[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 1994)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8622]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 12, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 190, 192, 193, and 195
RIN 2137-AB71
[Docket No. PS-126; Amdts. 190-5, 192-72, 193-9, 195-50]
Passage of Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the gas, hazardous liquid and carbon
dioxide pipeline safety regulations to require that certain new and
replacement pipelines be designed and constructed to accommodate the
passage of instrumented internal inspection devices (smart pigs). This
action was taken in response to a mandate in the Pipeline Safety
Reauthorization Act of 1988. The intended effect of these amended
regulations is to improve the safety of gas, hazardous liquid and
carbon dioxide pipelines by permitting their inspection by ``smart
pigs'' using the latest technology for detecting and recording
abnormalities in the pipe wall.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this final rule is May 12, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert C. Garnett, (202) 366-2036
regarding the subject matter of this amendment or the Docket Unit,
(202) 366-5046 regarding copies of this amendment or other material in
the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
RSPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on November
20, 1992 (57 FR 54745) proposing that new and replacement gas
transmission lines and new and replacement hazardous liquid pipelines
and carbon dioxide pipelines be designed and constructed to accommodate
the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices. However, the
rules would not apply to specific installations for which such design
and construction would be impracticable. In addition, the NPRM proposed
a procedure for operators seeking an administrative ruling on any rule
in parts 192, 193 and 195 in which the administrator is authorized to
make a finding or approval.
The NPRM was issued in response to Congressional mandates in
sections 108(b) and 207(b) of the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act
of 1988 (hereinafter ``Reauthorization Act'') (Pub. L. 100-561; Oct.
31, 1988). Section 108(b) of the Reauthorization Act amended section 3
of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (NGPSA) by adding
subsection (g), ``Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices'' (49 app.
U.S.C. 1672). This new subsection requires the Secretary of
Transportation to establish regulations requiring that:
(1) The design and construction of new [gas] transmission
facilities, and (2) when replacement of existing transmission
facilities or equipment is required, the replacement of such
existing facilities, be carried out, to the extent practicable, in a
manner so as to accommodate the passage through such transmission
facilities of instrumented internal inspection devices (commonly
referred to as ``smart pigs'').
Section 207(b) of the Reauthorization Act amended section 203 of the
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (HLPSA) (49 app. U.S.C.
2002) to require that DOT establish similar regulations with respect to
pipeline facilities subject to the HLPSA.
Future Rulemaking Involving Smart Pigs
The Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (hereinafter ``PLSA of 1992'')
(Pub. L. 102-508; Oct. 24, 1992) in sections 103 and 203 amended the
NGPSA and the HLPSA, respectively, by requiring the Secretary of
Transportation to issue regulations that require the periodic
inspection of gas transmission facilities and hazardous liquid
pipelines in high-density population areas, and hazardous liquid
pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas or crossing navigable
waterways. In response to these mandates, RSPA will issue an NPRM
proposing to prescribe the circumstances, if any, under which such
inspections would be conducted with smart pigs. In those circumstances
under which an inspection by a smart pig would not be required, RSPA is
mandated to require the use of an inspection method that is at least as
effective as the use of smart pigs in providing for the safety of the
pipeline.
Regulations
In the NPRM, RSPA proposed to require all future new and
replacement gas transmission lines subject to 49 CFR part 192 and
hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines subject to 49 CFR part
195 to be designed and constructed to accommodate the passage of smart
pigs, except where impracticable. For the purposes of this rulemaking,
RSPA proposed that it would be impracticable to require the
accommodation of smart pigs under the following categories of piping:
Manifolds, station piping (such as compressor stations, pump stations,
metering stations or regulator stations), cross-overs, and fittings
providing branch line junctures (such as tees and other lateral
connections). Additionally, the NPRM proposed to allow pipeline
operators to petition (minimum 90 days in advance) the Administrator,
in a particular case, for a finding that design or construction to
accommodate a smart pig would be impracticable.
Advisory Committees
The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee
(THLPSSC) have been established by statute to evaluate pipeline safety
regulations. The TPSSC and the THLPSSC met in joint session in
Washington, DC on August 3, 1993, and considered the NPRM. Both
committees accepted the NPRM as feasible, reasonable, and practicable
with the incorporation of several changes. RSPA's disposition of the
advisory committees' recommendations are discussed below.
Discussion of Comments
RSPA received public comments on the proposed rule change from 48
pipeline operators, seven pipeline-related associations, three state/
Federal agencies, and one consulting engineer. The following discussion
explains how RSPA considered the advisory committees' positions and the
public comments on the proposed regulations in developing the final
rule.
