[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13806]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 7, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-121; Amdt. 195-51]
RIN 2137-AB 46

 

Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide 
Pipelines

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule provides that operators may not transport a 
hazardous liquid in a steel interstate pipeline constructed before 
January 8, 1971, a steel interstate offshore gathering line constructed 
before August 1, 1977, or a steel intrastate pipeline constructed 
before October 21, 1985, unless the pipeline has been pressure tested 
hydrostatically according to current standards or operates at 80 
percent or less of a qualified prior test or operating pressure. In 
addition, this final rule creates a comparable requirement for carbon 
dioxide pipelines constructed before July 12, 1991, except for 
production field distribution lines in rural areas. The purpose of this 
final rule is to ensure that the affected pipelines have an adequate 
safety margin between their maximum operating pressure and test 
pressure. This safety margin is essential to prevention of particular 
kinds of pipeline accidents.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The changes to part 195, except Sec. 195.306(b), take 
effect July 7, 1994. The final rule under Sec. 195.306(b) takes effect 
August 8, 1994, unless RSPA receives, by July 7, 1994, comments that 
illustrate that disallowing the use of petroleum as a test medium for 
pressure testing required by this rulemaking is not in the public 
interest. Upon receipt of such comments, RSPA will publish a document 
in the Federal Register withdrawing the final rule under 
Sec. 195.306(b).

