)..... Steel pipeline. Large area of Replace with
general coated pipe,
corrosion unless
reduces wall operating
thickness pressure is
below minimum reduced
in pipe
specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because these standards prescribe methods of repair rather than
what the repair should accomplish, the standards lack flexibility. They
do not allow operators to use new or more innovative repair
technologies. They also discourage operators from developing new repair
methods that may be more economical. In contrast, under less
[[Page 69661]]
restrictive standards in Parts 192 and 195, operators may and do use
methods besides pipe replacement and split sleeves, such as composite
pipe wraps, grinding, hot tapping, and weld deposition, to repair
corroded or damaged pipe. For example, a gouge that impairs the
serviceability of a steel gas transmission line not covered by
Sec. 192.713 may be repaired under Sec. 192.703(b) by any method that
returns the pipe to a safe condition.
In recent years, we and a few state pipeline safety agencies waived
the requirements of Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.713 so operators could use
a new repair system called Clock Spring wrap to simplify
and reduce the average cost of repairs (60 FR 10630; February 27,
1995). This system, which consists of a fiberglass/polyester composite
material coiled with adhesive in layers over a filler, reinforces steel
pipe that has certain non-leaking defects. According to tests and
analyses done by the Gas Research Institute, when properly installed,
the system permanently restores the pressure containing capability of
the pipe (D.R. Stephens, Summary of Validation of Clock Spring for
Permanent Repair of Pipeline Corrosion Defects, GRI-98/0227, Gas
Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, October 1998).
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Recognizing the need for flexibility in Secs. 192.309(b),
192.485(a), 192.487(a), 192.713, and 195.416(f), we published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend these rules to permit operators
to use repair methods that meet a performance standard (64 FR 16882;
April 7, 1999). The standard we proposed was that the repair method be
able to ``permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe,'' a
result comparable to that expected from replacing damaged pipe or
installing a full-encirclement split sleeve. We explained that such
restoration would be permanent if the repair were expected to last as
long as the pipe under normal operating and maintenance conditions.
For assurance that a repair method indeed meets the performance
standard, we further proposed that the method must have undergone
``reliable engineering tests and analyses.'' Although no guidelines for
these tests and analyses were proposed, we said ``the tests and
analyses need only be what a reasonable and prudent professional
engineer would consider adequate to demonstrate compliance with the
performance standard.''
Besides the performance standard, we also proposed to drop the
priority that Secs. 192.713 and 192.717 give to pipe replacement
whenever it is feasible to take a damaged pipeline out of service. And
we proposed to terminate the requirement in these sections that
replacement pipe have ``similar or greater design strength'' than the
pipe being replaced. We think this requirement is overly conservative,
and the safety of replacement pipe is otherwise governed by the
material, design, construction, and testing requirements of Part 192.
Discussion of Comments
We received comments from the following sources in response to the
NPRM:
Trade association: American Gas Association
Interstate gas pipeline operators: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, CMS
Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Corporation, Enron Gas Pipeline Group,
Paiute Pipeline Company, and Southern Natural Gas Company
Gas distribution operators: Southwest Gas Corporation and Consumers
Energy Company
Manufacturer: Clock Spring Company, L.P.
Engineering firm: Stress Engineering Services, Inc.
Engineering consultant: Foy Milton, PE
Of the 12 commenters, four (Consumers Energy Company, Paiute
Pipeline Company, Southern Natural Gas Company, and Southwest Gas
Corporation) supported the proposed rules without change; one (Foy
Milton) opposed use of a performance standard for pipe repairs; one
(American Gas Association) supported the proposals but suggested a
minor editorial change, which is included in final Sec. 192.717; and
the remaining six commenters favored the proposals in general but
suggested substantive changes. Our disposition of the lone opposing
comment and those comments suggesting substantive changes is discussed
under the following headings.
Specification vs. Performance
Asserting advantages of the existing specification-type standards
(uniformity of application, ease of understanding, voluntary standards
committee backing, and disallowance of unacceptable repair methods),
Foy Milton urged us not to go forward with the proposed rule changes.