Low Stress Pipelines
Twenty-three commenters indicated that the rule should except
pipelines in which the internal operating pressure results in low
stress in the pipe wall. Many commenters argued that since gas
transmission lines are not subject to certain pipeline safety
regulations (Secs. 192.609, 192.711 & 192.713) if they operate at or
below 40 percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), that
this rule should similarly not apply to these same transmission lines.
The TPSSC also recommended that piping operating at a stress level of
40 percent of SMYS or less be excepted.
While RSPA understands this position, it does not agree that it
justifies exception of gas transmission lines based solely on their low
hoop stress at maximum operating pressure. Pipelines operating at lower
stress levels are as susceptible to corrosion and other types of
damage, identifiable by smart pigs, as pipelines operating at higher
stress. In addition, the Reauthorization Act mandate to require certain
new and replacement pipelines to be designed and constructed to
accommodate the passage of smart pigs limits RSPA's discretion only to
situations that make such design and construction impracticable. RSPA
finds that an exception from the requirements adopted in this rule for
pipelines operating at or below 40% SMYS is not appropriate, because
the pipe wall stress does not, within the terms of the Reauthorization
Act, affect the practicability of designing and constructing a line to
accommodate passage of smart pigs.
Short Lengths
Eighteen commenters recommended that the rule except new or
replacement pipelines based on their short lengths. Some commenters
recommended excepting replacement pipelines depending on whether the
adjoining portions of the pipeline are piggable. One of these
commenters reasoned that unless the adjoining portion of pipeline can
accommodate the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices,
there can be no added benefit from making a replacement section
piggable because the pipeline overall will still contain restrictions
prohibiting inspection by smart pigs.
Nine commenters recommended exception of minimum lengths that
ranged from 2000 feet to 5 miles. A gas transmission line operator
recommended that the minimum excepted length should be the distance
between compressor stations (40 to 60 miles), to exclude the necessity
to replace non-full opening valves on short replacement sections. Four
commenters suggested that the minimum excepted length should be
determined by RSPA.
The disparity of the commenters' recommendations illustrates that
there is no generally accepted rationale for determining the minimum
length, if any, of pipe that should be excepted. Moreover, RSPA does
not agree that the rule should except replacement pipelines based on
either the length of the replaced section of pipeline or on whether the
adjoining portion of pipeline can accommodate passage of instrumented
internal inspection devices.
The plain objective of the statutory mandate is to make both short
and long pipelines that are not now piggable from end to end, piggable
in time through replacements. Therefore, the final rule does not
include these exceptions. However, operators wishing to except short
length pipelines may want to petition the Administrator under the
procedures set out in the new Sec. 190.9.
Non-Steel Pipelines
Five commenters recommended that the rule apply only to steel
pipelines. One commenter argued that current internal inspection
devices cannot monitor non-ferrous pipelines for stress corrosion. The
commenter contends that no benefit derives from the running of smart
pigs on these lines, and therefore it would be unreasonable to require
operators to make them piggable.
Another commenter contended that, although some polyethylene gas
pipelines are by DOT definition transmission lines, there are no smart
pigs (except camera pigs) that are designed for use in plastic pipe.
RSPA does not agree that the rule should except non-steel
pipelines. It is true that smart pigs cannot presently monitor non-
steel pipelines for as many defects or anomalies as are detectable in
steel pipelines. However, smart pigs can currently detect some physical
defects in non-steel pipelines; i.e. dents, change in internal
diameter, ovality, misalignment of joints, and change in position of
the pipe. Moreover, by making new and replacement plastic pipelines
piggable, they will be able to accommodate new smart pig technology as
it is developed. Nonetheless, all the exceptions in this rule
applicable to steel pipelines are also applicable to non-steel
pipelines.
Small Diameter Pipelines
Twenty-four commenters recommended that the rule except the smaller
diameter pipelines. Some reasoned that commercially available smart pig
technology is limited to the larger pipe sizes. Consequently, for those
sizes of pipe for which there are no commercially available smart pigs,
designing and constructing pipelines to pass smart pigs would be
impracticable.
RSPA does not agree that the rule should include a blanket
exception for all small diameter pipelines. In recent years we have
seen the increasing miniaturization of electro-mechanical components in
equipment used in smart pigs and we expect the trend to continue.
RSPA understands that where no commercially available technology
exists to inspect a particular pipe size by smart pigs, the pipeline
operator would lack sufficient technical information to establish the
design and construction criteria, e.g. minimum internal pipe diameter
and minimum pipe bend radius, essential for passage of smart pigs.
