[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16885-16889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8628]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
[Docket No. RSPA-97-2762; Notice 2]
RIN 2137-AD24
Pipeline Safety: Corrosion Control on Gas and Hazardous Liquid
Pipelines
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are considering the need to modify our corrosion control
standards for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. To start, we are
reviewing the gas standards to see if any need to be clarified, made
more effective, or upgraded to be consistent with modern safety
practices. The review will help us carry out the President's Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative and determine if rule changes are needed to
reduce the potential for corrosion-caused incidents. So far, we have
held a public meeting and met with knowledgeable persons from industry
and state regulatory agencies on the adequacy of the standards. Now, to
get feedback on the results of these efforts, interested persons are
invited to participate in a second public meeting and to submit written
comments on the matters discussed in this notice. The public meeting
will be in conjunction with the National Association of Corrosion
Engineers (NACE) 54th Annual Conference and Exhibition, CORROSION/99,
in San Antonio, Texas.
DATES: The public meeting will be on April 28, 1999, from 8:00 am to
12:00 noon at the Marriott Riverwalk Hotel in San Antonio, Texas. If
you want to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please notify
Jenny Donohue no later than April 23, 1999, by phone (202-366-4046) or
by Internet e-mail (donohuej@rspa.dot.gov), and indicate the
approximate length of your presentation. In addition, no later than
June 30, 1999, you may submit written comments by mailing or delivering
an original and two copies to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20590-0001. Or you may submit written comments to the docket
electronically. To do so, log on to the following Internet Web address:
http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' for instructions on
how to file a document electronically. All
[[Page 16886]]
written comments should identify the docket and notice numbers stated
in the heading of this notice. Anyone who wants confirmation of mailed
comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Late filed
comments will be considered so far as practicable.
ADDRESSES: The Marriott Riverwalk Hotel is located at 101 Bowie Street,
San Antonio, TX 78205, phone: (210) 223-1000. The Dockets Facility is
located on the plaza level of the Nassiff Building, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC. It is open from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays when it is closed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Lopez by phone at 713-718-3956
or by Internet e-mail at richard.lopez@rspa.dot.gov. You can read
comments and other material in the docket (RSPA-97-2762) at this
Internet Web address: http://dms.dot.gov. General information about our
pipeline safety program is available at this Internet Web address:
http://ops.dot.gov. Graphs showing the rate of pipeline incidents due
to corrosion will also be posted at that Web address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Outside-force damage and corrosion are, respectively, the number
one and number two causes of reported incidents on gas and hazardous
liquid pipelines. Persons who participated in our Risk Assessment
Prioritization (RAP) program, which we use to allocate our resources,
rated the risk of outside-force damage as ``very high'' and the risk of
corrosion as ``high.'' In an effort to reduce outside-force damage, we
have established standards for operator programs designed to prevent
excavation damage and for state programs that oversee one-call
notification systems. Recently we began working with other concerned
organizations to inform the public on ways to reduce damage to all
underground utilities and to study and promote the use of the best
practices in damage prevention. For the corrosion risk, RAP
participants identified several risk mitigating activities, the more
significant of which, such as creating risk-based inspection programs,
establishing cathodic protection criteria for hazardous liquid
pipelines, and defining electrical survey alternatives, are among the
concerns mentioned below.
Our statistical analyses of the data that operators report under 49
CFR Parts 191 and 195 show that while corrosion remains the second
leading cause of reported pipeline incidents, the rate of reportable
incidents due to corrosion has declined in recent years. Also, as shown
by the table below for the period 1986 through 1998, the likelihood of
corrosion-caused incidents harming people or the environment continues
to be relatively low. Still, we think the record warrants our attention
and indicates there may be reasons to improve our corrosion control
standards to reduce the potential for future incidents. We are
especially interested in evaluating the best long-term corrosion
control measures to determine if cost-effective means of further
reducing corrosion can be implemented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Percent of Percent of Percent of all
Pipeline all all deaths all property
incidents injuries damages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas transmission and gathering.............................. 22.7 0 3.7 13
Gas distribution (non-plastic).............................. 4.9 5.6 7.0 3.9
Hazardous liquid............................................ 25.7 3.2 0.9 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate alternative regulatory strategies and in further
response to the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
1, on September 8, 1997, we held a public meeting on how the
corrosion control standards in 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195 might be
improved (62 FR 44436; Aug. 21, 1997). The meeting was held in Oakbrook
Illinois in conjunction with NACE's Fall Committee Meetings to attract
participation by experts in corrosion control. NACE is an international
organization that provides training and certification programs,
conferences, standards, and reports on the prevention and control of
materials corrosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On March 4, 1995, President Clinton issued a memorandum to
heads of departments and agencies calling for a review of all agency
regulations and elimination or revision of those that are outdated
or in need of reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oakbrook meeting focused primarily on whether our corrosion
control standards should incorporate by reference NACE Standard RP0169-
96, ``Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged
Metallic Piping Systems,'' as a substitute for all or some of the
requirements, and whether the requirements should be the same for gas
and hazardous liquid pipelines. Many participants and subsequent
commenters opposed incorporating the NACE document by reference because
it is not entirely written in regulatory, or mandatory, style. There
was also general agreement that although some changes may be needed,
our corrosion control standards for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines
should be generally the same.