While we agree that specification-type standards may be appropriate in
some instances, they are not the standards of choice for mechanisms
undergoing advancements in technology. Specification-type standards
deny operators the flexibility to choose the most cost-effective
technology to do a particular job, in this case repairing corroded or
other damaged pipe. They also create a disincentive for operators to
invest in the development of new technology. Moreover, properly crafted
performance standards can bar the use of unacceptable technology.
Therefore, we did not adopt this commenter's suggestion.
Clarity of Proposal
As discussed above, we proposed to widen operators' choices of
repair methods by allowing pipe to be ``repaired by a method that can
permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe, as shown by
reliable engineering tests and analyses.'' The Colorado Interstate Gas
Company thought this wording could be misinterpreted to require tests
and analyses of completed repairs. This commenter suggested we use the
following alternative wording to emphasize that the repair method is to
be tested and analyzed: ``* * * using a method qualified by reliable
engineering tests and analyses, each repair must permanently restore
the serviceability of the pipe.''
After considering the matter, we think the syntax of the proposed
requirement for tests and analyses could possibly cause the requirement
to be misconstrued to apply to completed repairs rather than repair
methods. Therefore, in the final rules, we revised the wording of the
proposal as follows to better indicate the purpose of the tests and
analyses: ``repaired by a method that reliable engineering tests and
analyses show can permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe.''
We did not adopt the commenter's suggested rewrite because we believe
it would, perhaps inadvertently, regulate completed repairs in addition
to repair methods, a result not intended by the proposal.
Test Criteria
The Clock Spring Company was concerned that operators' freedom of
interpretation under the proposed rules might threaten the integrity of
repairs made by non-traditional methods. This commenter suggested we
augment the proposal by including minimum test criteria, such as long
term strength, environmental compatibility, and dynamic forces, and
require that testing be consistent with ASTM D2992-96, Standard
Practice for Obtaining Hydrostatic or Pressure Design Basis for
``Fiberglass'' (Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Thermosetting-Resin) Pipe and
Fittings. Alternatively, the company
[[Page 69662]]
recommended that we devise testing criteria based on the years of
engineering experience in developing Clock Spring wrap. Similarly,
Stress Engineering Services, Inc., a participant in proving the
integrity of two composite repair methods, Clock Spring wrap and Armor
Plate Pipe Wrap, thought guidelines for testing new composite repair
methods were needed to properly assess critical technical issues.
Enclosed with this comment was a set of 15 guidelines for testing
composite materials.
In sharp contrast, the Enron Gas Pipeline Group said the proposed
testing and analyses requirement is unnecessary. As support for this
position, Enron cited performance standards, such as Sec. 195.422, as
having satisfactorily controlled safety problems without requiring
tests and analyses to demonstrate compliance. Enron also contended that
performance standards implicitly require operators to prove that
methods used to achieve compliance will indeed do so, and that
requiring tests and analyses would hinder operators' freedom to use
innovative technologies.
Our position, like the proposal, lies between these two different
views. We are not persuaded that the proposed testing requirement needs
strengthening. By and large, the pipeline industry's repair practices
have been very conservative and slow to incorporate non-traditional
methods. For example, the industry did not use Clock Spring or Armor
Plate until after ample hard evidence was produced to prove the lasting
integrity of pipe repaired by these methods. And the quality of these
repairs, a great many of which have been done without the need for a
waiver of Part 192 or 195 standards, is shown by the lack of reports of
incidents or near-incidents attributable to faulty repairs. We think
the industry is unlikely to take any less conservative approach to new
repair technologies that may become available for use in the future.
At the same time, we still believe that a requirement for tests and
analyses is needed. Given that pipe replacement and full-encirclement
split sleeves are time-tested methods of pipe repair, a requirement for
reliable engineering tests and analyses will provide public confidence
in the safety of innovative methods intended as alternatives to these
time-tested methods. The lack of similar requirements elsewhere in the
regulations is not sufficient reason to drop a proposed requirement
intended to assure the integrity of innovative repair alternatives.
Enron did not explain why the proposed requirement, which is consistent
with current industry practices, would hinder future innovation.
