[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9993-9996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5115]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket No. PS-117; Notice 4]
RIN 2137-AC87
Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Serving Plants and
Terminals
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes to exclude from RSPA's safety regulations
for hazardous liquid pipelines low-stress pipelines regulated for
safety by the U.S. Coast Guard and certain low-stress pipelines less
than one mile long serving plants and terminals. Difficulties involving
compliance with RSPA's regulations do not appear warranted by risk and
may cause operating errors that impair safety. It is RSPA's policy
toward effective government to eliminate duplicative and unnecessarily
burdensome regulations.
DATES: RSPA invites interested persons to submit comments by close of
business April 28, 1998. Late comments will be considered as far as
practicable.
ADDRESSES: Send comments in duplicate to the Dockets Unit, Room 8421,
Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Comments
should identify the docket and the notice number stated in the heading
of this notice. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of
their comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. All
comments and docketed material will be available for inspection and
copying in Room 8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. each business day.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow at (202) 366-4559 or
furrowl@rspa.dot.gov. For copies of this notice or other material in
the docket, contact the Dockets Unit at (202) 366-5046.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
When RSPA's safety regulations for hazardous liquid 1
pipelines (49 CFR part 195) were first published, the regulations did
not apply to low-stress pipelines 2 (34 FR 15473; Oct. 4,
1969). In recent years, however, during a time of increased
environmental awareness, critical accidents involving low-stress
pipelines led Congress to restrict DOT's discretion to except these
lines from regulation. So, in an amendment to the pipeline safety laws,
Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation not to except from
regulation a hazardous liquid pipeline facility only because the
facility operates at low internal stress (49 U.S.C. Sec. 60102(k)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Hazardous liquid'' means petroleum, petroleum products, or
anhydrous ammonia.
\2\ ``Low-stress pipeline'' means a hazardous liquid pipeline
that is operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or
less of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of the line
pipe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to this change in the law, RSPA extended the Part 195
regulations to cover certain low-stress pipelines (Docket No. PS-117;
59 FR 35465; July 12, 1994). Except for onshore rural gathering lines
and gravity-powered lines, the following categories of low-stress
pipelines were brought under the regulations: pipelines that transport
highly volatile liquids, pipelines located onshore and outside rural
areas, pipelines located offshore, and pipelines located in waterways
that are currently used for commercial navigation (Sec. 195.1(b)(3)).
Because the rulemaking record showed that many low-stress pipelines
probably were not operated and maintained consistent with Part 195
requirements, operators were allowed to delay compliance of their
existing lines until July 12, 1996 (Sec. 195.1(c)).
II. Interfacility Transfer Lines
A. Description
The largest proportion of low-stress pipelines brought under Part
195 consisted of interfacility transfer lines (about two-thirds of the
pipelines and one-third of the overall mileage). The remainder included
trunk lines and gathering lines located outside rural areas.
Interfacility transfer lines move hazardous liquids locally between
facilities such as truck, rail, and vessel transportation terminals,
manufacturing plants (including petrochemical plants), and oil
refineries, or between these facilities and associated storage or long-
distance pipeline transportation.3 The lines usually are
short, averaging about a mile in length. Typically they are operated in
association with other transfer piping on the grounds of the industrial
plants and terminals they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The interfacility transfer lines did not include piping that
connect high-stress pipelines with surge tanks located at plants and
terminals. This piping was already subject to the part 195
regulations as part of the pipeline systems for which the tanks
relieve surges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Related Federal Regulations
Segments of interfacility transfer lines located on the grounds of
industrial plants and transportation terminals are subject to the
Process Safety Management regulations of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.119). These regulations,
which involve hazard analysis and control, operating and maintenance
procedures, and personnel training, are intended to reduce the risk of
fires and explosions caused by the escape of hazardous chemicals from
facility processes.
Although on-grounds segments of interfacility transfer lines
generally are excepted from Part 195 (Sec. 195.1(b) (6) and
(7)),4 the on-grounds segment and regulated off-grounds
segment of a line function together as a unit. Thus, OSHA's Process
Safety Management regulations, though applicable only to on-grounds
segments, affect the operation of off-grounds segments. And, similarly,
compliance with part 195 for off-grounds segments affects operation of
the unregulated on-grounds segments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Segments of interfacility transfer lines on plant or
terminal grounds are subject to Part 195 if the segment connects a
regulated pipeline (including off-grounds segments of interfacility
transfer lines) to a surge tank or other device necessary to control
the operating pressure of the regulated pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, most transfer lines between vessels and marine
transportation-related facilities are subject to safety regulations of
the U.S. Coast Guard (33 CFR parts 154 and 156). The Coast Guard
applies these regulations to transfers of hazardous liquid from the
dock loading arm or manifold up to the first valve after the line
enters the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
containment or secondary containment if the facilities are not
protected by SPCC plans.
