[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 47 (Friday, March 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9415-9419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5489]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket No. PS-144; Notice-1]
Risk-Based Alternative to the Pressure Testing Older Hazardous
Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
invites representatives of industry, state, and local government, and
the public to an open meeting to discuss a proposal by the American
Petroleum Institute (API) for a risk-based alternative to the pressure
testing older hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines rule (see
Attachment). The purpose of this meeting is to obtain public views
before RSPA considers API's proposal.
DATES: The meeting will be held on March 25, 1996, from 1:00 p.m. to
5:00 p.m. Written comments, in duplicate, are due by April 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments in
duplicate to Dockets Unit, room 8421, Research and Special Programs
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, room 9230-34, Washington, DC.
Non-federal employee visitors are admitted into DOT headquarters
building through the southwest entrance at Seventh and E Streets, SW.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Israni, (202) 366-4571, regarding the subject matter of this
document, or the Dockets Unit (202) 366-5046, for copies of this
notice, the attachment or other material referenced in this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 7, 1994, RSPA issued a final rule
(59 FR 29379) requiring the hydrostatic pressure testing of certain
older hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. On June 23, 1995,
API filed a petition on behalf of many liquid pipeline operators
expressing strong concerns about the pressure testing rule in its
present form and proposing a risk-based alternative to the pressure
testing rule. API argued that its proposal would allow operators to
focus resources for a greater reduction in the overall risk from
pipeline accidents. In addition, RSPA has received a few requests for
waivers of compliance with the June 7, 1994, final rule.
[[Page 9416]]
RSPA wants to carefully evaluate the API proposal because RSPA has
been working actively with the pipeline industry to develop a risk
management framework for pipeline regulations. RSPA realizes that
substantial planning is required before pressure testing of older
pipelines. Operators need time to prepare pipeline systems for testing
and to arrange for personnel and equipment to conduct the tests. System
changes and actual testing must be coordinated with operations to
minimize the impact on refineries, distributors, and users of the
transported products. Also, operators need time to assure that testing
is done safely, with the least environmental risk, and in accordance
with applicable Federal and State regulations. Therefore, RSPA issued a
notice (60 FR 54328; October 23, 1995) of an extension of the time for
compliance to allow for evaluation of the API petition.
On January 31, 1996, RSPA held a meeting with the representatives
of API to explore technical details of the API's proposal. Main
features of the API's risk-based proposal are as follows:
(a) Highest priority is given to the highest risk facilities;
lowest risk facilities are excepted;
(b) Consequence factors such as location, product type, and release
potential are taken into consideration when setting testing priorities;
(c) Best available technology is applied to verify pipeline
integrity; and
(d) Timing of tests is based on risk.
It is important to note that current rule does not require any
continuing effort to reassess the pipeline; however, under API's risk-
based alternative, the operator may be obliged to reassess the risk
classification on a continuing basis.
It should also be noted that in the API's risk-based proposal,
there may be many pipelines that would not be hydrostatically tested.
Those pipelines that pose the lowest risks would be excepted from
testing. API's proposal provides for an alternative to hydrostatic
testing in most cases where testing would be required. The alternative
would be internal inspection using ``smart pigs.''
RSPA is concerned that the risk classifications in API's proposal
do not specifically account for the probability of pipeline failures.
RSPA is suggesting that this could be remedied by including
consideration of the history of past failures for a particular pipeline
system in the API proposal. The following versions of API Tables have
been modified by RSPA to suggest such an approach.
Table 2.--Risk Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probability
Hazard location of failure Product/volume Risk
indicator indicator indicator classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H Any.......... Any combination...... C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H............ H/H.................. C
M M............ Any combination...... B
L............ L/L.................. A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H............ H/H.................. B
L M............ Any combination...... B
L............ L/L.................. A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H=High, M=Moderate, L=Low.