Although we agree with Enron that without such a requirement operators
would still have to demonstrate the validity of their compliance
efforts, the nature of such demonstrations would be discretionary and
could have less probative value than reliable engineering tests and
analyses.
Furthermore, a majority of commenters apparently support our
position. Except for Foy Milton, who advised us not to change the
existing rules, seven of the remaining eleven commenters supported the
proposed rules in general and expressed no specific opinion on the
proposed requirement for reliable engineering tests and analyses. Also,
as discussed below, our two pipeline safety advisory committees
approved the proposed rules without recommending any change to this
requirement.
In the NPRM, we described the ``reliable engineering tests and
analyses'' that would be necessary to show that a particular repair
method will perform as required. We said the tests and analyses need
only be what a reasonable and prudent professional engineer would
consider adequate to demonstrate compliance with the performance
standard. We recognize that licensed professional engineers may differ
on what information is necessary to demonstrate the performance of
particular technologies in particular circumstances. But the experience
of Clock Spring and Armor Plate wraps can serve as a model in
determining the technical issues to resolve and the relevant
substantiating tests and analyses. We will look to this experience to
guide our inspections for compliance with the final rule. In this
regard, we would welcome opportunities to preview new pipeline repair
technologies in the development stage to avert possible compliance
issues later on when the technologies are marketed.
With the growth of repair technology, we expect that voluntary
efforts will respond to any possible demand for uniform testing
criteria. As mentioned above, Stress Engineering has already moved in
this direction for certain composite wraps. And other firms and
organizations may develop additional criteria for different repair
techniques. Such criteria could be incorporated in voluntary standards,
such as ASME B31.4 or B31.8, or in publications such as GPTC/ANSI
Z380.1, Guide for Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems. We
now use these documents as a guide to acceptable practices in judging
compliance with many performance standards in Parts 192 and 195.
Repair by Replacement
Duke Energy, CMS Energy, and Enron suggested that because pipe
replacement is one of several methods that could be used under proposed
Secs. 192.485(a), 192.487(a), and 192.713(a) to repair corroded or
damaged pipe, these rules would be clearer if they referred only to
repair rather than to both replacement and repair. Although the premise
of this comment is correct, the proposed rules distinguished
replacement from other methods of repair because throughout Parts 192
and 195 replacement is distinguished from other methods of repair. This
distinction is significant because pipe replacement triggers safety
requirements, such as those involving pipe design, construction, and
pressure testing, that do not apply to other methods of pipe repair.
Giving special emphasis to replacement in repair rules highlights the
need for replacement pipe to meet these additional safety requirements.
So we do not think the commenters' suggestion would necessarily
contribute to overall clarity.
Corrosion Repairs
Duke Energy, CMS Energy, and Enron suggested that including the
proposed performance standard under Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.487(a) was
redundant, because corrosion repairs would be subject to the same
standard under proposed Sec. 192.713(a). But this observation is only
partially correct, because Sec. 192.713(a) applies only to certain
high-stress steel transmission lines, while Secs. 192.485(a) and
192.487(a) apply to all metallic transmission or distribution lines. If
the proposed performance standard were not included under
Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.487(a), corrosion repairs on pipelines not
covered by Sec. 192.713(a) would not be subject to the proposed
standard. So we have left the proposed performance standard in final
Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.487(a).
Leak Repairs
Duke Energy, CMS Energy, and Enron further suggested that the
proposed performance standard under Sec. 192.713(a) for non-leaking
defects should apply to leaking defects as well. This change, they
said, would be consistent with the purpose of the rulemaking and allow
the removal of Sec. 192.717, which requires specific repair methods for
transmission line leaks.
We did not propose to apply the proposed performance standard to
methods of repairing pipe leaks because
[[Page 69663]]
the impetus for this rulemaking, Clock Spring wrap, is not designed to
repair leaks. Still, as explained in the NPRM, the purpose of this
rulemaking is to make the pipe repair regulations more flexible so that
operators have incentives to innovate and greater freedom in selecting
repair methods. And, as the commenters indicated, achieving this goal
does not depend on whether the defect to be repaired is leaking nor on
the availability of a non-traditional leak repair method that qualifies
under the proposed performance standard. In fact, adopting the proposed
performance standard to authorize alternative leak repair methods is
likely to foster the development of new methods of leak repair.