C. Compliance Difficulties
Information we received in response to Notice 1 of Docket PS-117
(55 FR 45822; Oct. 31, 1990) showed that bringing interfacility
transfer lines into full compliance with part 195 would be difficult
for many operators. The primary difficulty is that their lines are not
installed and operated on the basis of part 195 standards. For example,
[[Page 9994]]
considering the short length and low operating stress of the lines,
additional pipe wall thickness is often used instead of cathodic
protection to resist expected corrosion. But, regardless of this
feature, under part 195, cathodic protection systems would have to be
developed and installed as required. Other part 195 requirements that
may not bring commensurate benefits for short, low-stress transfer
lines involve modifying operations and maintenance manuals, installing
pressure control equipment, and establishing programs to carry out drug
and alcohol rules under 49 CFR part 199. Also, operating personnel
would have to be trained to carry out part 195 requirements.
After publication of the Final Rule in Docket PS-117, we learned
about another significant compliance difficulty. Transfer line
operators and their representatives said that coping with the separate
federal regulatory regimes of RSPA, OSHA, and the Coast Guard over
transfer lines was a strain on resources. As explained above, OSHA's
Process Safety Management regulations and RSPA's part 195 standards
have an overlapping effect on operation of interfacility transfer
lines. This overlap results in analogous administrative costs for
records, procedures, and manuals. Worse yet it creates opportunities
for mistakes when operating personnel have to meet different
requirements with similar objectives.
For transfers between vessels and marine transportation-related
facilities, the Coast Guard safety regulations compound the RSPA-OSHA
overlap problem. Moreover, applying part 195 to these marine terminal
transfer lines duplicates agency efforts within DOT. It also leaves the
industry uncertain which DOT safety standards apply to particular
facilities. So the upshot of these separate regulatory regimes of RSPA,
OSHA, and the Coast Guard is not only the added costs of meeting
separate requirements directed at similar safety objectives, but also
possible confusion of operating personnel.
The low-stress pipeline regulations also present RSPA and its
cooperating State agencies with related compliance difficulties.
Carrying out adequate compliance inspections on interfacility transfer
lines would require a significant increase in resources. We estimate
that about 11,000 miles of low-stress pipelines are now under part 195,
with over a third of the mileage composed of short interfacility
transfer lines. Just the job of finding and educating the many
operators of these short lines would likely be a major, protracted
effort.
D. Stay of Enforcement
We weighed these industry and government compliance difficulties
against the need for risk reduction on low-stress interfacility
transfer lines. Our conclusion was that the potential benefits of
complying with part 195 do not justify the compliance difficulties if
the line is short and does not cross an offshore area or a commercially
navigable waterway, or if the line is regulated by the Coast Guard.
There were several reasons for this decision. First, RSPA's pipeline
safety data do not show that short interfacility transfer lines have
been a source of significant safety problems. Another reason was that
the low operating hoop stress of interfacility transfer lines is itself
a safeguard against several accident causes. And, from the consequence
perspective, a short length means the potential spill volume would be
limited should an accident occur. Also, public exposure is typically
limited in the industrial areas where most low-stress interfacility
transfer lines are located. For marine transfer lines, the risk is
reduced even further by the Coast Guard regulations and inspection
force. At the same time, except for Coast Guard regulated lines, the
potential of transfer lines crossing offshore or a commercially
navigable waterway to cause environmental harm tipped the scale toward
continued compliance with part 195.
In view of the above considerations, we became concerned that the
continued application of part 195 to Coast Guard regulated lines and
other short interfacility transfer lines not crossing an offshore area
or a commercially navigable waterway was not in the public interest.
Consequently, we announced a stay of enforcement of part 195 against
these lines (61 FR 24245; May 14, 1996). The stay applies to low-stress
pipelines that are regulated by the Coast Guard or that extend less
than 1 mile outside plant or terminal grounds without crossing an
offshore area or any waterway currently used for commercial navigation.
The stay will remain in effect until modified or until the part 195
regulations are finally revised as a result of the present action.
Since announcement of the stay, we have not received any request to
lift it. More important, we have explained this new enforcement policy
at two public meetings of the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Safety Advisory Committee, a statutory panel that reviews RSPA's
pipeline safety program. We also explained our plan to revise the part
195 regulations consistent with the stay. Neither the Committee members
nor the public attendees raised any significant objection to the
enforcement policy or planned rule change. Further, State agencies who
cooperate with RSPA in enforcing safety standards over interfacility
transfer lines have not objected to the stay.
E. Direct Final Rule
Following publication of the stay of enforcement, we issued a
direct final rule to expand the low-stress pipeline exclusion under
Sec. 195.1(b)(3) to include interfacility transfer lines that are
covered by the stay (62 FR 31364; June 9, 1997).
