[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16882-16885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8574]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
[Docket No. RSPA-98-4733; Notice 1]
RIN 2137-AD25
Pipeline Safety: Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Repair
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to adopt 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 proposed standard would
encourage technological innovations and reduce repair costs without
reducing safety.
DATES: Submit written comments by June 7, 1999.
ADDRESSES: All comments should identify the docket number and title of
this action, which are stated above in the heading. Comments may be
mailed or delivered to the Docket Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room #PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20590-0001. The original and two copies should be submitted. Persons
who want confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-addressed
stamped postcard. Comments may also be e-mailed to
ops.comments@rspa.dot.gov in ASCII or text format. The Dockets Facility
is open from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on
Federal holidays when the facility is closed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow at (202)366-4559 or
furrowl@rspa.dot.gov. Comments may be read on the internet at http://
dms.dot.gov. General information about RSPA's pipeline safety program
can be obtained at http://ops.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Current Pipeline Repair Safety Standards
If a pipeline operator discovers an unsafe pipe dent during the
construction of a steel gas transmission line or main to be operated at
20 percent or more of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), DOT
safety standards require that the operator remove the dent by cutting
out the damaged piece of pipe as a cylinder (49 CFR 192.309(b)). This
repair requirement does not allow operators to use new or more
innovative technologies to repair the dent.
One of the DOT maintenance standards for steel gas transmission
lines operating at 40 percent or more of SMYS similarly disallows the
use of new technologies (49 CFR 192.713). Under this standard, if an
operator discovers an imperfection or damage to pipe that impairs the
serviceability of the line, the operator must either replace the pipe
or repair it by installing a full encirclement split sleeve of
appropriate design. Although this standard permits operators to use two
widely-accepted methods of pipe repair, because it prescribes methods
of repair rather than what the repair should accomplish, the standard
lacks
[[Page 16883]]
flexibility. It denies operators the opportunity to take advantage of
innovative repair methods. It also discourages operators from
developing new repair methods that may be more economical.
Some DOT safety standards governing the repair of corroded pipe
also lack flexibility: If a gas transmission line has a large area of
general corrosion that has reduced the pipe wall below the thickness
required for the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), the
corroded pipe must be replaced, unless its operating pressure is
reduced (49 CFR 192.485(a)). In gas distribution pipelines, such
corroded pipe must be replaced (49 CFR 192.487(a)). In hazardous liquid
or carbon dioxide pipelines, such pipe must be replaced unless the
operating pressure is reduced (49 CFR 195.416(f)).
All these repair standards were based on recommended industry
practices in vogue over 30 years ago. The 1968 edition of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31.8 Code was the basis for
Secs. 192.309(b) and 192.713, while Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.487(a)
were based on the 1969 edition of the National Association of Corrosion
Engineers Standard RP-01-69. Section 195.416(f) was based on a
comparable provision of the 1966 edition of the ASME B31.4 Code. Since
then, the DOT standards based on these practices have not kept pace
with changes in technology.
Performance Oriented Standards and Recent Waivers
For steel pipe not subject to repair restrictions under
Secs. 192.309(b), 192.485(a), 192.487(a), 192.713, or 195.416(f),
operators may and do use methods besides pipe replacement and split
sleeves to repair corroded or damaged steel pipe. These methods include
composite pipe wraps, grinding, hot tapping, and weld deposition. For
example, a gouge that impairs the serviceability of a steel gas
transmission line operating at less than 40 percent of SMYS is not
covered by Sec. 192.713. This defect would be subject to the less
restrictive repair requirement of Sec. 192.703(b), which allows repair
by any method that returns the pipe to a safe condition.