Therefore, since the proposed performance standard is suitable for both
non-leaking and leaking defects and applying the standard to the repair
of leaking defects furthers the purpose of the NPRM, we have added the
proposed performance standard to Sec. 192.717 to cover the permanent
repair of leaks on transmission lines. As discussed below, our gas
pipeline safety advisory committee supported this action.
Contrary to the commenters' suggestion, however, merely extending
Sec. 192.713 to cover leaking defects would not enable removal of
Sec. 192.717. Section 192.717 is broader in scope; it applies to all
steel transmission lines, not just those that come under Sec. 192.713.
Reducing Operating Pressure
Duke Energy, CMS Energy, and Enron asked that we amend Sec. 192.713
to state that operators may reduce the maximum allowable operating
pressure of defective pipe to a safe level instead of permanently
repairing the pipe. Section 192.485 allows this alternative on corroded
transmission line pipe where a safe operating pressure can be
calculated under accepted engineering guidelines based on the remaining
strength of the corroded pipe (e.g., ASME B31.G-1991). After the MAOP
is reduced to a safe level, the corrosion no longer impairs the
serviceability of the pipe, making the repair requirement of
Sec. 192.713 inapplicable. But we are not aware of comparable
engineering guidelines for determining the safe operating pressure of
steel pipe that has defects other than corrosion, such as scratches,
gouges, or dents. Although operators may reduce operating pressure as a
temporary protective measure under Sec. 192.711, in the absence of such
guidelines, there is no accepted way to judge what amount of pressure
reduction will restore the serviceability of the defective pipe and
make removal or repair unnecessary. Therefore, we have not included the
suggested amendment in final Sec. 192.713.
Both the existing and proposed Sec. 192.713 call for a reduction in
operating pressure to a safe level during repairs. But Duke Energy, CMS
Energy, and Enron pointed out that such a reduction is unnecessary if
the operating pressure is already at a level safe for repairs. These
commenters suggested that the rule merely provide that the operating
pressure be at a safe level during repairs. We believe this
interpretation is a reasonable application of the current rule, so we
have included the suggested change in the final rule.
Dents Found During Construction
Existing Sec. 192.309(b) requires removal of unsafe dents found
during the construction of certain transmission lines and mains. We
proposed to allow operators to repair these dents with methods that
qualify under the performance standard discussed above. But Enron said
the existing, more restrictive requirement is appropriate for pipeline
construction and saw no need for change. Alone among the commenters, it
said the existing removal requirement is reasonable because, during
construction, the dented pipe is accessible and not yet in service, and
machinery and labor are on site or readily available. We are not swayed
by this reasoning, however. Although we agree the burden of removal may
be lessened somewhat by the circumstances of construction, we find it
more reasonable to adopt a regulation that permits remedial options
that can provide equivalent safety at possibly less cost. Final
Sec. 192.309(b) is, therefore, adopted as proposed.
Advisory Committee Consideration
We presented the NPRM for consideration by the Technical Pipeline
Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the Technical Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) at a meeting in
Washington, DC on May 4, 1999. The TPSSC is RSPA's statutory advisory
committee for gas pipeline safety and the THLPSSC is RSPA's statutory
advisory committee for hazardous liquid pipeline safety. Each committee
has 15 members, representing industry, government, and the public, who
are qualified to consider the technical feasibility, reasonableness,
cost-effectiveness, and practicability of proposed pipeline safety
standards. Both committees voted unanimously to approve the proposed
rules and to approve the associated risk assessment information
contained in the Regulatory Evaluation, which is discussed below. A
transcript and report of each committee's consideration of the NPRM is
available in the docket.