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted in duplicate and mailed 
or hand-delivered to the Dockets Unit, room 8421, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. 
Identify the docket and amendment number stated in the heading of this 
notice. Comments will become part of this docket and will be available 
for inspection or copying in room 8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
each business day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow, (202) 366-2392, 
regarding the subject matter of this final rule document, or Dockets 
Unit (202) 366-4453, for copies of this final rule document or other 
material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Any steel pipeline may contain hidden physical defects that result 
from the manufacture or transportation of pipe and from pipeline 
construction. Over the operational life of the pipeline, new physical 
defects can be created by external forces acting on the pipeline. When 
a physical defect is large enough, it can cause the pipeline to fail 
during operation. Also, during pipeline operation, internal or 
environmental stresses can cause smaller defects to grow and become 
large enough to cause the pipeline to fail.
    Adequate pressure testing can disclose hidden physical defects in a 
pipeline. Pressure testing involves raising a pipeline's internal 
pressure above its maximum operating pressure (MOP) for a time 
sufficient for leaks to develop from defects. A test that is adequate 
in pressure level and duration will disclose physical defects that are 
large enough to cause pipeline failure during operation. In addition, 
an adequate pressure test will provide a proven margin of safety 
against failure during operation from the growth of defects.
    Line pipe research has demonstrated that 125 percent of MOP is the 
minimum test level adequate to protect hazardous liquid pipelines 
against failure in operation from physical defects. A pressure test at 
this level for a sufficient duration provides a 25 percent proven 
margin of safety against failures caused by the growth of physical 
defects.
    Under Sec. 195.302, new steel pipelines must be pressure tested to 
provide at least a 25 percent proven margin of safety. Hazardous liquid 
pipelines must be pressure tested hydrostatically, but carbon dioxide 
pipelines may be tested pneumatically, using inert gas or carbon 
dioxide as the test medium (see Sec. 195.306). Portions of existing 
steel pipelines that are replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed are 
also subject to this pressure testing requirement. The requirement 
became effective as follows for pipelines subject to part 195: January 
8, 1971, for interstate pipelines transporting hazardous liquid (35 FR 
17183); August 1, 1977, for interstate offshore gathering lines 
transporting hazardous liquid (41 FR 34039); October 21, 1985, for 
intrastate pipelines transporting hazardous liquid (50 FR 15895); and 
July 12, 1991, for pipelines transporting carbon dioxide in a 
supercritical state (56 FR 26922).
    Section 195.302 also requires that certain older pipelines 
transporting highly volatile liquids (HVL) must have at least a 25 
percent proven margin of safety. These pipelines are onshore steel 
interstate pipelines constructed before January 8, 1971, and onshore 
steel intrastate pipelines constructed before October 21, 1985. If an 
older HVL pipeline has not been hydrostatically tested to part 195 
standards, Sec. 195.302(b) permits operators to provide the proven 
margin of safety either by hydrostatic testing or by establishing the 
pipeline's MOP under Sec. 195.406(a)(5) at 80 percent or less of a 
qualified prior test or operating pressure. Establishing MOP under 
Sec. 195.406(a)(5) and hydrostatic testing to part 195 standards 
provide equivalent proven margins of safety.
    Apart from these older HVL pipelines, the 25 percent proven margin-
of-safety requirement does not apply to older pipelines constructed 
before the dates (stated above) the pressure testing requirement went 
into effect for new pipelines. Consequently, many older pipelines 
subject to part 195 are not operated with a minimum 25 percent proven 
margin of safety. It was not common industry practice to test to at 
least 125 percent of MOP or to test to that pressure level for a 
sufficient duration.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Older pipelines that do not have a minimum 25 percent proven margin 
of safety are more susceptible to failures from defect growth in 
service than pipelines that meet the part 195 pressure testing 
requirements. They are also more susceptible to failure from defect 
growth during instances of overpressure permitted by Sec. 195.406(b). 
This increased potential for failure is prevalent in pipelines made of 
pre-1970 electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe.
    RSPA's pipeline accident statistics show the benefits of requiring 
older pipelines to have a minimum 25 percent proven margin of safety. 
September 15, 1985, was the date by which onshore interstate pipelines 
constructed before January 8, 1971, that transport HVL had to have a 
minimum 25 percent proven margin of safety. By that date these 
pipelines had to have been pressure tested hydrostatically to part 195 
requirements or operated at 80 percent or less of a qualified prior 
test or operating pressure. To learn the effect of the 25-percent-
safety-margin requirement, RSPA compared the period for which accident 
data were available before the requirement was adopted with the period 
from September 15, 1985, through December 31, 1989. Onshore HVL 
interstate pipelines had a 68 percent lower rate of failure from 
material defects and corrosion during the latter period. RSPA 
attributed this dramatic drop in failure rate to the 25-percent-safety-
margin requirement imposed on the older onshore HVL interstate 
pipelines. In addition, RSPA concluded that operators could achieve a 
comparable reduction in failure rate on all other older pipelines 
subject to part 195 that lack an adequate proven margin of safety.
    To bring about this reduction in failure rate, RSPA published a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (Docket PS-121; 56 FR 23538, May 
22, 1991) on testing older pipelines. The notice proposed to extend the 
part 195 requirement for a proven margin of safety to all pipelines 
that are covered by part 195 but excepted from the testing standards in 
subpart E of part 195. These pipelines are (1) hazardous liquid steel 
interstate pipelines constructed before January 8, 1971, other than 
onshore HVL pipelines; (2) hazardous liquid steel interstate offshore 
gathering lines constructed before August 1, 1977; (3) hazardous liquid 
steel intrastate pipelines constructed before October 21, 1985, other 
than onshore HVL pipelines; and (4) carbon dioxide steel pipelines 
constructed before July 12, 1991.
    In the NPRM, RSPA also discussed the unique safety problems with 
longitudinal seams on ERW pipe manufactured before 1970. RSPA proposed 
that operators give pipelines with a predominance of pre-1970 ERW pipe 
priority in scheduling tests. Under this proposal, testing of pipelines 
known to have more than 50 percent (by mileage) of pre-1970 ERW pipe 
would have to be completed within 4.5 years after a final rule is 
published.
    Thirteen persons submitted written comments on the NPRM: 11 
pipeline operators, the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the 
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). A discussion of the significant 
comments and their disposition in development of the final rules 
follows.