Table 6.--Probability of Failure Indicators (in each haz. location)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator Failure history (Time-Dependent Defects)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H Release >1000 bbls in last 5 years.
M 1 or more reportable incidents in last 5
years.
L 0 reportable incidents in last 5 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The API's proposal on risk-based alternative to the pressure
testing rule is attached to this notice. RSPA is seeking comment on any
of the above-described matters.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 4, 1996.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
[[Page 9417]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR96.005
BILLING CODE 4910-60-C
[[Page 9418]]
API'S RISK-BASED ALTERNATIVE TO THE HYDROTEST RULE
Note: Italicized comments are included in order to help clarify
the accompanying text of this proposed alternative to the Hydrotest
Rule.
Risk-Based Hydrotest Rule
All previously grandfathered Class B and Class C pipeline segments,
and Class A pipeline segments containing ``High Hazard'' pre-1970 ERW
pipe shall either:
1. Show that a past pressure test has been completed. (Proof of a
past pressure test has been demonstrated when records can be (recording
charts, logs, applicable test specifications, employee or inspector log
books or other company or project records made at the time of the test
and which result directly from that test), the preponderance of which
substantiates a successfully completed past test at 125% of the maximum
operation pressure); or
2. Re-establish a maximum operating pressure at 80% of the highest
operating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for more than
four or more continuous hours, which can be demonstrated by recording
charts or logs made at the time the operations were conducted; or
3. Re-establish a maximum operating pressure in accordance with
Subpart E--Pressure Testing and Table 1.
All previously grandfathered Class A pipeline segments that do not
contain ``High Hazard'' pre-1970 ERW pipe and non-HVL pipelines which
operate at less than 20% of SMYS are excepted from the above
requirements. See Tables 2-5 for definitions of Class A, B, and C
facilities. For the purposes of this rule, all pipeline segments
containing ``High Hazard'' pre-1970 ERW pipe and considered a Class C
or B facility shall be treated as the top priority for testing because
of the higher risk which may exist due to susceptibility to
longitudinal seam failures.
In all cases, operators should periodically review their facilities
in order to reassess the classification which has been designated.
Pipeline failures, changes in the characteristics of the pipeline
route, or changes in service should all trigger a reassessment of the
originally designated classification.
API's Risk-Based Alternative to the Hydrotest Rule
**Comment: The following Table defines 4 levels of test
requirements depending on the inherent risk of a given pipeline
segment. The overall risk classification is determined based on the
type of pipe involved, the facility's location, the product
transported, and the relative volume of flow as determined from Tables
2-5.**
Table 1.--Test Requirements--Mainline Segments Outside of Terminals, Stations, and Tank Farms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Segment Classification Test deadline \1\ Test medium
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``High Hazard'' Pre-70 Pipeline Class C or B........... 3 yrs \3\............. Water only.
Segments.\2\
Class A................ 5 yrs \3\............. Water only.
All Other Pipeline Segments......... Class C................ 5 yrs \4\............. Water only.
Class B................ 9 yrs \4\............. Water/Liq. \5\
Class A................ Additional pressure
testing not required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If operational experience indicates a history of past failures for a particular pipeline system, failure
causes shall be reviewed to determine whether the timing of the pressure test should be accelerated.
\2\ All pre-1970 ERW pipeline segments may not require testing. All pre-1970 ERW pipe is not subject to the same
susceptibility to longitudinal seam failures. In determining which ERW pipeline segments should be included in
this category, operators should consider such factors as: the seam-related leak history of the pipe and pipe
manufacturing information as available, which may include the pipe steel's mechanical properties, including
fracture toughness; the manufacturing process and controls related to seam properties, including whether the
ERW process was high-frequency or low-frequency, whether the weld seam was heat treated, whether the seam was
inspected, the test pressure and duration during mill hydrotest; the cleanliness and quality control of the
steel-making process; and, other factors pertinent to seam properties and quality.