Therefore, the final rule has been written to apply only to pipeline
diameters for which there is a commercially available smart pig at the
time the new or replacement pipeline is designed. At the time of
preparation of this document, RSPA finds that 4 inches is the minimum
nominal pipe size for which smart pigs are commercially available.
Gas Transmission Lines Operated in Conjunction With Distribution
Systems
Twelve commenters recommended that the rule except lines classified
as transmission lines because their hoop stress is 20 percent or more
of SMYS, that operate in conjunction with gas distribution systems.
They reasoned that, typically, these lines have components and
configurations that impede passage of instrumented internal inspection
devices.
Some commenters reasoned that many of these transmission lines are
the sole gas supply to large gas distribution systems. So, inspection
of these lines by instrumented internal inspection devices could, if
problems develop while running the inspection device, disrupt customer
service.
RSPA does not agree that the rule should provide an exception for
gas transmission lines that are operated in conjunction with
distribution systems (except as discussed under the heading ``Gas
transmission lines in crowded underground locations''). First, although
such lines may have configurations or components that impede inspection
by smart pigs, the commenters did not provide information to
substantiate the contention that these conditions are impracticable to
avoid on new or replacement lines. RSPA believes it is practicable to
design and construct new and replacement transmission lines operated in
conjunction with distribution systems to accommodate passage of smart
pigs. Second, potential service disruption (from stuck smart pigs) on
single feed transmission lines will not be a factor on lines that are
properly designed, constructed and maintained to accommodate smart
pigs. Also, to further reduce the possibility of the smart pig becoming
stuck, prior runs can be scheduled, with cleaning and caliper pigs,
during periods of minimal load requirements. Third, the use of smart
pigs to monitor the integrity of single feed transmission lines can
detect problems before they can affect the reliability of the gas
supply to the customers.
Gas Transmission Lines in Crowded Underground Locations
Twelve commenters recommended that RSPA except gas transmission
lines located in certain urban areas. Most of them pointed out that
utility locations underneath city streets in downtown urban areas are
typically overcrowded. Physical constraints from other utilities and
the structural boundary of available space make the design and
construction of replacement pipelines to accommodate smart pigs
impracticable. For example, many underground utility locations lack
sufficient clearance between existing utilities to allow the
replacement of existing short radius elbows with longer radius elbows
(which consume more space) to permit passage of smart pigs.
Nonetheless, a commenter from a state with few large cities suggested
that internal inspection devices should only be required for pipelines
located in Class 3 or 4 locations and in environmentally sensitive
areas.
While gas transmission lines operated in conjunction with
distribution systems are generally covered under this rule, RSPA agrees
that the rule should provide an exception whenever gas transmission
lines operated in conjunction with distribution systems are located in
certain congested urban areas. RSPA believes it is impracticable to
design and construct these particular transmission lines, considering
the arguments presented above, to accommodate passage of smart pigs
when there exist physical constraints, not associated with the pipe
itself, which are beyond an operator's control. Furthermore, RSPA
understands that underground utility areas in Class 4 locations are
typically overcrowded and unable to accommodate the pipeline
configurations needed for the accommodation of smart pigs. So, in the
final rule, Sec. 192.150(b)(6) excepts gas transmission lines that are:
Operated in conjunction with a gas distribution system and installed in
Class 4 locations. However, gas transmission lines, not operated in
conjunction with a gas distribution system are not excepted because
these lines generally pose greater risks, typically transporting gas at
higher pressures.
Gas, Oil and Carbon Dioxide Storage Facilities
Twelve commenters recommended that the rule except gas transmission
lines which are part of injection/withdrawal systems at gas storage
facilities. Commenters said these gas storage facilities have small
diameter piping configured in a grid-like pattern that would not permit
the passage of smart pigs. The TPSSC likewise recommended that storage
facilities be excepted. Similarly, one commenter urged an exception of
delivery/withdrawal piping associated with hazardous liquid storage in
breakout tanks, due to the short lengths, short radius bends and other
tank farm piping configurations which are unable to accommodate the
passage of smart pigs. The THLPSSC also recommended that tank farm
piping be excepted from compliance with this rule.
RSPA agrees that because of piping configuration constraints
associated with the storage facilities for gas, hazardous liquids and
carbon dioxide it is generally impracticable for design and
construction to accommodate passage of smart pigs. Therefore,
Sec. 192.150(b)(3) of the rule excepts piping associated with gas
storage facilities, other than a continuous run of transmission line
between a compression station and storage facilities, and
Sec. 195.120(b)(2) excepts piping associated with liquid storage
facilities. Nonetheless, RSPA will be studying underground storage
issues and, based on that work, may initiate rulemaking to address new
safety measures that may be necessary.