After the Oakbrook meeting, we began a detailed review of the
corrosion control standards in 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart I. We began
reviewing the gas pipeline standards rather than the standards for
hazardous liquid pipelines in Part 195 because the gas standards
provide more detailed criteria. To help in this effort, we have met
from time to time with representatives from NACE, the pipeline
industry, and state governments. The meetings have helped us assess
whether the Subpart I standards are adequate for safety, need
clarification, or allow the use of new technologies.
In order to have the same standards for gas and hazardous liquid
pipelines, we are now considering whether the gas pipeline standards,
possibly with some changes, would be suitable for hazardous liquid
pipelines. The advantage of applying the gas standards to hazardous
liquid pipelines is that the gas standards are less ambiguous than the
hazardous liquid standards. However, changes besides those that may be
needed for gas pipelines may be needed to accommodate the different
operating characteristics of hazardous liquid pipelines, such as
temperature and commodity corrosiveness.
To optimize our review process, we have assigned the following
priorities to different segments of the nation's pipeline
infrastructure: We are considering hazardous liquid pipelines first,
because the current Part 195 corrosion control standards are ambiguous
in many respects and because corrosion-caused failures on these lines
pose risks to the
[[Page 16887]]
environment as well as public safety. Next in importance are gas
transmission and non-rural gathering lines because of the continuing
high percentage of corrosion-caused incidents. Finally comes gas
distribution lines, because assessing the need to modify standards to
account for operational differences between gas transmission and
distribution lines and among gas distribution systems is more
difficult, requiring more information about systems and possible
alternatives to present standards. These three stages of review may
result in publication of one or more notices of proposed rulemaking
later this year after considering all the comments we receive as a
result of this notice.
Guiding Principles
At our latest meetings with industry and state representatives, in
Houston, Texas on February 16-19, 1999, at the Marriott Westside Hotel,
and in Washington, DC on March 11, 1999, at our headquarters, the
following principles were developed to guide our assessment of the need
to improve or clarify the corrosion control standards:
Evaluate existing data and use the evaluation to assess
the need to change standards.
Continue to improve public safety and environmental
protection.
Assess the need for corrosion control standards throughout
the national pipeline system based on the risk associated with
different parts of the system.
Upgrade regulations to allow for future changes in
pipeline industry technology and operating practices as appropriate.
Strive for uniform interpretation/enforcement.
To the extent practicable, involve all interested parties
in assessing the need to change standards.
Use the new cost/benefit policy framework being developed
for RSPA's pipeline safety advisory committees in determining the costs
and benefits of potential changes to standards.
Achieve balance between performance and prescriptive
language.
Develop performance measures to assess the effectiveness
of corrosion control programs.
Focus on managing corrosion to maintain pipeline
integrity.
Provide adequate regulatory flexibility to allow operators
to implement alternative measures that meet the performance
requirements of the corrosion regulations.
RSPA Concerns
Besides the guiding principles, the meetings with industry and
state representatives have helped us evaluate the following concerns we
have about the adequacy of the gas pipeline corrosion control
standards. These concerns relate generally to the clarity of the
standards, whether the standards are effective, whether they are
consistent with modern practices, and whether they are in the interest
of safety. The list does not include Sec. 192.459, for which we have
already proposed changes to deal with the problem of the extent of
corrosion on exposed pipelines (Docket PS-107; 54 FR 27041; June 27,
1989). If we were to propose changes to Part 195 based on the corrosion
control standards in Subpart I of Part 192, we would include in the
proposal any changes that may be necessary to make Part 195 consistent
with any changes made to Sec. 192.459 in Docket PS-107.
The concerns stated below relate to the Subpart I standards in 49
CFR Part 192, which apply to metallic gas gathering, transmission, and
distribution lines. As mentioned above, we are considering both the
need to change these standards in response to the concerns and whether
to apply the standards, with or without changes, to hazardous liquid
pipelines subject to 49 CFR Part 195.