During the May 4th meeting, one advisory committee member
questioned the appropriateness of the term ``generally corroded'' in
the first sentence of Sec. 195.416(f). This sentence reads: ``Any pipe
that is found to be generally corroded so that the remaining wall
thickness is less than the minimum thickness required by the pipe
specification tolerances must be replaced with coated pipe that meets
the requirements of this part.'' The member suggested that revising
this requirement to refer to pipe that has ``general corrosion'' would
clarify the meaning. In considering this suggestion, we found that the
terms ``generally corroded'' and ``general corrosion'' are used in
Secs. 192.485(a), 192.487(a), 195.416(f), and 195.418(d) to refer to
areas of corrosion other than corrosion pitting. Indeed, the two terms
are used interchangeably in Sec. 192.487(a). Given the common intended
meaning of both terms, which our experience indicates is universally
understood and applied in the pipeline industry, and the lack of any
compliance difficulty caused by the term ``generally corroded,'' we
decided not to adopt the member's suggested change to Sec. 195.416(f).
As discussed above under Leak Repairs, Duke Energy, CMS Energy, and
Enron suggested that the proposed performance standard is suitable for
leaking as well as non-leaking defects. To help us assess this comment,
at the November 4, 1999, TPSSC meeting in Washington, DC, we asked the
TPSSC for advice on whether we should add the performance standard to
Sec. 192.717, which prescribes repair methods for leaks on gas
transmission lines. The TPSSC voted, with one abstention, to support
including the performance standard in Sec. 192.717. A transcript and
report of the TPSSC's consideration of this matter is available in the
docket.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
DOT does not consider this rulemaking to be a significant
regulatory action under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735; October 4, 1993), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has not reviewed this rulemaking document. Also, DOT does not consider
this rulemaking significant under its regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
[[Page 69664]]
The final rules provide operators flexibility to choose the most
cost-effective method of repairing pipe, while maintaining public
safety. Thus, the rules will not add costs to industry, government, or
the public. In fact, the rules should reduce operators' costs of
transporting oil and gas, and perhaps the price consumers pay for these
products. In comments on a proposed waiver to the Panhandle Eastern
Corporation (58 FR 13823; March 15, 1993), the American Gas Association
estimated that industry could save $6.5 million a year by using
composite wrap to repair corroded or damaged pipe. Although part of the
gas pipeline industry is already realizing these savings because of the
Panhandle and other waivers, the final rules will create a similar
opportunity for savings by the entire oil and gas pipeline industry.
And still more savings could possibly result from the use of innovative
technologies not covered by the waivers. In fact, this rulemaking
fosters the use and development of new repair technologies without
additional cost to the regulated industry. A Final Regulatory
Evaluation document is available for review in the docket.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rulemaking will not impose additional requirements on pipeline
operators, including small entities that operate regulated pipelines.
Rather, the rules offer operators the opportunity to use more
economical methods of repairing corroded or damaged pipe. Thus, this
rulemaking may reduce costs to operators, including small entities.
Based on the facts available about the expected impact of this
rulemaking, I certify, under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this rulemaking will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Executive Order 12612
This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on states,
on the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order
12612 (52 FR 41685; October 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that the
final rules do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
D. Executive Order 13084
The final rules have been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.''
Because the rules will not significantly or uniquely affect Indian
tribal governments, the funding and consultation requirements of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rulemaking contains no information collection that is subject
to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rulemaking will not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rulemaking.
G. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed the final rules for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We prepared an
Environmental Assessment (64 FR 16884; April 7, 1999) in which we
concluded that the proposed action would not significantly affect the
human environment because alternative repair methods would have to be
as reliable as those the pipeline safety regulations currently allow.
Thus any alternative method would provide the same level of pipe
protection that the current repair methods provide. Based on this
Environmental Assessment and no receipt of information showing
otherwise, we have prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
This FONSI has been made part of the docket.
H. Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems
Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates will, on
January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900.
This glitch, the Year 2000 Problem, could cause computers to stop
running or to start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 problem
poses a threat to the global economy in which Americans live and work.
With the help of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion,
federal agencies are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem
and to offer support. We do not want to impose new requirements that
would mandate business process changes when the resources necessary to
implement those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year
2000 Problem.
This rulemaking does not require business process changes or
require modifications to computer systems. Because this rulemaking does
not affect the ability of organizations to respond to the Year 2000
problem, we have not delayed the effectiveness of the final rules.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 192
Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 195
Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 are
amended as follows:
PART 192--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. In Sec. 192.309, paragraph (b) introductory text is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 192.309 Repair of steel pipe.