Emergencies and Unforeseen Construction Problems
The NPRM proposed to exclude from the rule piping that the
Administrator finds, upon petition by an operator, to be impracticable
to design and construct to accommodate the passage of smart pigs.
Eighteen commenters stated that many construction situations are under
tight contractual or other time constraints that do not allow
sufficient time to obtain a finding by the Administrator. For example,
an operator may have to make immediate adjustments in the field because
of the discovery of obstructions or other unforeseen problems. Thus,
some commenters reasoned that while the Administrator would have at
least 90 days to decide whether to grant a petition, most pipeline
construction projects would not allow delays of a few days. A few
commenters suggested that the operators should be permitted to accept
the ``burden of proof'' when encountering an impracticability during
construction and so inform RSPA.
Similarly, the TPSSC recommended that the test for impracticability
be left up to the operator instead of petitioning the Administrator for
a finding. The Committee suggested the wording ``and any other piping
that the operator determines and documents would be impracticable to
design and construct to accommodate the passage of an instrumented
internal inspection device'' be substituted for ``the Administrator
finds'' in the exception of Sec. 192.150(b) from the NPRM. Also, the
TPSSC recommended that ``emergency repairs'' be added to the list of
exceptions contained in Sec. 192.150(b).
RSPA acknowledges that emergencies, construction time constraints,
and unforeseen pipeline construction problems would not allow operators
the time to petition for a finding of impracticability and wait for
RSPA's response. Therefore, RSPA has added Secs. 192.150(c) and
195.120(c) which permit an operator discovering an emergency,
construction time constraint or other unforeseeable construction
problem to make a provisional determination of impracticability. In
such instances the operator must document the circumstances resulting
in its impracticability determination. Within 30 days after discovering
an emergency or a construction problem, the operator must petition
under the new Sec. 190.9, ``Petitions for finding or approval'' for a
finding by the Administrator that design and construction to
accommodate passage of internal inspection devices would be
impracticable. If the petition is denied, the operator must modify the
line section to allow passage of instrumented internal inspection
devices, within 1 year after the date of the notice of denial.
Petitions for Finding or Approval
The NPRM proposed that Sec. 190.9, ``Petitions for finding or
approval'' be added to part 190 of this Chapter. Except as discussed
above, commenters did not oppose the establishment of a procedure to
allow an operator to petition the Administrator for an administrative
ruling on any rule under parts 192, 193, and 195 in which the
Administrator is authorized to make a finding or approval. Heretofore,
a similar procedure in part 193 (Sec. 193.2015) applied only to
petitions relating to LNG facilities.
In this rule, the Sec. 190.9 has been revised to require operators
of intrastate pipelines located in states, participating under section
5 of the NGPSA or section 205 of the HLPSA to direct their petitions to
the state pipeline safety agency. The participating state agency will
then make a recommendation to the Administrator as to the disposition
of the petition.
Restraining Elements
Nine commenters objected to the proposed requirement to add
restraining devices to all fittings providing branch line connections.
Restraining elements are added when the outlet to the branch line could
impede the passage of the smart pig. Many commenters argued that the
addition of restraining elements to these fittings may inhibit cleaning
of the branch lines by spheres or cleaning pigs. Other commenters
pointed out that the use of restraining elements in the main line is
unnecessary whenever the branch line has a significantly smaller
diameter than the main line.
RSPA agrees that the rule should not require restraining elements
where they are unnecessary or make impracticable other functions that
are an essential and routine part of pipeline operations and
maintenance. So, the rule does not include a requirement for installing
restraining elements, but leaves their installation to the discretion
of the operator.
Offshore Pipelines
Eleven commenters recommended that the rule except offshore
pipelines. Several commenters based their recommendations on the fact
that offshore pipeline networks are tied-in by ``hot-tapped'' or tee
connections and these tie-ins are without restraining elements. This
type of construction permits cleaning pigs or spheres, required for
removal of materials (such as liquids from gas lines and wax from oil
lines) that impede normal flow, to pass into laterals of ever
increasing diameters.
The system design is contingent on the passage of these cleaning
devices through the various laterals for final tie-in to the liquid
trunk (main) lines and to the gas transmission lines. Then, these
larger diameter lines transport the cleaning pigs to onshore
facilities, for eventual retrieval.