Personnel Qualification (Sec. 192.453)
In view of the proposed rules on qualification of pipeline
personnel (63 FR 57269; Oct. 27, 1998), are more specific qualification
standards needed for individuals who direct or carry out corrosion
control procedures? (The proposed rules apply to personnel doing
regulated operation and maintenance tasks, including corrosion control,
on regulated pipeline facilities. However, the proposed rules do not
apply to management personnel who may oversee but not perform
corrosion-related tasks on a pipeline.)
External Corrosion: New Pipelines (Sec. 192.455)
Should a cathodic protection system be installed on
offshore pipelines in less than 1 year after the pipeline is
constructed, for example, 60 days, because of the strong corrosiveness
of salt water?
Is it in the interest of safety to exempt pipelines in
particular environments and temporary pipelines from the coating and
cathodic protection requirements?
External Corrosion: Existing Pipelines (Sec. 192.457)
Should existing compressor, regulator, and measuring
station piping continue to be excluded from the requirement to
cathodically protect effectively coated transmission line pipe?
Is the present requirement to cathodically protect certain
older existing pipelines only in areas of ``active corrosion'' adequate
for public safety? If not, what would be a cost effective alternative
standard?
Is the meaning of ``active corrosion'' clear and
technically sound? If not, how should it be changed?
External Corrosion: Coating (Sec. 192.461)
Should the implicit requirement to coat field joints and
repairs be expressly stated? Does coating need to be compatible with
the anticipated service conditions, including the effects of
temperature?
For offshore pipelines, during installation, are special
measures necessary to protect against damage to coating, including
field joint coating; and, to avoid mechanical damage, are special
coatings needed on J-tubes, I-tubes and pipelines installed by the
bottom tow method?
External Corrosion: Cathodic Protection Criteria (Sec. 192.463)
Are the cathodic protection system criteria in Appendix D
of Part 192, 300 mV shift and E-log-I, obsolete, since they are not in
NACE Standard RP0169-96? If so, should operators be allowed to continue
to use them on existing pipe, but not new pipe?
External Corrosion: Monitoring (Sec. 192.465)
Does the sampling basis prescribed for inspecting short
sections of main or transmission lines not in excess of 100 feet and
separately protected service lines provide effective corrosion control,
particularly as it applies to service lines that supply gas to public
buildings?
External Corrosion: Electrical Isolation (Sec. 192.467)
What remedial action is needed when an electrical short in
a casing results in inadequate cathodic protection of the pipeline
outside the casing?
Should newly constructed offshore pipelines be
electrically isolated from bare steel platforms unless both are
protected as a single unit?
Is electrical isolation needed where contact with
aboveground structures would adversely affect cathodic protection?
External Corrosion: Test Leads (Sec. 192.471)
Are accessible test leads needed on offshore risers that
are electrically isolated and not accessible for testing?
[[Page 16888]]
For aluminum pipelines, should all test leads be insulated
aluminum conductors and installed to avoid harm to the pipe?
External Corrosion: Interference Currents (Sec. 192.473)
Where light rail systems exist, should operators
specifically be required to identify and test for stray currents and
keep records of the test results?
Internal Corrosion (Sec. 192.475)
Are special requirements needed to deal with the problem
of internal corrosion in storage field piping, as evidenced by piping
leaks in West Virginia and several Midwestern states?
Atmospheric Corrosion: General (Sec. 192.479)
Should new and existing pipelines be subject to the same
protection requirements?
Is protection needed where corrosion is a light surface
oxide or where corrosion will not likely affect the safe operation of
the pipeline before the next scheduled inspection?
Is special protection needed in the splash zone of
offshore pipelines and at soil to air interfaces of onshore pipelines?
Atmospheric Corrosion: Monitoring (Sec. 192.481)
Should the inspection interval for onshore pipelines be
extended beyond 3 years in view of the generally low incidence of
serious problems on protected pipelines?
For onshore pipelines, are more frequent inspections
needed at soil to air interfaces, under thermal insulation, at
disbonded coatings, and at pipe supports?
For offshore pipelines, are more frequent inspections
needed under poorly bonded coatings and at splash zones, support
clamps, and deck penetrations?
Records (Sec. 192.491)
Should operators keep records of findings of non-corrosive
conditions if Sec. 192.455 is changed to remove the benefit of such
findings?
Is the period for keeping corrosion control monitoring
records, ``as long as the pipeline remains in service,'' necessary for
safety or accident investigation? If not, what is an appropriate
period?
