[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56978-56981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27668]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PS-107; Amdt. 192-87]
RIN 2137-AB50
Determining the Extent of Corrosion on Gas Pipelines
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule requires that when gas pipeline operators find
harmful external corrosion on buried metallic pipelines that have been
exposed, they must investigate further to determine if additional
harmful corrosion exists in the vicinity of the original exposure.
Further investigation can help determine the significance of the
initial corrosion discovery. The new requirement may prevent accidents
due to corrosion that might otherwise go undetected near an exposed
portion of pipeline.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective November 22, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. Furrow at (202) 366-4559 or
furrowl@rspa.dot.gov. General information about RSPA's pipeline safety
program can be obtained at http://ops.dot.gov.
[[Page 56979]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Whenever a gas pipeline operator learns that any portion of a
buried metallic pipeline is uncovered, the operator is required to
examine that portion for evidence of external corrosion, if the pipe is
bare or has a deteriorated coating (49 CFR 192.459). In a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (54 FR 27041; June 27, 1989), RSPA proposed
to amend this safety standard to require that when corrosion requiring
remedial action is found, the operator must investigate further to
determine the extent of the corrosion. The proposed rule did not
specify the method or scope of further investigation.
The proposed rule was in response to a rulemaking recommendation
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) made after its
investigation of a major gas pipeline accident that occurred February
21, 1986, in Lancaster, Kentucky. As discussed in its report of the
investigation (NTSB/PAR-87-01), NTSB found that the accident could be
attributed to inadequate inspection of the pipeline when it was
excavated some time before the accident. Although the operator's visual
inspection showed corrosion potentially requiring remedial action, the
inspectors did not look for corrosion adjacent to and below the portion
of pipe that had been exposed. The location of the failure was only
about one foot from the location of the last corrosion pit measured
when the pipe was uncovered.
The proposed rule also would conform Sec. 192.459 with 49 CFR
195.416(e), the comparable hazardous liquid pipeline safety standard.
Under this latter standard, if harmful corrosion is discovered on
certain exposed hazardous liquid pipelines, the operator is required to
investigate further to determine the extent of the corrosion.
Discussion of Comments
RSPA received 31 written comments on the NPRM. Twenty-seven of the
comments were from gas pipeline operators; two were from trade
associations representing operators, the American Gas Association (AGA)
and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA); one was
from the Public Utility Commission of Oregon; and one was from NTSB.
Many operators thought the proposed rule was reasonable. They said
it was consistent with their standard operating practices.
At the same time, other operators felt existing Sec. 192.459
implies an obligation to investigate the extent of harmful corrosion,
making the proposed rule redundant. We disagree, however, because of
the difference between Sec. 192.459 and Sec. 195.416(e). The present
wording of Sec. 192.459 does not explicitly require further
investigation, while Sec. 195.416(e) does explicitly require further
investigation. This difference in regulatory terms definitely weakens
the argument that Sec. 192.459 implicitly requires further
investigation.
Only three commenters, all operators, opposed the proposed rule.
One of these commenters thought the proposal was unnecessary because
other part 192 standards adequately cover corrosion control. However,
we think the Lancaster accident shows the need for the proposed rule.
If the operator's inspectors had fully investigated the pipeline in the
vicinity of the excavation, they could have discovered the harmful
corrosion that led to the subsequent accident. Their failure to do so
was not contrary to any other part 192 corrosion control standard.
The second commenter said the proposal would discourage operators
from exposing and inspecting pipelines. But considering the overriding
need for excavations in maintaining or constructing buried pipelines,
we doubt the proposed rule is likely to have a significant impact on
excavation decisions. Moreover, we do not think excavation decisions
have been inhibited by the comparable requirement of Sec. 195.416(e) to
investigate the extent of harmful corrosion.
The third commenter who opposed the proposed rule considered it
ineffective because of the different approaches operators would take to
comply with the rule. Yet the proposed rule was intentionally designed
to permit varying approaches to compliance because of the different
conditions that are encountered at excavation sites. Assuming each
operator's approach is sufficient to determine the extent of harmful
corrosion found at an excavation, the rule should be effective overall.