An operator of offshore gas systems said that because of the many
subsea tie-ins to pipelines of larger diameter, smart pigs will require
some type of elaborate receiving device or physically disconnecting/
lifting the pipeline; either of which would be very expensive. Other
commenters advised that smart pigs cannot be launched or received
subsea. An offshore operator said that new offshore platforms typically
connect new platforms to an existing subsea network. Connections to an
existing subsea pipeline are ``hot-tapped'' or are extensions to
existing laterals. This operator summed up his recommendations by
saying that it is impractical to design for the passage of smart pigs
through these connections and it is certainly impractical to install
subsea traps.
Commenters also stated that because of space limitations on the
offshore platforms, the pipelines (risers) which have been routed up
onto the platforms have been designed and constructed with short radius
bends and other fittings that are only adequate for the launching of
cleaning pigs or spheres. These commenters argue that the construction
of the risers with long-sweeping bends on the sea floor and on the
platform, and the installation of the longer launchers and receivers
required to accommodate smart pigs, would be impracticable. For many of
the same reasons, both the TPSSC and the THLPSSC recommended that
offshore pipelines be excepted from the rule.
RSPA acknowledges that many subsea pipelines have been designed and
constructed without restraining bars on branch line connections,
because they would prohibit the passage of cleaning pigs and spheres.
This design allows cleaning pigs and spheres to pass through the
network of subsea laterals and ultimately into larger transmission or
trunk (main) lines that transport gas or liquids to shore facilities.
It is also apparent to RSPA, that designers of offshore platforms
seldom anticipated the space required to accommodate facilities
necessary for the operation of smart pigs. Moreover, RSPA accepts that
smart pigs cannot be launched or received subsea. However, RSPA does
not agree with the commenters or the two advisory committees that all
gas and liquid offshore pipelines should be fully excepted from this
rule.
For pipelines subject to part 195, the current Sec. 195.120
requires that each component of a main line system, other than
manifolds, that change direction within the pipeline system must have a
radius of turn that readily allows the passage of pipeline scrapers,
spheres, and internal inspection equipment. This requirement for main
line components to readily allow the passage of smart pigs through
changes of direction has been in effect since 1970, when offshore
liquid lines became subject to part 195.
Part 192 has applied to offshore gas lines since 1971. In
accordance with the requirements of section 108(b) of the
Reauthorization Act, RSPA sees the need for certain new and replacement
offshore gas transmission lines and risers from these lines to be
designed and constructed to allow passage of smart pigs.
Accordingly, in Secs. 192.150(b)(7) and 195.120(b)(6), while the
rule has not excepted all offshore lines and related facilities, it has
excepted offshore lines which are not gas transmission lines or liquid
main lines 10 inches or greater in nominal diameter that transport
these commodities to onshore facilities. RSPA limited the accommodation
of smart pigs to these larger gas transmission and liquid main lines
because we find, for the reasons expressed by the commenters, that the
unique design and construction of the excepted offshore pipeline
systems makes them generally impracticable for the passage of smart
pigs.
When the rulemaking mandated by the PLSA of 1992 discussed under
the heading--Future Rulemaking Involving Smart Pigs--is issued, RSPA
may prescribe the circumstances for inspection with smart pigs. Such
circumstances, if included in any final rule, may require the need for
offshore platforms that contain risers, to also accommodate launchers
and (where appropriate) receivers for the passage of smart pigs.
Above Ground Pipelines
Three commenters recommended that RSPA except above ground
pipelines because operators can inspect these pipelines visually.
RSPA finds that regardless of whether an operator can visually
inspect a line above ground is irrelevant to the practicability of
design and construction of pipelines to accommodate passage of smart
pigs. Furthermore, smart pigs are capable of detecting internal defects
that cannot be discovered by a visual inspection of the outside surface
of a pipeline. Moreover, above ground pipelines are required to be
externally coated and coating materials usually preclude visual
inspection of the outside surface. So, this recommendation was not
adopted.
Clarification of the Term ``Replacement''
Thirteen commenters recommended that the terms ``replacement
transmission line'' and ``replacement pipeline'' be clarified to
indicate the portion of an existing line that must be modified to
accommodate smart pigs when replacements are made for other reasons.
A gas pipeline operator recommended that the meaning of the term
``replacement transmission line'' be limited to the pipe and components
such as valves, bends, and fittings which are added to or replaced in
an existing transmission line. Another gas pipeline operator expressed
support for regulations stating that replacement pipeline facilities
could not be constructed which would further restrict the passage of a
smart pig. RSPA cannot accept the first commenter's recommendations
because if ``replacement'' is limited to a replaced valve, a joint of
pipe, or other component, then pipelines with restrictive components,
such as elbows and tight radius field bends (which when properly
maintained never need replacement) would never be piggable. Also RSPA
cannot accept the second commenter's position because it appears to
mean that the operator need only to make the replacement no more
restrictive than it was prior to it being replaced. The clear intent of
the congressional mandate is to improve an existing pipeline's
piggability.