General Comments

    Most commenters discussed specific problems they anticipated in 
carrying out the rulemaking proposals, without objecting to them 
outright. DOI favored adoption of the proposals, especially for 
offshore pipelines. One commenter, a major operator of hazardous liquid 
pipelines, clearly supported the proposed rules. A few other operators 
hedged their apparent agreement with the proposals by suggesting RSPA 
allow smart pigs as a substitute for pressure testing or MOP reduction, 
an issue discussed separately below. Another operator asserted that 
RSPA should require pressure testing or MOP reduction only where risk 
is heightened by factors such as adverse leak or corrosion history, 
environmental sensitivity, or high population. Only two operators 
strongly objected to the proposals. But, they aimed their remarks at 
carbon dioxide pipelines, and as discussed below, the final rule 
addresses their concerns. By and large, RSPA believes the commenters 
supported the objective of the notice concerning older untested or 
inadequately tested hazardous liquid pipelines.
    Limiting the application of the proposed rules to older pipelines 
that have an increased risk of failure or that are near environmentally 
sensitive areas or a large number of people does not sufficiently 
address safety concerns. The problem of the growth of defects is common 
among all pipelines regulated by part 195. It is not limited to 
pipelines that are in a worrisome condition or a high risk location. 
For such problems, RSPA believes that all pipelines should provide a 
basic level of protection. The proposals in the NPRM were consistent 
with this view. They would assure that older pipelines provide at least 
the same basic level of protection against the growth of defects as 
newer pipelines must provide. Also, limiting the proposed rules to 
pipelines that involve some added element of risk would leave many 
miles of older pipelines without adequate protection against failures 
caused by the growth of defects. RSPA strongly believes these potential 
failures and preventable damages should not go unchecked.

Pump Stations and Tank Farms

    API and two operators argued that the proposed rules should not 
apply to pump stations, tank farms, or tank farm delivery facilities. 
They said compliance would be an extremely time-consuming task because 
of the many fittings, valves, tanks, and instrumentation. API also 
suggested the benefits would be questionable since most accidents, as 
described in the NPRM, occur on pipeline rights-of-way.
    Part 195 has limited application at tank farms. In general, it 
applies to only receiving and reinjection lines, to tanks used as 
breakout tanks, and to facilities associated with breakout tanks.
    Although the job of testing pump station and breakout tank 
facilities may be time-consuming, it is crucial to ensure public safety 
and protect the environment. Population has encroached on the older 
pump stations and tank farms since their construction, increasing their 
threat to public safety. Also, slow leaks at tank farms have polluted 
ground water and endangered neighborhoods.
    In considering the issue of pump stations and tank farms, RSPA 
examined the existing rule in Sec. 195.302 regarding the testing of 
older onshore HVL pipelines. Except for tank farm facilities to which 
the rule does not apply, Sec. 195.302 does not exclude any of the 
facilities the commenters suggested RSPA exclude from the present 
rulemaking. RSPA believes non-HVL facilities should not be treated 
differently. Leaks at non-HVL hazardous liquid facilities can have fire 
and pollution consequences. Also, even minor accidents at breakout 
tanks in tank farms have the potential to become uncontrollable 
emergencies because of proximity to other large volume hazardous liquid 
storage tanks. Therefore, RSPA has adopted the final rule as proposed 
concerning pump stations and breakout tanks. The demands of testing 
these facilities should be mitigated, however, by the compliance 
deadlines, which are discussed next.