In recent years, various pipeline operators have sought relief from
the requirement to repair high-stress steel gas transmission lines by
the traditional methods of pipe replacement or installation of full-
encirclement split sleeves. These operators wanted to use a new repair
system called Clock Spring to simplify and reduce the
average cost of repairs. 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
(GRI), when properly installed, the system permanently restores the
pressure containing capability of the pipe.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on GRI's field and laboratory performance data, we concluded
that this new technology provides at least the same level of safety on
high-stress transmission lines as pipe replacement or a full-
encirclement split sleeve. Therefore, we granted the operators'
requests by waiving the applicable requirements.2 No
problems involving installations under the waivers have been reported.
Moreover, GRI's inspection of a statistical sample of installations
under the waivers did not show any evidence of creep, degradation, or
loss of reinforcement.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ First we granted the Panhandle Eastern Corporation a waiver
of Sec. 192.713(a) to install Clock Spring over six
corrosion anomalies on Line #2 in Ohio, subject to certain
monitoring and reporting conditions (58 FR 13823; March 15, 1993).
Then we granted 28 interstate operators and their subsidiaries a
waiver of Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.713(a) to install Clock
Spring on transmission line pipe operating at 40 percent
or more of SMYS, provided the operators follow the manufacturer's
installation procedures, use GRIWrap (a computer program
that determines if a defect is suitable for Clock Spring
repair), participate in GRI's evaluation plan, notify us and state
interstate agents of planned installations, and use trained
installers (60 FR 10630; February 27, 1995). Next we extended the
February 27th waiver to include six more interstate operators (60 FR
47800; September 14, 1995). Subsequently, we authorized a few
additional interstate operators to apply the February 27th waiver,
and we approved similar waivers granted intrastate operators by
state pipeline safety agencies in Illinois, Wyoming, and Minnesota.
\3\ D. R. Stephens, op. cit., p. 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposal
To add flexibility to Secs. 192.309(b), 192.485(a), 192.487(a),
192.713, and 195.416(f), we are proposing to allow operators to use
repair methods that meet a performance standard. The proposed standard
is that the method must be able to ``permanently restore the
serviceability of the pipe.'' We chose this wording because it
describes the result expected from replacing damaged pipe or installing
a full-encirclement split sleeve over the damage to pipe. We expect at
least the same result from a qualified alternative repair method.
As to the permanency of repair, we are not suggesting that the
repair should last indefinitely. It need last only as long as the pipe
is expected to last under normal operating and maintenance conditions.
Whether a particular repair method will restore the serviceability
of the pipe depends on the loading the repaired pipe must support.
Sometimes pipe and particularly pipe joints are subjected to
significant longitudinal forces imposed by external loads. Where
longitudinal forces are a design consideration, a repair method that
structurally serves only to contain internal pressure might not suffice
to restore the serviceability of the pipe. On the other hand, if
longitudinal forces are not a design consideration, a repair method
that restores the pressure containing capability of the pipe would
restore its serviceability.
We are also proposing that a qualified repair method must have
undergone ``reliable engineering tests and analyses'' to confirm that
the method meets the performance standard. We do not believe it
necessary to propose guidelines for these tests and analyses because of
the widespread use of alternative repair methods without reports of
failures. So the tests and analyses need only be what a reasonable and
prudent professional engineer would consider adequate to demonstrate
compliance with the performance standard.
The proposed change to Sec. 192.309(b) merely adds the performance
standard to the end of the introductory clause. Operators would then
have the option of either removing or repairing the described dents.
In Secs. 192.485(a), 192.487(a), and 195.416(f), the proposed
performance standard would take the place of present wording that
allows the repair of small areas of general corrosion. Consequently,
any corroded area, large or small, could be repaired as long as the
repair method meets the performance standard. The primary purpose of
this change would be to allow the repair of large corroded areas. But
we are proposing to apply the proposed performance standard to small
corroded areas as well because of the difficulty of distinguishing
between small and large areas. Also, current methods being used to
repair small corroded areas readily qualify under the proposed
performance standard.
As for Sec. 192.713, besides including the proposed performance
standard, we are proposing to remove the sentences specifically
allowing repair by full-encirclement split sleeves (paragraphs (a)(2)
and (b)). This well-established repair method readily qualifies under
the proposed performance standard.