The direct final rule changed Sec. 195.1(b)(3) to read as follows:
(b) This part does not apply to--
* * * * *
(3) Transportation through the following low-stress pipelines:
(i) An onshore pipeline or pipeline segment that--
(A) Does not transport HVL;
(B) Is located in a rural area; and
(C) Is located outside a waterway currently used for commercial
navigation;
(ii) A pipeline subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast
Guard; and
(iii) A pipeline that serves refining, manufacturing, or truck,
rail, or vessel terminal facilities, if the pipeline is less than 1
mile long (measured outside facility grounds) and does not cross an
offshore area or a waterway currently used for commercial
navigation;
* * * * *
The procedures governing issuance of direct final rules are in 49
CFR 190.339. These procedures provide for public notice and opportunity
for comment subsequent to publication of a direct final rule. They also
provide that if an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an
adverse comment is received, RSPA will issue a timely notice in the
Federal Register to confirm that fact and withdraw the direct final
rule in whole or in part. Under the procedures, RSPA may then
incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or
may publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.
Four persons submitted comments on the direct final rule: American
Petroleum Institute (API), California Department of Fish and Game
(CDF&G), California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), and
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). API made an editorial
comment, while CIPA and WSPA argued that the direct final rule should
be expanded to also exclude from part 195 short low-stress pipelines
serving production shipping facilities in urban areas.
However, CDF&G opposed the direct final rule. This State agency
contended the Coast Guard's regulations are not an
[[Page 9995]]
adequate substitute for RSPA's because the Coast Guard regulations do
not specify a hold time for pressure tests, do not apply to transfer
lines that only serve small vessels (less than 250 barrels of cargo
capacity), and do not require cathodic protection to guard against
corrosion. CDF&G also said the exclusion of short plant and terminal
transfer lines should apply only if a discharge would not impact marine
waters of the United States.
Because of the adverse comment from CDF&G, we withdrew the direct
final rule (62 FR 52511; October 8, 1997). As a result,
Sec. 195.1(b)(3) remains as it was before issuance of the direct final
rule. In the withdrawal notice, we said we would follow up the
withdrawal with a notice of proposed rulemaking based on the direct
final rule and the comments we received on it. The present action is
that notice of proposed rulemaking.
F. Proposed Rule
In commenting on the direct final rule, API suggested we clarify
that a low-stress pipeline would be excluded from part 195 if it comes
under any one of the three categories of excluded low-stress pipelines
((i), lines previously excluded; (ii), lines subject to Coast Guard
regulations; and (iii), certain lines serving plants and terminals).
API further suggested that replacing the word ``and'' between
categories (ii) and (iii) with the word ``or'' would accomplish this
objective. In addition to adopting this comment, to avoid any further
misunderstanding, we are proposing to modify the introductory phrase of
Sec. 195.1(b)(3) to read ``transportation through any of the following
low-stress pipelines.''
CIPA and WSPA argued that our rationale for excluding certain short
transfer lines serving refineries, manufacturing plants, and truck,
rail, or vessel terminals applies equally to similar transfer lines
serving production shipping facilities in urban areas. These two
commenters also said that until the direct final rule was published,
many of their members thought the stay of enforcement covered these
transfer lines (otherwise known as gathering lines) located in urban
areas because of the reference to low-stress pipelines outside
``plant'' grounds in the operative words of the stay.
Despite the parallels these commenters drew, we are not proposing
to exclude from part 195 short low-stress pipelines serving production
shipping facilities in urban areas. First of all, we never intended the
stay to apply to urban gathering lines.5 Our notice of the
stay discussed part 195 compliance problems associated with short
transfer lines that interconnect refineries; manufacturing plants;
petrochemical plants; truck, rail, or vessel transportation terminals;
and long-distance pipelines. It is within this context that the term
``plant'' was used. Also, when the notice of the stay referred to
gathering lines, the context distinguished gathering lines from other
kinds of transfer lines. Moreover, the primary reason for the stay, as
well as the direct final rule, was the overlapping effect of part 195
and OSHA's Process Safety Management regulations (29 CFR 1910.119) on
plant and terminal transfer lines. However, these OSHA regulations do
not apply to oil production operations. So, although there may be
similarities between urban gathering lines and transfer lines covered
by the stay, the absence of an overlap with the OSHA regulations
significantly weakens CIPA's and WSPA's argument for excluding short
urban gathering lines from part 195. Not only do the OSHA regulations
not compound the difficulties these lines may have in meeting part 195,
neither can the OSHA regulations be counted on to lower the risk of the
lines. And this latter point is even more important because urban
gathering lines are not as likely to exist in uninhabited industrial
areas as are the transfer lines covered by the stay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Rural gathering lines are excluded from part 195 by
Sec. 195.1(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We share CDF&G's concern that any exclusion of plant and terminal
transfer lines not increase the risk to marine waters. But we do not
agree that the Coast Guard's regulations do not afford as much
protection as RSPA's. Although the Coast Guard's regulations do not
specify a hold time for pressure tests and do not require cathodic
protection, they do require that existing transfer lines be pressure
tested annually to at least 150 percent of the pipeline's maximum
allowable working pressure. This requirement is more rigorous than
RSPA's pressure testing standard (subpart E of part 195) for low-stress
pipelines. Not only does the RSPA standard exempt most existing low-
stress pipelines (49 CFR 195.302(b)(3)), low-stress transfer lines that
are subject to testing under the standard only have to be tested once
to no more than 125 percent of maximum operating pressure. We also
believe the higher safety margin of the Coast Guard test (50% above
maximum allowable working pressure) and the higher frequency of
testing, with on-scene Coast Guard inspection, makes the lack of a
cathodic protection requirement less important. As to the concern over
transfers to small capacity vessels, any low-stress marine transfer
lines that are not subject to Coast Guard regulations would continue to
be covered by part 195, unless they are otherwise excluded under
Sec. 195.1(b)(3).