* * * * *
(b) Each of the following dents must be removed from steel pipe to
be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of 20 percent, or
more, of SMYS, unless the dent is repaired by a method that reliable
engineering tests and analyses show can permanently restore the
serviceability of the pipe:
* * * * *
3. Section 192.485(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 192.485 Remedial measures: Transmission lines.
(a) General corrosion. Each segment of transmission line with
general corrosion and with a remaining wall thickness less than that
required for the MAOP of the pipeline must be replaced or the operating
pressure reduced commensurate with the strength of the pipe based on
actual remaining wall thickness. However, corroded pipe may be repaired
by a method that reliable engineering tests and analyses show can
permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe. Corrosion pitting
so closely grouped as to affect the overall strength of the pipe is
considered general corrosion for the purpose of this paragraph.
* * * * *
4. Section 192.487(a) is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 69665]]
Sec. 192.487 Remedial measures: Distribution lines other than cast
iron or ductile iron lines.
(a) General corrosion. Except for cast iron or ductile iron pipe,
each segment of generally corroded distribution line pipe with a
remaining wall thickness less than that required for the MAOP of the
pipeline, or a remaining wall thickness less than 30 percent of the
nominal wall thickness, must be replaced. However, corroded pipe may be
repaired by a method that reliable engineering tests and analyses show
can permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe. Corrosion
pitting so closely grouped as to affect the overall strength of the
pipe is considered general corrosion for the purpose of this paragraph.
* * * * *
Sec. 192.711 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 192.711(b), remove ``Sec. 192.717(a)(3)'' and add
``Sec. 192.717(b)(3)'' in its place.
6. Section 192.713 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 192.713 Transmission lines: Permanent field repair of
imperfections and damages.
(a) Each imperfection or damage that impairs the serviceability of
pipe in a steel transmission line operating at or above 40 percent of
SMYS must be--
(1) Removed by cutting out and replacing a cylindrical piece of
pipe; or
(2) Repaired by a method that reliable engineering tests and
analyses show can permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe.
(b) Operating pressure must be at a safe level during repair
operations.
7. Section 192.717 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 192.717 Transmission lines: Permanent field repair of leaks.
Each permanent field repair of a leak on a transmission line must
be made by--
(a) Removing the leak by cutting out and replacing a cylindrical
piece of pipe; or
(b) Repairing the leak by one of the following methods:
(1) Install a full encirclement welded split sleeve of appropriate
design, unless the transmission line is joined by mechanical couplings
and operates at less than 40 percent of SMYS.
(2) If the leak is due to a corrosion pit, install a properly
designed bolt-on-leak clamp.
(3) If the leak is due to a corrosion pit and on pipe of not more
than 40,000 psi (267 Mpa) SMYS, fillet weld over the pitted area a
steel plate patch with rounded corners, of the same or greater
thickness than the pipe, and not more than one-half of the diameter of
the pipe in size.
(4) If the leak is on a submerged offshore pipeline or submerged
pipeline in inland navigable waters, mechanically apply a full
encirclement split sleeve of appropriate design.
(5) Apply a method that reliable engineering tests and analyses
show can permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe.
PART 195--[AMENDED]
8. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;
and 49 CFR 1.53.
9. Section 195.416(f) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.416 External corrosion control.
* * * * *
(f) Any pipe that is found to be generally corroded so that the
remaining wall thickness is less than the minimum thickness required by
the pipe specification tolerances must be replaced with coated pipe
that meets the requirements of this part. However, generally corroded
pipe need not be replaced if--
(1) The operating pressure is reduced to be commensurate with the
limits on operating pressure specified in this subpart, based on the
actual remaining wall thickness; or
(2) The pipe is repaired by a method that reliable engineering
tests and analyses show can permanently restore the serviceability of
the pipe.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC on December 8, 1999.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-32274 Filed 12-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