Concerns of Others
National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR).
Long before the Oakbrook meeting, NAPSR reported on an extensive
review of Part 192 that included recommendations to change several of
the standards for corrosion control. We published the report and
requested public comment on its various recommended rule changes
(Docket PS-124, Notice 2; 58 FR 59431, Nov. 9, 1993). We adopted one of
NAPSR's corrosion standard recommendations (regarding Sec. 192.475) in
the final rule we published in Docket PS-124 (61 FR 28770; June 6,
1996). The others are discussed below:
With regard to Secs. 192.457 and 192.465, NAPSR
recommended changes to clarify the meaning of ``electrical survey'' and
where alternatives to electrical surveys may be used. But most
commenters either opposed or wanted to modify the recommendation,
feeling it would unreasonably limit an operator's ability to determine
areas of active corrosion by alternative methods.
With regard to Sec. 192.459, NAPSR recommended we require
operators to record the condition of protective coatings whenever they
inspect exposed portions of buried pipelines, arguing the records would
provide a useful history of the condition of the pipelines as well as
evidence that exposed pipe had been inspected as required. Opponents
argued the recommendation was unnecessary because Sec. 192.491 already
requires operators to keep records of required inspections.
With regard to Sec. 192.467(c), NAPSR recommended changes
to require that operators annually test pipeline casings for electrical
isolation, and to clarify what ``other measures'' must be taken to
minimize pipeline corrosion if isolation is not achieved. There was
strong opposition to this recommendation because studies have not
correlated shorted casings and corrosion on the carrier pipe, or
because a longer interval of inspection would be more appropriate.
With regard to Sec. 192.479(b), NAPSR recommended that
regardless of the date of installation, all aboveground pipelines or
portions of a pipeline that are exposed to the atmosphere be cleaned
and either coated or jacketed with a material suitable for the
prevention of atmospheric corrosion, unless the pipeline is in a non-
corrosive atmosphere. Commenters who objected to this recommendation
said the difficulty of proving a non-corrosive atmosphere could cause
operators to coat older pipelines that have no harmful atmospheric
corrosion.
With regard to the provision in Sec. 192.487(a) that
permits the repair rather than replacement of pipe with a small area of
general corrosion, NAPSR recommended that the provision refer to
generally accepted guidelines for determining what corroded areas may
be repaired. Although most commenters opposed the idea of requiring
operators to apply the guidelines in every case, there was no objection
to making the guidelines permissive as Sec. 192.485 does.
Finally, with regard to Sec. 192.489(b), NAPSR recommended
that we clarify that internal sealing is not an appropriate method of
strengthening graphitized pipe. There was no opposition to this
recommendation.
Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC)
In an April, 1995 rulemaking petition, GPTC requested the
following:
Remove from Sec. 192.467 the requirement that pipe be
electrically isolated from metallic casings. GPTC argued there are no
safety benefits from clearing shorted casings.
Amend Secs. 192.465 and 192.481 to allow operators to take
up to 39 months to carry out inspections of unprotected pipelines that
must be done at 3-year intervals. GPTC said the extra time would add
flexibility to the standards with no reduction in safety.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
As a result of a recent accident investigation, NTSB recommended
two changes to the Part 195 corrosion standards:
Revise Part 195 to require pipeline operators to determine
the condition of pipeline coating whenever pipe is exposed and, if
degradation is found, to evaluate the coating condition of the
pipeline. (P-98-35)
Revise Part 195 to include performance measures for the
adequate cathodic protection of liquid pipelines. (P-98-36)
We will be considering all these recommendations in the present
proceeding as we decide what changes, if any, to propose for the
corrosion control standards.
Alternatives
Changing the current standards to satisfy the concerns discussed
above may not be the only way to improve protection against corrosion.
Some industry representatives have expressed a desire to employ new
technologies or risk management concepts as more advanced solutions to
corrosion
[[Page 16889]]
problems. So we are considering the following as alternatives to some
or all of the standards:
Corrosion Management Plans. Our experience shows that many
operators get superior results by applying their own pipeline-specific
plans for controlling corrosion. These plans often contain methods and
corrosion management techniques not required by the standards. To
encourage the development and use of these plans, we are considering
whether to allow operators to comply with corrosion management plans as
an alternative to the corrosion control standards. While we think such
plans would have to meet the objectives of the standards if not the
specifics, this regulatory approach would give operators more
flexibility to tailor their corrosion control practices to meet varying
conditions. Such plans would be subject to review by agency inspection
personnel and possible change if deemed inadequate (49 CFR 190.237).