In light of CDF&G's comment about the impact on marine waters of
plant and terminal transfer lines, we also considered broadening in
this notice the provision in the direct final rule that kept under part
195 short lines crossing offshore or commercially navigable waters. As
mentioned above, our reason for not excluding these short pipelines
from regulation was their potential for environmental harm. This
potential is increased by the presence of the lines in important water
resources and by the vulnerability of the lines to outside force
damage. In weighing the need for risk reduction against the
difficulties of compliance with part 195, we decided this increased
potential for environmental harm was reason enough to keep the lines
under part 195. CDF&G's suggestion to exclude short lines only if a
discharge would not impact marine waters would possibly keep even more
lines under part 195; for example, lines that are proximate to, but do
not cross, marine waters. But unlike lines crossing offshore or
commercially navigable waterways, we do not believe that as a whole
these additional short lines pose a level of risk that outweighs their
compliance difficulties. Therefore, the proposed rule would exclude
from part 195 the same low-stress pipelines that were covered by the
direct final rule.
III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not consider this
action to be a significant regulatory action under Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). Therefore, OMB
has not reviewed this final rule document. DOT does not consider this
action significant under its regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR
11034; February 26, 1979).
RSPA prepared a study of the costs and benefits of the Final Rule
that extended part 195 to cover certain low-stress pipelines (Final
Regulatory Evaluation, Docket No. PS-117). That study, which
encompassed short or Coast Guard regulated interfacility transfer
lines, showed that the Final Rule would result in net benefits to
society, with a benefit to cost ratio of 1.5.
[[Page 9996]]
The Final Regulatory Evaluation determined costs and benefits of
the Final Rule on a mileage basis. But while costs were evenly
distributed, most of the expected benefits were projected from accident
data that did not involve short or Coast Guard regulated interfacility
transfer lines. Since the present action affects only these lines, it
is reasonable to believe the action will reduce more costs than
benefits. Thus, the present action should enhance the net benefits of
the Final Rule. Because of this likely economic effect, a further
regulatory evaluation of the Final Rule in Docket No. PS-117 or of the
present action is not warranted.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Low stress interfacility transfer lines covered by the present
action are associated primarily with the operation of refineries,
petrochemical and other industrial plants, and materials transportation
terminals. In general, these facilities are not operated by small
entities. Nonetheless, even if small entities operate low-stress
interfacility transfer lines, their costs will be lower because this
action reduces compliance burdens. Therefore, based on the facts
available about the anticipated impact of this rulemaking action, I
certify, pursuant to Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605), that this rulemaking action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Executive Order 12612
RSPA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685). RSPA has
determined that the action does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action reduces the pipeline mileage and number of operators
subject to part 195. Consequently, it reduces the information
collection burden of part 195 that is subject to review by OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved the information
collection requirements of part 195 through May 31, 1999 (OMB No. 2137-
0047).
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 195 as follows:
PART 195--[AMENDED]
1. 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.
2. In Sec. 195.1, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is
republished, and paragraph (b)(3) would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) This part does not apply to--
* * * * *
(3) Transportation through any of the following low-stress
pipelines:
(i) An onshore pipeline or pipeline segment that--
(A) Does not transport HVL;
(B) Is located in a rural area; and
(C) Is located outside a waterway currently used for commercial
navigation;
(ii) A pipeline subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast
Guard; or
(iii) A pipeline that serves refining, manufacturing, or truck,
rail, or vessel terminal facilities, if the pipeline is less than 1
mile long (measured outside facility grounds) and does not cross an
offshore area or a waterway currently used for commercial navigation;
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, D.C. on February 23, 1998.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 98-5115 Filed 2-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