Compliance Deadlines

    RSPA proposed a deadline of 1 year after publication of the final 
rule for operators to plan and schedule testing or to reduce MOPs. RSPA 
also proposed a deadline of 4.5 years after publication of the final 
rule for testing all pipelines with more than 50 percent pre-1970 ERW 
pipe, and for testing at least 50 percent of all other pipelines. 
Finally, RSPA proposed that operators complete all testing within 7.5 
years after publication of the final rule.
    One operator argued that RSPA should allow operators to use the 
entire test period to plan testing or to reduce MOPs. This commenter 
said that planning for testing or reduction in MOP would involve 
complicated analyses that would take longer than 1 year. The commenter 
also said any plan may need to be changed because of unforeseen 
operational problems that may arise during the test period.
    RSPA proposed a 1-year deadline to assure that operators start 
their testing program early in the test period. Early planning is 
necessary to minimize unexpected delays and assure that operators 
complete testing within the time allowed. Also, RSPA assumed that when 
operators plan to reduce MOP, the reduction could be done without 
lengthy preparations. Further, RSPA strongly believes any MOP reduction 
should be done early in the program to lessen the continuing risk to 
the public. If unforeseen testing or operational problems arise during 
the test period, an operator could modify its initial testing plan and 
schedule as needed to resolve those problems. Of course, any modified 
plan or schedule would still have to provide for completion of testing 
before the applicable deadline.
    The proposed 1-year deadline for MOP reduction or planning and 
scheduling testing was the same amount of time that Sec. 195.302 
allowed for similar activities on the older onshore HVL pipelines. 
However, the process will involve more mileage than it did for onshore 
HVL pipelines. Also, RSPA expects operators will need further planning 
to maintain the product-supply requirements of their customers. 
Therefore, RSPA has extended the proposed planning and scheduling 
deadline to 1.5 years in the final rule.
    Another operator thought the proposed test period for pre-1970 ERW 
pipelines was unfair to operators who have many of these pipelines. 
These operators would not be able to spread costs and impacts on 
operations over as much time as other operators. This commenter 
suggested that an equitable approach would be to require that operators 
give pre-1970 ERW pipelines priority in testing over the full test 
period.
    RSPA proposed a shorter test period for the pre-1970 ERW pipelines 
because these pipelines have unique safety problems. The unique 
problems cause pre-1970 ERW pipelines to have a greater potential for 
failure than other older pipelines. Since pre-1970 ERW pipelines pose a 
greater risk, requiring operators to test them sooner than other older 
pipelines is critical to safety.
    API declared that the proposed testing periods would create an 
undue hardship on consumers and the pipeline industry. It suggested 
RSPA lengthen the period to 10 years for all older pipelines, with 
testing priorities based on risk. Operators and shippers need the 
additional time, API said, so the nation's pipeline network can adapt 
to the impact of the testing program on the market. The operators and 
shippers would use the time to arrange alternative transportation and 
to prevent regional supply disruptions.
    Using similar reasoning, two operators also urged us to allow more 
time for testing. One operator thought a reasonable period would be 7 
years for pre-1970 ERW pipelines, and 10 years for the others. The 
other operator thought the periods should be 5 and 10 years, 
respectively.
    RSPA, too, is concerned about the potential adverse impact on the 
nation's fuel supplies that could result from testing thousands of 
miles of pipelines. Aside from the substantial planning that must be 
done before testing, many operators will need time to obtain waste 
water disposal permits from various jurisdictions. Operators will need 
time to prepare pipeline systems for testing and to arrange for 
personnel and equipment to conduct the tests.
    System changes and actual testing must be coordinated with product-
supply operations to minimize the impact on refineries, distributors, 
and users of the transported products. Also, operators need time to 
assure that testing is done safely, with the least environmental risk, 
and in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations. 
However, RSPA weighed these time demands in deciding upon the 
compliance deadlines proposed in the NPRM. None of the commenters who 
addressed the compliance-time issue substantiated their opinions that 
more time should be allowed. Although it is admittedly difficult to 
predict how much time is appropriate, the comments do not convince us 
that there are too many pre-1970 ERW pipelines to test in 4.5 years or 
that a decade is needed to complete testing of all other pipelines. 
Therefore, the final rule adopts the testing deadlines as proposed.
    RSPA has not adopted API's suggestion to allow 10 years for all 
older pipelines, with priorities based on risk, because the unique 
problems of pre-1970 ERW pipelines demand correction sooner. Also, 
considering the mileage involved, the potential savings from reusing 
test water, and the need to minimize market impacts, API's suggestion 
would further complicate the development of test schedules. Still, the 
final rule does provide operators flexibility in planning and 
scheduling tests. When feasible, operators could use this flexibility 
to select pipelines for testing according to leak history or other risk 
factors. RSPA encourages such testing priorities provided all required 
testing is completed within the periods allowed.

Charts or Logs

    Two operators commenting on proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(5) asked us 
not to limit allowable documentation of prior tests or operating 
pressures to recording charts or logs. They said the industry has never 
had to keep these charts and logs for older pipelines, and many have 
been lost. They suggested that the final rule allow alternative 
documentation, such as construction specifications, pipeline completion 
reports, and affidavits from responsible people.
    Considering the importance of a minimum 25 percent proven margin of 
safety to the integrity of pipelines, public safety cannot tolerate 
doubts about whether a pipeline has been adequately tested. Only 
recording charts or logs made at the time of prior testing or 
operations show with certainty that the minimum margin exists for the 
pipeline concerned. Alternative documentation, including 
specifications, reports, or affidavits, is less probative. Such 
evidence leaves some room for doubt because it does not result directly 
from pipeline testing or operation. Although recording charts and logs 
may no longer be available for some older pipelines, RSPA does not 
believe a lack of proper records justifies allowing a lesser level of 
proof for a matter so serious as pipeline integrity. Therefore, the 
final rule allows only recording charts or logs to document a prior 
test or operating pressure.
    Another operator was concerned that the documentation available for 
use under the proposed revision of Sec. 195.406(a)(5) may not meet 
existing Sec. 195.310. For example, the operator said calibration data 
may not be available. Section 195.310 specifies the records operators 
must keep for each pressure test required by subpart E of part 195. 
Section 195.310 does not affect the documentation required by existing 
Sec. 195.406(a)(5), and would not affect documentation under the 
proposed revision of Sec. 195.406(a)(5). Thus, operators need not have 
documentation under final Sec. 195.406(a)(5) in the same detail as 
Sec. 195.310 requires.