The Public Utility Commission of Oregon commented that exposed pipe
should be investigated further whenever any corrosion is observed, even
if the corrosion does not need remedial action. Although the aim of
this comment is increased safety, we do not think it would be sensible
to require operators to explore beyond the original excavation unless
harmful corrosion has been observed. Otherwise, there would be no
reasonable expectation that any further investigation might be
productive.
Many commenters addressed the method of investigation that would be
required for compliance. Most of these commenters, including AGA, liked
the performance-type wording of the proposed rule, which would permit
operators to use any appropriate method. A few operators, however, were
concerned that the proposed rule inadequately defined the method of
investigation. These commenters wanted the rule to specify particular
methods, such as enlarging the excavation, digging potholes, searching
corrosion and leak history records, or running an electrical survey,
special leak survey, or in-line inspection. They argued that specifying
methods would clarify the operator's discretion in choice of method and
avoid potential disputes with government inspectors over whether
continued excavation is mandatory.
We anticipated this concern about inspection methods and, in the
preamble of the NPRM, explained that additional excavation would not be
mandatory. We said the proposed rule would permit buried pipe at or
near an excavation to be examined either visually or by indirect
methods. Nevertheless, in the final rule, we have slightly modified the
wording of the proposed rule to avoid possible confusion on this point.
The final rule states that indirect methods may be used as well as
visual examination to carry out the further investigation. We have not
listed particular methods since the alternatives to excavation and
visual examination for determining the presence of corrosion are well
known. Also, mentioning acceptable methods could unnecessarily limit
the use of new technologies.
A majority of the commenters addressed the scope of ``further
investigation.'' About half of these commenters, including AGA, were
pleased that the performance-type wording of the proposed rule would
leave this decision to the operator's discretion. However, most of the
remaining commenters were worried that the performance-type wording
could be interpreted to require endless investigation of a buried
pipeline for corrosion. To limit the investigation, these commenters
suggested various changes to the proposed rule. One operator suggested
the rule require only a reasonable effort. Several commenters,
including INGAA, suggested restricting the investigations to corrosion
that is ``within and continuous beyond the bounds of the exposed
portion of the pipeline.'' Others suggested limiting the investigations
to corrosion that is ``contiguous'' with the original
[[Page 56980]]
excavation. In contrast, NTSB urged us to require that investigations
include the entire circumference of pipe irrespective of corrosion
continuity.
The issue of how far to carry an investigation of harmful corrosion
found at an excavation was discussed in the NPRM. Mindful of the
Lancaster accident, we were concerned that harmful corrosion located
near the exposed portion of pipe would go undetected if operators
investigated only for corrosion that adjoins corrosion observed on the
exposed portion. However, recognizing the complexity of specifying the
scope of investigation, we stated that the proposed rule would allow
operators to use their own judgment on where to stop investigating for
corrosion. Although many commenters, including AGA, supported this
approach, we are sensitive to the position that the proposed rule could
be interpreted to set in motion a seemingly endless search for harmful
corrosion on some pipelines.
We agree that only a reasonable effort should be required to find
corrosion in the vicinity of an exposed, corroded pipe. Nonetheless, we
believe the addition of language indicating that only a reasonable
effort be made is unnecessary because performance language always
requires a reasonable effort. This approach is consistent with common
practice. The final rule language indicates that the operator shall
investigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed
pipe to determine whether additional corrosion exists in the vicinity,
as NTSB recommended in its comment.
To further define the required scope of investigation, we have also
modified the wording of the proposed rule to make it clear that the
investigation is required only in the vicinity of the exposed area.
This change is consistent with the purpose of the proposed rule, which
was to prevent accidents due to the existence of harmful corrosion near
the area of pipe exposure.
A few commenters suggested that the final rule exclude distribution
lines on the ground that their lower operating pressures pose less risk
than transmission lines. Similarly, one commenter asked us to exclude
transmission lines that operate below certain stress levels. These
commenters apparently felt that further investigation of known areas of
harmful corrosion is not warranted on low-pressure pipelines. We
disagree. While corrosion may cause only a leak in a pipeline operating
at low pressure as opposed to a rupture in a high-pressure pipeline,
the damages resulting from a leak can be just as serious as from a
rupture. For this reason, we have not excluded distribution lines or
low-pressure transmission lines from the final rule.