A pipeline operator and a pipeline related association, recommended
that the word ``pipeline'' be replaced with ``line section'' defined in
Sec. 195.2. A gas pipeline association urged that ``replacement
transmission line'' be changed to ``replacement transmission section''
to clearly indicate that only the portion of line replaced must
accommodate the passage of smart pigs. Another pipeline related
association interpreted ``replacement'' to mean either: (1) Replacement
of the entire line, or (2) replacement of the line segment between two
logical points (e.g. compressor stations). A gas pipeline operator also
believed the term ``segment'' is appropriate because it is frequently
used in part 192 and it recognizes that pipelines are segmented for
different regulatory purposes. A gas transmission operator felt that
the definition of ``replacement line'' should exempt the replacement of
partial segments of existing gas pipelines within a valve section that
are replaced because of class change or regular maintenance work
because of construction restraints. A gas distribution operator stated
that if the proposal was intended to apply to the replaced or relocated
section only, then that limitation should be in the final rule.
The Congressional mandate requires the gradual elimination of
restrictions in existing gas transmission lines and existing hazardous
liquid and carbon dioxide lines in a manner that will eventually make
the lines piggable. Operators are only required to remove the
restrictions when replacements are made on the pipeline. On those
occasions, the economic burden of the upgrading is reduced because
crews and equipment will be on the site and that portion of the
pipeline will need to be out of service. Six of the commenters appear
to have considered the favorable economics when they recommended that
the upgrading for piggability cover the ``line segment'' or ``line
section''. While ``line segment'' is frequently used in the gas
regulations it is not defined, although it's used similarly to ``line
section'' (one commenter suggested it was the distance between two
logical points e.g. compressor stations).
Therefore, in consideration of the comments ``line section'' is
used in place of the term ``replacement transmission line'' in part
192, and ``line section'' is used in place of the term ``replacement
pipeline'' in part 195, as those terms are used in the NPRM. ``Line
section,'' as added to part 192 is similar to ``line section'' as it is
defined in Sec. 195.2.
In part 195, ``line section'' is currently defined in Sec. 195.2 to
mean a continuous run of pipe between adjacent pressure pump stations,
between a pressure pump station and terminal or breakout tanks, between
a pressure pump station and a block valve, or between adjacent block
valves. Now, in part 192 ``line section'' is defined in Sec. 192.3 to
mean a continuous run of transmission line between adjacent compressor
stations, between a compressor station and storage facilities, between
a compressor station and a block valve, or between adjacent block
valves.
Accordingly, Secs. 192.150(a) and 195.120(a) have been revised to
clarify that when a replacement is made of line pipe, line valve, line
fitting, or other line component in an existing pipeline, covered by
this rule, the complete line section must be made to accommodate smart
pigs.
Also, RSPA has modified the final rule in response to the comment
from the gas transmission operator that felt replacements of certain
partial segments within an existing valve section that are replaced
because of MAOP class change or regular maintenance work requirements,
should be excepted because of construction constraints. Although, the
construction restraints were not specified, RSPA has addressed
construction type problems with the procedure set out in
Secs. 192.150(c) and 195.120(c).
Launchers and Receivers
Several commenters agreed with statements in the NPRM that
installation of pig traps should not be required by this rulemaking,
but should be left to the discretion of pipeline operators. Also, a
commenter agreed with the statement in the NPRM that operators should
determine where pig traps are to be permanently located based on
individual operating circumstances. A gas pipeline operator said that
in a practical sense, it would be more cost effective to add launchers
and receivers at the time of construction rather than after the
transmission line is in service (which could again require the line to
be taken out of service). The National Transportation Safety Board
urged RSPA to revise its proposal so that facilities for entering and
removing smart pigs are required on all pipelines capable of being
traversed by such equipment. However, RSPA believes that revising the
NPRM for this purpose would delay the regulatory effect of this
rulemaking and the requirement may be included in a future rulemaking.
In the final rule, as in the NPRM, RSPA has not included
requirements for launchers or receivers. However, when the rulemaking
mandated by the PLSA of 1992 is issued, RSPA may prescribe the
circumstances for inspection with smart pigs. Such circumstances, if
included in any final rule, may require facilities for launching or
receiving smart pigs. In the meantime, RSPA urges pipeline operators to
consider the economic advantages of voluntarily installing facilities,
at the time of construction or replacement of pipelines, for launching
and receiving smart pigs.
Exemption of Gathering Lines
Several commenters urged clarification of the exception for gas
gathering lines in the proposed Sec. 192.9.