Permits for Disposal of Test Water

    When existing petroleum pipelines are pressure tested 
hydrostatically, the testing process introduces hydrocarbons into the 
test water. If test water picks up unacceptable quantities of 
hydrocarbons, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) governs its discharge into the environment. (See 40 CFR parts 
122-124.) The NPDES is a regulatory program administered by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cooperation with qualified 
State agencies under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
    Several commenters were concerned that the procedure of obtaining 
NPDES permits from State agencies and EPA for treatment and disposal of 
test water could significantly delay testing. This potential for delay 
probably would be limited to areas where operators do not transport 
test water to refineries for treatment and discharge, or do not store 
it for use in subsequent tests. Although none of the commenters 
estimated the time that would be needed to secure the NPDES permits, 
RSPA has considered this potential for delay in setting deadlines for 
compliance.
    Two operators and API suggested that RSPA somehow help the industry 
in obtaining from EPA a general NPDES permit for the disposal of 
treated test water. They also requested our assistance in obtaining a 
general waiver of the EPA requirement to measure the toxicity of test 
water. API said these actions would provide flexibility for efficient 
scheduling and implementation of testing.
    EPA has procedures for issuing permits and waivers under its NPDES 
program. EPA's decisions on applications for permits and waivers depend 
on facts known to the industry. Under these circumstances, RSPA 
believes an operator is the appropriate party to apply for permits or 
waivers.
    To hasten the process, RSPA will notify EPA of this final rule. 
RSPA will urge that agency to give prompt attention to requests for 
NPDES permits involving disposal of test water used to comply with the 
final rule. RSPA will also ask EPA to request its cooperating State 
agencies to give prompt attention to requests for permits and waivers.

Smart Pig Alternative

    Several operators and API recommended that the final rule allow the 
use of smart pigs (internal inspection devices) as an alternative to 
pressure testing for all pipelines, except the pre-1970 ERW pipelines. 
Two of these operators said pigging is superior to pressure testing 
because it shows where potential problems lie. Two operators thought 
pigging is better at finding corrosion problems, particularly deep 
isolated pits that may survive a pressure test. One operator and API 
argued that smart pigs could alleviate potential disruptions of service 
and many environmental and scheduling problems.
    Despite the capabilities of smart pigs, RSPA knows of no evidence 
that they can provide satisfactory long-term protection against the 
growth of defects. Only a minimum 25 percent proven margin of safety 
between MOP and a previous test or operating pressure is generally 
recognized as able to provide this protection.
    Various manufacturers have significantly improved the data 
collection and recording capabilities of smart pigs. The ability of 
trained personnel to interpret recorded pig data has also improved. Yet 
smart pigs still cannot detect as many pipeline defects that could grow 
to failure during operation as can an adequate pressure test. 
Longitudinal defects, like cracks in a longitudinal weld seam, are 
particularly resistant to detection by smart pigs. More important, an 
adequate pressure test provides a basis for safe operation, with a 
proven margin of safety against the growth of defects that survive the 
test. Smart pigs cannot provide such a margin of safety. Thus, they are 
not an adequate substitute for pressure testing in achieving the 
objectives of this rulemaking proceeding.

Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

    Two operators argued that RSPA should not adopt the proposed rules 
for older carbon dioxide pipelines, particularly production field 
distribution lines. They offered various reasons to exempt carbon 
dioxide pipelines:
     Carbon dioxide is non-polluting.
     The pipelines are relatively new, having been constructed 
in the 1980s.
     The pipelines have been pressure tested hydrostatically, 
but perhaps not to part 195 standards.
     The failure data used as a basis for the proposed rules 
did not include carbon dioxide pipelines.
     After hydrostatic pressure testing, carbon dioxide 
pipelines must be dehydrated, an expensive process that is not 
applicable to hazardous liquid pipelines.
     Pneumatic testing with carbon dioxide or inert gas poses a 
greater risk than hydrostatic testing because of the high pressures at 
which supercritical carbon dioxide pipelines operate.
     The alternative of MOP reduction would dramatically reduce 
enhanced oil recovery rates.
    As for carbon dioxide distribution lines, the two operators said 
these pipelines generally are smaller than transmission lines, and only 
affect isolated areas in oil production fields. The commenters said 
pressure testing of carbon dioxide distribution systems would seriously 
disrupt oil field operations. One of these operators said that over 50 
separate tests may be needed to minimize disruption, depending on the 
layout of the distribution system.
    In view of these comments, RSPA has reviewed both the need to apply 
the proposed rules to carbon dioxide pipelines and the burden of 
compliance. Carbon dioxide pipelines have not been subject to part 195 
long enough for us to develop an accident history for them. Still, 
because of their similarity to hazardous liquid pipelines, untested or 
inadequately tested carbon dioxide pipelines can fail in service from 
the growth of physical defects, whatever the pipeline's age. Although 
carbon dioxide is non-polluting and nonflammable, any failure that 
releases large quantities of carbon dioxide would expose nearby persons 
to the risk of suffocation.
    This risk is less, however, for production field distribution lines 
that transport carbon dioxide than for transmission lines that 
transport carbon dioxide. Compared to transmission lines, which move 
large volumes of carbon dioxide over long distances, individual 
pipelines in a production field distribution system carry smaller 
volumes over localized areas. Normally these areas are rural. In 
addition, the burden of compliance would be greater for field 
distribution systems than for transmission lines. Testing field 
distribution systems could disrupt oil production and require a 
multiplicity of tests to minimize that disruption. RSPA believes this 
combination of decreased risk and increased burden of compliance 
justifies excluding from the final rule production field distribution 
lines that are in a rural area. As defined in Sec. 195.2, the term 
``rural area'' means ``outside the limits of any incorporated or 
unincorporated city, town, village, or any other designated residential 
or commercial area such as a subdivision, a business or shopping 
center, or community development.''
    In the final rules, Sec. 195.302(b)(2)(ii) reflects our decision to 
exclude older carbon dioxide field distribution lines in rural areas 
from the 25-percent-safety-margin requirement. Consistent with the 
present pressure testing requirement, any portion of these older lines 
that is replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed on or after July 12, 
1991, or any older line converted to carbon dioxide service under 
Sec. 195.5 would have to be pressure tested to at least 1.25 times its 
MOP.

Test Pressure

    In the NPRM, RSPA proposed to redesignate existing Sec. 195.302(c), 
concerning the level and duration of test pressure, as new 
Sec. 195.303. RSPA received no comments on this proposal, and has 
adopted it as final. However, the term ``hydrostatic test'' is replaced 
by ``pressure test'' because under existing requirements, carbon 
dioxide pipelines may be pressure tested either pneumatically or 
hydrostatically.