Advisory Committee Review
We presented the NPRM for consideration by the Technical Pipeline
Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) at a meeting in Washington, DC on
September 12, 1989. The TPSSC is RSPA's statutory advisory committee
for gas pipeline safety. It has 15 members, representing industry,
government, and the public, who are qualified to evaluate gas pipeline
safety standards. The TPSSC voted unanimously to find the proposed rule
technically feasible, reasonable, and practicable. The TPSSC's report
of its consideration of the NPRM is available in the docket.
In addition, in March of this year we invited the current members
of the TPSSC to review and comment on the risk assessment information
related to the proposed rule, including the estimated costs and
benefits included in the Regulatory Evaluation. Of the 15 committee
members, only three submitted substantive comments, and these are
discussed in the Final Regulatory Evaluation.
One member suggested that we publish another notice of proposed
rulemaking in view of the long period since the initial notice.
However, as stated above, we recently gave the TPSSC an opportunity to
review and comment on the Regulatory Evaluation. We also offered the
public an opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment of the
NPRM (see further discussion below under the National Environmental
Policy Act subheading). Considering these recent opportunities for
additional comment and that the final rule essentially codifies
standard industry practice, we feel there would be little or no new
information to be gained from publishing another notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
DOT 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), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not
reviewed this rulemaking document. Also, DOT does not consider this
action significant under its regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR
11034, February 26, 1979).
We prepared a Final Regulatory Evaluation of the costs and benefits
of this action, a copy of which is available in the docket. This
Evaluation shows that because the final rule is in keeping with current
practices of prudent operators, applies only in limited circumstances,
and permits operators to decide both the method and extent of
compliance effort, the impact of the final rule should be minimal.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), RSPA
must consider whether a rulemaking would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this action
is in keeping with current practices of prudent operators, applies only
in limited circumstances, and permits operators to decide both the
method and extent of their compliance effort, I certify that this
rulemaking action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. 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 final rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation
of a Federalism Assessment.
D. Executive Order 13084
We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084, ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Because the final rule
will not significantly or uniquely affect the Indian tribal
governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive
Order 13084 do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final rule has no effect on the paperwork burden of operators
subject to part 192. The action expands the scope of some inspections
for which records are required by 49 CFR 192.491(c), without expanding
the burden of that recordkeeping requirement.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or
[[Page 56981]]
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is
the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the
rule.
G. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed the final rule for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Only in limited
circumstances will operators enlarge an area of exposed pipe to
investigate the extent of corrosion. And non-invasive investigative
techniques may be used where necessary to safeguard people and the
environment.
The public was given 30 days to comment on the Draft Environmental
Assessment (64 FR 28136, May 25, 1999), and one comment was received.
This comment requested that operators be allowed to use corrosion pigs
to locate metal loss due to corrosion in lieu of expanding the
excavation. This option is allowed under the final rule.
We have determined that the final rule will not significantly
affect the quality of the human environment.
H. Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems
Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates will, on
January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900.
This glitch, the Year 2000 Problem, could cause computers to stop
running or to start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 Problem
poses a threat to the global economy in which Americans live and work.
With the help of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion,
federal agencies are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem
and to offer support. We do not want to impose new requirements that
would mandate business process changes when the resources necessary to
implement those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year
2000 Problem.
This final rule does not require business process changes or
require modifications to computer systems. Because the final rule
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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA amends 49 CFR part 192 as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 192.459 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 192.459 External corrosion control: Examination of buried
pipeline when exposed.
Whenever an operator has knowledge that any portion of a buried
pipeline is exposed, the exposed portion must be examined for evidence
of external corrosion if the pipe is bare, or if the coating is
deteriorated. If external corrosion requiring remedial action under
Secs. 192.483 through 192.489 is found, the operator shall investigate
circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed portion (by
visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine whether
additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity
of the exposed portion.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 18, 1999.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-27668 Filed 10-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