NACE Standard RP0169-96. Another alternative to compliance
with the standards that some persons may favor is incorporation by
reference of all or part of NACE Standard RP0169-96. Although its
advisory style affects the suitability of this NACE standard for
regulatory use, it is, nonetheless, widely accepted as the most
authoritative source of up-to-date pipeline corrosion control
practices. In an analogous situation, we have recently proposed to
incorporate by reference other industry documents that are drafted in
an advisory style. In the proceeding on the safety of breakout of
tanks, we proposed to reference four documents published by the
American Petroleum Institute that are recommended practices: API
Recommended Practice 651 ``Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Petroleum
Storage Tanks,'' API Recommended Practice 652 ``Lining of Aboveground
Petroleum Storage Tanks Bottoms,'' API Recommended Practice 2003
``Protection Against Ignitions Arising out of Static, Lightning, and
Stray Currents,'' and API Recommended Practice 2350 ``Overfill
Protection for Storage Tanks In Petroleum Facilities'' (Docket RSPA-97-
2095; 63 FR 27903; May 21, 1998). Recognizing that API intended these
documents to be advisory and not imperative, we proposed that operators
follow the recommended practices unless they note in their procedural
manuals why compliance with all or certain provisions is not necessary
for the safety of a particular breakout tank or tanks. Any decisions
not to follow certain provisions would be subject to review by agency
inspection personnel and possible change if deemed inadequate (49 CFR
190.237). We could take a similar approach with respect to advisory
provisions of NACE Standard RP0169-96 that operators may decide are
unnecessary for the safety of particular pipelines.
Compliance Manual
We are also considering developing a Compliance Manual that would
contain guidelines for federal and state inspectors in evaluating
operator compliance with the corrosion standards. The manual would be
available to the public, so operators could learn what inspectors look
for in checking for compliance. We expect the manual to include
explanations and illustrations that apply the standards to hypothetical
pipelines, accounting for variations in operating conditions. For
example, we plan to include details on how to perform field pipe-to-
soil measurements, including connection of leads to the pipeline,
voltmeter, and half cell. We also want to show how to apply the
different cathodic protection criteria, and how to do a close-interval
survey. We think such a manual would advance an effective and uniform
understanding, interpretation, and application of the standards. It
could also provide a basis for training government and operator
personnel.
Public Participation
As stated in more detail above, interested persons are invited to
attend the San Antonio public meeting and present oral or written
statements about any of the principles, concerns, or alternatives
discussed in this notice. Written statements not presented at the
meeting may be submitted to the docket. If necessary, we may limit the
time for oral presentations so that everyone who requests an
opportunity to speak may do so. Those who do not request time for
presentations may have an opportunity to speak as time allows.
We are particularly interested in receiving comments on the
following:
1. Whether any existing standards deter or disallow the use of new
technologies, and, if so, how.
2. The costs and benefits of any suggested changes to standards and
alternatives to standards.
3. The amount of time operators may need to prepare for compliance
with any suggested standards or alternatives.
4. With regard to the Corrosion Management Plan and NACE Standard
alternatives--
a. The bases for evaluating the adequacy of corrosion management
plans.
b. The best way to facilitate agency review of operator decisions
under the alternatives (e.g., prior notification, reporting,
recordkeeping).
c. Whether NACE Standard RP0169-96 is adequate for pipeline
corrosion control and, if so, should we incorporate it by reference in
our corrosion control standards?
5. For hazardous liquid pipelines--
a. Whether additional standards are needed to further reduce the
possibility of damage to environmentally sensitive areas.
b. If Subpart I standards were applied to hazardous liquid
pipelines, the changes, if any, that would be needed to account for
differences between gas and liquid pipelines.
6. For gas distribution systems--
a. Root causes of corrosion leaks on coated, uncoated, protected,
and unprotected metallic lines.
b. Descriptions of operating/maintenance practices to minimize
corrosion leaks on cathodically unprotected lines.
c. Descriptions of risk-based corrosion management programs.
d. The best approach to monitoring corrosion control in urban wall-
to-wall paved areas.
7. The amount of buried piping at compressor, regulator, and
measuring stations that is not cathodically protected.
8. Explicit examples of adequate compliance with particular
standards that have had varied interpretations.
9. To provide an acceptable level of safety on existing pipelines,
must cathodic protection preserve the pipeline indefinitely or merely
slow the rate of corrosion until the pipeline has to be rehabilitated
or replaced?
Authority: 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 and 49 CFR 1.53.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 99-8628 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