Test Medium

    In most cases, operators must use water as the hydrostatic test 
medium for hazardous liquid pipelines (Sec. 195.306(a)). However, under 
specified conditions, onshore pipelines may be tested with petroleum 
that does not vaporize rapidly (Sec. 195.306(b)).
    This exception allowing operators to use petroleum as the test 
medium was established when only newly constructed pipelines were 
subject to hydrostatic testing under part 195. Newly constructed 
pipelines are less likely to rupture during a hydrostatic test than 
pipelines that have been in operation for a number of years and never 
tested or inadequately tested. Therefore, RSPA is concerned that if 
existing pipelines subject to testing under the final rule were tested 
with petroleum, operators would not be able to contain all the 
petroleum that would spill from ruptures. To preclude this outcome, 
RSPA has revised Sec. 195.306(b) to prohibit the use of petroleum as a 
test medium in pressure testing pipelines to meet the final rule.
    Although RSPA's NPRM did not propose to limit the use of petroleum, 
the NPRM asked operators to estimate the pipeline mileage they would 
test with petroleum to learn the extent to which operators might use 
petroleum instead of water as the test medium. Only four operators 
responded, and the answers ranged from none to practically none. Based 
on this information and RSPA's experience in administering the 
hydrostatic testing rules of part 195, disallowing the use of petroleum 
as a test medium under the final rule should not significantly affect 
the burden of compliance with the rule.
    Although RSPA believes this action is within the scope of the NPRM, 
because we did not specifically propose it, Sec. 195.306(b) will be 
effective August 8, 1994, unless by July 7, 1994, RSPA receives 
comments that illustrate that this final rule is not in the public 
interest. Upon receipt of such comments, RSPA will withdraw 
Sec. 195.306(b) before the effective date by simultaneously publishing 
two subsequent documents. One document will withdraw this section of 
the final rule. The other will announce a proposal to disallow the use 
of petroleum as a test medium for pressure testing required by this 
rulemaking and establish a new comment period. If RSPA does not receive 
comments that illustrate that Sec. 195.306(b) is not in the public 
interest, RSPA will publish a notice advising that Sec. 195.306(b) will 
be effective on August 8, 1994.

Advisory Committee Review

    RSPA presented a draft of the NPRM to the Technical Hazardous 
Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) for its 
consideration at a meeting in Washington, DC on September 14, 1988. 
THLPSSC is RSPA's statutory advisory committee for hazardous liquid 
pipeline safety. It is comprised of 15 members, representing industry, 
government, and the public, who are technically qualified to evaluate 
liquid pipeline safety.
    THLPSSC's discussion of the draft centered on cost of compliance; 
problems of compliance, such as waste water disposal; and the smart-pig 
alternative. THLPSSC voted not to support the draft NPRM primarily 
because RSPA had not yet demonstrated that the proposed rules were cost 
beneficial.
    At a meeting on September 14, 1989, RSPA updated THLPSSC on the 
status of the draft NPRM. Committee members discussed many issues, 
including product supply to customers, disposal of test water, and the 
time needed for compliance. Although no vote was taken, THLPSSC members 
representing industry indicated agreement with the need to test the 
older untested or inadequately tested pipelines.
    RSPA has decided to adopt final rules in this proceeding despite 
THLPSSC's negative vote in 1988. RSPA did so because THLPSSC's primary 
concern was that the rules be cost beneficial, and the final regulatory 
evaluation supports that conclusion. Also, RSPA has addressed THLPSSC's 
other concerns elsewhere in this preamble in response to similar 
concerns raised by commenters. The THLPSSC's reports of the 1988 and 
1989 meetings are available in the docket of this proceeding.

Wording of Final Rules

    The final rules are worded differently from the proposed rules. 
However, other than the substantive changes discussed above, the 
changes in wording are for editorial or clarification purposes. In 
several existing rules, the word ``hydrostatic'' or ``hydrostatically'' 
is replaced by ``pressure,'' because under subpart E carbon dioxide 
pipelines may be pressure tested either hydrostatically or 
pneumatically. Also, the title of subpart E is changed from 
``Hydrostatic Testing'' to ``Pressure Testing.'' In Secs. 195.304(b) 
(1) and (2), the word ``hydrostatically'' is not changed to 
``pressure,'' because these rules concern factory testing of 
components, not post-construction pipeline testing.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule incrementally increases the current information 
collection burden under Sec. 195.310. Section 195.310 requires 
operators to keep certain records of each test required by subpart E of 
part 195 for as long as the tested facility is in use. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this increased burden under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. chap. 35). 
The OMB approval number is 2137-0047.

Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866. Therefore, it was reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget. In addition, the final rule is significant under DOT's 
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) 
because it involves a substantial change in regulations affecting 
certain existing pipelines.
    Several operators and API suggested revisions to the draft 
``Economic Evaluation'' RSPA prepared in support of the NPRM. Also, 
some of these commenters and others responded to our specific requests 
in the NPRM for information to aid us in assessing the impact of the 
final rule. How RSPA dealt with these comments is discussed in the 
final regulatory evaluation, a copy of which is in the docket. The 
final regulatory evaluation shows net benefits resulting from the final 
rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Based on the facts available about the anticipated impact of this 
rulemaking action, I certify pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605) that the action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
because few, if any, small entities operate pipelines subject to part 
195.