In addition, we are proposing to drop the priority that
Sec. 192.713 now gives to
[[Page 16884]]
repair by replacement whenever it is feasible to take a damaged
pipeline out of service. We know of no compelling safety reason to
justify this priority, and it does not permit the use of other
qualified, more economical repair methods while a pipeline is shut
down. For regulatory consistency, we would also remove a similar
replacement priority from Sec. 192.717, which governs the repair of
leaks.
Finally, we are proposing to terminate the requirement under
Secs. 192.713(a)(1) and 192.717(a)(1) that replacement pipe have
``similar or greater design strength'' than the pipe being replaced.
This qualification, which does not apply to the replacement of corroded
pipe under Secs. 192.485, 192.487, or 195.416, may result in an overly
conservative design that is unnecessary for current operations. The
safety of all replacement pipe in gas transmission lines is otherwise
governed by the material, design, construction, and testing
requirements of Part 192.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not consider this
proposed rulemaking 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 rulemaking document. DOT does not
consider this proposed rulemaking significant under its regulatory
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
The proposed rule changes would provide operators flexibility to
choose the most cost-effective method of repairing pipe, while
maintaining public safety. Thus, the changes would not add costs to
industry, government, or the public. In fact, the proposed changes
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, 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,\4\ the proposed changes would
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. This
proposed rulemaking fosters the use and development of new repair
technologies without additional cost to the regulated industry. A
regulatory evaluation document is available for review in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The proposed rule changes would not impose additional requirements
on pipeline operators, including small entities that operate regulated
pipelines. Rather, the proposed changes would offer operators the
opportunity to use more economical methods of repairing corroded or
damaged pipe. Thus, this proposal may reduce costs to operators,
including small entities. Based on the facts available about the
anticipated impact of this proposed rulemaking, I certify, pursuant to
Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this
proposed rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Executive Order 13084
The proposed 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 proposed rules would not significantly or uniquely affect
the Indian tribal governments, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rulemaking contains no information collection that is
subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would 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 would be the least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
F. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed the proposed rule changes for purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Because the
changes would require that alternative repair methods be as safe as the
methods now allowed, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed
changes would not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. An environmental assessment document is available for
review in the docket.
G. 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 notice of proposed rulemaking does not propose business
process changes or require modifications to computer systems. Because
this notice apparently does not affect the ability of organizations to
respond to the Year 2000 problem, we do not intend to delay the
effectiveness of the rule changes proposed in this notice.
H. Executive Order 12612
This action would 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 proposed rules do not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
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, we propose to amend 49 CFR parts
192 and 195 as follows:
PART 192--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 16885]]
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 would be
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 can
permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe, as shown by
reliable engineering tests and analyses:
* * * * *
3. Section 192.485(a) would be 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 can permanently restore the serviceability of the
pipe, as shown by reliable engineering tests and analyses. 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) would be revised to read as follows:
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 can
permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe, as shown by
reliable engineering tests and analyses. Corrosion pitting so closely
grouped as to affect the overall strength of the pipe is considered
general corrosion for the purpose of this paragraph.
* * * * *
5. Section 192.713 would be 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 can permanently restore the
serviceability of the pipe, as shown by reliable engineering tests and
analyses.
(b) Operating pressure must be reduced to a safe level during
repair operations.
6. In 192.717, paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (a)(2) introductory
text would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 192.717 Transmission lines: Permanent field repair of leaks.
(a) * * *
(1) Remove the leak by cutting out and replacing a cylindrical
piece of pipe.
(2) Install a full encirclement welded split sleeve of appropriate
design, unless the transmission line:
* * * * *
PART 195--[AMENDED]
7. 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.
8. Section 195.416(f) would be 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 can permanently restore
the serviceability of the pipe, as shown by reliable engineering tests
and analyses.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 1, 1999.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 99-8574 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