\3\ For those pipeline operators with extensive mileage of pre-1970 ERW pipe, any waiver requests for timing
relief should be supported by an assessment of hazards in accordance with location, product, and volume
considerations consistent with Tables 3, 4, and 5.
\4\ A magnetic flux leakage or ultrasonic internal inspection survey may be utilized as an alternative to
hydrotesting where leak history and operating experience do not indicate leaks caused by longitudinal cracks
or seam failure.
\5\ Pressure tests utilizing a hydrocarbon liquid may be conducted, but only with a liquid which does not
vaporize rapidly.
API's Risk-Based Alternative to the Hydrotest Rule
**Comment: Using LOCATION, PRODUCT, and VOLUME ``Indicators'' from
Tables 3, 4 and 5, the overall risk classification of a given pipeline
or pipeline segment can be established from Table 2. The LOCATION
Indicator is the primary factor which determines overall risk, with the
PRODUCT and VOLUME Indicators used to adjust to a higher or lower
overall risk classification per the following table.**
Table 2.--Facility Classification--Pipeline Segments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location indicator Product/Volume Indicators Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H................. Any combination................. Class C.
H/H............................. Class C.
M................. All other combinations.......... Class B.
L/L............................. Class A.
L................. H/H............................. Class B.
All other combinations.......... Class A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For Location and Product/Volume Indicators, see Tables 3,
4 and 5.
Risk-Based Alternative to the Hydrotest Rule
**Comment: Tables 4 and 5 are used to establish the PRODUCT and
VOLUME Indicators used in Table 2. The PRODUCT Indicator is selected
from Table 4 as H, M, or L based on the acute and chronic hazards
associated with
[[Page 9419]]
the product transported. The VOLUME Indicator is selected from Table 5
as H, M, or L based on the nominal diameter of the pipeline.**
Table 4.--Product Indicators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator Considerations Product examples
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H................... Highly volatile and Propane, butane, NGL,
flammable. ammonia.
Highly toxic............ Benzene, high H2S
content crude oils.
M................... Flammable--flashpoint<10 gasoline,="" jp4,="" low="" 0f.="" flashpoint="" crude="" oils.="" l...................="" non-flammable--="" diesel,="" fuel,="" oil,="" flashpoint="" 100+f.="" kerosene,="" jp5,="" most="" crude="" oils.="" highly="" volatile="" and="" non-="">2
flammable/non-toxic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considerations: The degree of acute and chronic toxicity to humans,
wildlife, and aquatic life; reactivity; and, volatility, flammability
and water solubility determine the Product Indicator. CERCLA RQ
(Reportable Quantity) values can be used as an indication of chronic
toxicity. NPA health factors can be used for rating acute hazards.
Table 5.--Volume Indicators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator Line size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.................................... 18''
M.................................... 10''-16'' nominal diameters.
L.................................... 8'' nominal diameter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
API'S Risk-Based Alternative to The Hydrotest Rule
**Comment: Table 3 is used to establish the LOCATION indicator used
in Table 2. Based on the population (and possibly, in the future,
environmental) characteristics associated with a pipeline facility's
location, a LOCATION Indicator of H, M or L is selected. Please note
that the identification of those areas which are unusually sensitive to
environmental damage (which will affect these LOCATION Indicators) is
currently being addressed by OPS. These deliberations will determine
the final characterizations of Environment LOCATION Indicators.
Table 3.--Location Indicators--Pipeline Segments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator Population\1\ Environment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H..................... Non-rural areas...... Currently, only
population (rural or non-
rural) will determine
the LOCATION indicator.
Once a definition of
``unusually sensitive
areas'' has been
established, the higher
of the Population or
Environment Indicator
will determine the
overall LOCATION
Indicator.
M..................... ..................... See above.
L..................... Rural areas.......... See above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pipeline segments transporting highly volatile or toxic products
should consider the effects of potential vapor migration.
[FR Doc. 96-5489 Filed 3-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