In light of the comments, RSPA agrees that clarification is needed.
Therefore, the exception, of the new Sec. 192.150, has been retained
and the current exception, as provided in Sec. 192.1, has been
referenced in the revised Sec. 192.9.
Moreover, in Secs. 192.150(b)(7) and 195.120(b)(6), RSPA has
excepted offshore pipelines other than gas transmission or liquid main
lines, 10 inches or larger, that transport gas or liquids to onshore
facilities. Liquid gathering lines, which are defined in Sec. 195.2,
are included in this exception.
Economic Impact
Nineteen commenters discussed the economic impact and the majority
found fault with RSPA's assessment that the rule would add minimally to
the average expense of pipeline design and construction.
As a result of information presented by the commenters, RSPA has
excepted various categories of pipelines from the final rule. These
exceptions are: Piping associated with storage facilities, other than
gas transmission lines; piping sizes for which a smart pig is not
commercially available; gas transmission lines, operated in conjunction
with a distribution system, which are installed in Class 4 locations;
and offshore pipelines other than certain gas transmission and liquid
main lines. Additionally, operators are permitted to make a provisional
determination of impracticability in instances of emergencies,
construction time constraints or other unforeseeable construction
problems that require immediate action. Other less urgent problems can
be handled through the newly established procedure in Sec. 190.9,
``Petitions for finding or approval.''
Accordingly, these exceptions together with others carried forward
from the NPRM substantially reduce the cost of compliance with the
rule. RSPA finds that the compliance costs will be minimal. A
Regulatory Evaluation has been prepared and is available in the Docket.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action
under 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not
considered significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of
the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
RSPA believes that the rule will add minimally to the average
expense of pipeline design and construction. The information RSPA has
collected for the study under section 304 of the Reauthorization Act
shows that about 90 percent of hazardous liquid pipelines and 60
percent of gas transmission lines have been constructed to accommodate
the passage of smart pigs. This information confirms RSPA's field
experience that most operators are now constructing new and replacement
gas transmission lines and hazardous liquid pipelines to accommodate
smart pigs.
RSPA lacks detailed information about carbon dioxide pipelines
which recently became subject to part 195. However, there are only
about 10 such pipeline systems and we understand that they are not
expected to grow in mileage or to require a significant amount of
replacement in the near term. Thus, those pipelines should not be
greatly affected by the revision of Sec. 195.120.
Federalism Assessment
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
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
this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
There are very few small entities that operate pipelines affected
by this rulemaking. To the extent that any small entity is affected,
the regulatory evaluation accompanying this rule shows that the costs
are minimal. Based on these facts, I certify that under section 605 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this final regulation does not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 190
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Pipeline safety.
49 CFR Part 192
Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 193
Fire prevention, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures.
49 CFR Part 195
Anhydrous Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA amends 49 CFR parts 190,
192, 193, and 195 as follows:
PART 190--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 190 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1672, 1677, 1679a, 1679b, 1680, 1681,
1804, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 190.9 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 190.9 Petitions for finding or approval.
(a) In circumstances where a rule contained in parts 192, 193 and
195 of this chapter authorizes the Administrator to make a finding or
approval, an operator may petition the Administrator for such a finding
or approval.
(b) Each petition must refer to the rule authorizing the action
sought and contain information or arguments that justify the action.
Unless otherwise specified, no public proceeding is held on a petition
before it is granted or denied. After a petition is received, the
Administrator or participating state agency notifies the petitioner of
the disposition of the petition or, if the request requires more
extensive consideration or additional information or comments are
requested and delay is expected, of the date by which action will be
taken.
(1) For operators seeking a finding or approval involving
intrastate pipeline transportation, petitions must be sent to: (i) The
state agency certified to participate under section 5 of the NGPSA (49
U.S.C. 1674) or section 205 of the HLPSA (49 App. U.S.C. 2004); or
(ii) Where there is no state agency certified to participate, the
Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 7th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
(2) For operators seeking a finding or approval involving
interstate pipeline transportation, petitions must be sent to the
Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 7th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
(c) All petitions must be received at least 90 days prior to the
date by which the operator requests the finding or approval to be made.
(d) The Administrator will make all findings or approvals of
petitions initiated under this section. A participating state agency
receiving petitions initiated under this section shall provide the
Administrator a written recommendation as to the disposition of any
petition received by them. Where the Administrator does not reverse or
modify a recommendation made by a state agency within 10 business days
of its receipt, the recommended disposition shall constitute the
Administrator's decision on the petition.
PART 192--[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1672 and 1804; 49 CFR 1.53.
4. In Sec. 192.3, the definition of Secretary is removed, and
definitions of Administrator and Line section are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 192.3 Definitions
Administrator means the Administrator of the Research and Special
Programs Administration or any person to whom authority in the matter
concerned has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation.
* * * * *
Line section means a continuous run of transmission line between
adjacent compressor stations, between a compressor station and storage
facilities, between a compressor station and a block valve, or between
adjacent block valves.
* * * * *
5. Section 192.9 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 192.9 Gathering lines.
Except as provided in Secs. 192.1 and 192.150, each operator of a
gathering line must comply with the requirements of this part
applicable to transmission lines.
6. Section 192.150 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 192.150 Passage of internal inspection devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
each new transmission line and each line section of a transmission line
where the line pipe, valve, fitting, or other line component is
replaced must be designed and constructed to accommodate the passage of
instrumented internal inspection devices.
(b) This section does not apply to: (1) Manifolds;
(2) Station piping such as at compressor stations, meter stations,
or regulator stations;
(3) Piping associated with storage facilities, other than a
continuous run of transmission line between a compressor station and
storage facilities;
(4) Cross-overs;
(5) Sizes of pipe for which an instrumented internal inspection
device is not commercially available;
(6) Transmission lines, operated in conjunction with a distribution
system which are installed in Class 4 locations;
(7) Offshore pipelines, other than transmission lines 10 inches or
greater in nominal diameter, that transport gas to onshore facilities;
and
(8) Other piping that, under Sec. 190.9 of this chapter, the
Administrator finds in a particular case would be impracticable to
design and construct to accommodate the passage of instrumented
internal inspection devices.
(c) An operator encountering emergencies, construction time
constraints or other unforeseen construction problems need not
construct a new or replacement segment of a transmission line to meet
paragraph (a) of this section, if the operator determines and documents
why an impracticability prohibits compliance with paragraph (a) of this
section. Within 30 days after discovering the emergency or construction
problem the operator must petition, under Sec. 190.9 of this chapter,
for approval that design and construction to accommodate passage of
instrumented internal inspection devices would be impracticable. If the
petition is denied, within 1 year after the date of the notice of the
denial, the operator must modify that segment to allow passage of
instrumented internal inspection devices.
PART 193--[AMENDED]
7. The authority citation for part 193 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1671 et seq.; and 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 193.2015 [Removed]
8. Section 193.2015 is removed and reserved.
PART 195--[AMENDED]
9. The authority citation for part 195 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 2002 and 2015; 49 CFR 1.53.
10. In Sec. 195.2, the definition of Secretary is removed, and the
definition of Administrator is added to read as follows:
Sec. 195.2 Definitions.
Administrator means the Administrator of the Research and Special
Programs Administration or any person to whom authority in the matter
concerned has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation.
* * * * *
Secs. 195.8, 195.56, 195.58, 195.106, 195.260 [Amended]
11. In Secs. 195.8, 195.56(a), 195.58, 195.106(e), and 195.260(e),
the term ``Secretary'' is removed and the term ``Administrator'' is
added in its place.
12. Section 195.120 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.120 Passage of internal inspection devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
each new pipeline and each line section of a pipeline where the line
pipe, valve, fitting or other line component is replaced; must be
designed and constructed to accommodate the passage of instrumented
internal inspection devices.
(b) This section does not apply to:
(1) Manifolds;
(2) Station piping such as at pump stations, meter stations, or
pressure reducing stations;
(3) Piping associated with tank farms and other storage facilities;
(4) Cross-overs;
(5) Sizes of pipe for which an instrumented internal inspection
device is not commercially available;
(6) Offshore pipelines, other than main lines 10 inches or greater
in nominal diameter, that transport liquids to onshore facilities; and
(7) Other piping that the Administrator under Sec. 190.9 of this
chapter, finds in a particular case would be impracticable to design
and construct to accommodate the passage of instrumented internal
inspection devices.
(c) An operator encountering emergencies, construction time
constraints and other unforeseen construction problems need not
construct a new or replacement segment of a pipeline to meet paragraph
(a) of this section, if the operator determines and documents why an
impracticability prohibits compliance with paragraph (a) of this
section. Within 30 days after discovering the emergency or construction
problem the operator must petition, under Sec. 190.9 of this chapter,
for approval that design and construction to accommodate passage of
instrumented internal inspection devices would be impracticable. If the
petition is denied, within 1 year after the date of the notice of the
denial, the operator must modify that segment to allow passage of
instrumented internal inspection devices.
Issued in Washington, DC on April 6, 1994.
Ana Sol Gutierrez,
Acting Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-8622 Filed 4-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P