Executive Order 12612

    This rulemaking action will 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 E.O. 12612 
(52 FR 41685), RSPA has determined that this final rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

    RSPA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined 
that this action would not significantly affect the quality of the 
human environment. An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No 
Significant Impact are in the docket.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

    Anhydrous ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA amends part 195 of title 49 
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 195--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 2001 et seq.; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Subpart E--[Amended]

    2. The title of subpart E is revised to read as follows: ``Subpart 
E--Pressure Testing''.
    3. Section 195.300 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.300  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for the pressure 
testing of steel pipelines. However, this subpart does not apply to the 
movement of pipe under Sec. 195.424.
    4. Section 195.302 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.302  General requirements.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in 
Sec. 195.304(b), no operator may operate a pipeline unless it has been 
pressure tested under this subpart without leakage. In addition, no 
operator may return to service a segment of pipeline that has been 
replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed until it has been pressure 
tested under this subpart without leakage.
    (b) Except for pipelines converted under Sec. 195.5, the following 
pipelines may be operated without pressure testing under this subpart:
    (1) Any hazardous liquid pipeline whose maximum operating pressure 
is established under Sec. 195.406(a)(5) that is--
    (i) An interstate pipeline constructed before January 8, 1971;
    (ii) An interstate offshore gathering line constructed before 
August 1, 1977; or
    (iii) An intrastate pipeline constructed before October 21, 1985.
    (2) Any carbon dioxide pipeline constructed before July 12, 1991, 
that--
    (i) Has its maximum operating pressure established under 
Sec. 195.406(a)(5); or
    (ii) Is located in a rural area as part of a production field 
distribution system.
    (c) Except for onshore pipelines that transport HVL, the following 
compliance deadlines apply to pipelines under paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(b)(2)(i) of this section that have not been pressure tested under this 
subpart:
    (1) Before December 7, 1995, for each pipeline each operator 
shall--
    (i) Plan and schedule testing according to this paragraph; or
    (ii) Establish the pipeline's maximum operating pressure under 
Sec. 195.406(a)(5).
    (2) For pipelines scheduled for testing, each operator shall--
    (i) Before December 7, 1998, pressure test--
    (A) Each pipeline identified by name, symbol, or otherwise that 
existing records show contains more than 50 percent by mileage of 
electric resistance welded pipe manufactured before 1970; and
    (B) At least 50 percent of the mileage of all other pipelines; and
    (ii) Before December 7, 2001, pressure test the remainder of the 
pipeline mileage.
    5. Section 195.303 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 195.303  Test pressure.

    The test pressure for each pressure test conducted under this 
subpart must be maintained throughout the part of the system being 
tested for at least 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to 125 
percent, or more, of the maximum operating pressure and, in the case of 
a pipeline that is not visually inspected for leakage during the test, 
for at least an additional 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to 
110 percent, or more, of the maximum operating pressure.


Sec. 195.304  [Amended]

    6. In Sec. 195.304, in paragraph (a), the word ``hydrostatic'' is 
removed and the word ``pressure'' is added in its place; and in the 
introductory text of paragraph (b), the word ``hydrostatically'' is 
removed and the word ``pressure'' is added in its place.
    7. The introductory text of Sec. 195.306(b) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 195.306  Test medium.

* * * * *
    (b) Except for offshore pipelines and pipelines to be tested under 
Sec. 195.302(c), liquid petroleum that does not vaporize rapidly may be 
used as the test medium if--
* * * * *


Sec. 195.308  [Amended]

    8. In Sec. 195.308, the word ``hydrostatically'' is removed and the 
word ``pressure'' is added in its place.


Sec. 195.310  [Amended]

    9. In Sec. 195.310(a), the word ``hydrostatic'' is removed and the 
word ``pressure'' is added in its place.
    10. In Sec. 195.406, in paragraph (a)(3), the word 
``hydrostatically'' is removed and the word ``pressure'' is added in 
its place; and paragraph (a)(5) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.406  Maximum operating pressure.

    (a) * * *
    (5) For pipelines under Secs. 195.302(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) that have 
not been pressure tested under subpart E of this part, 80 percent of 
the test pressure or highest operating pressure to which the pipeline 
was subjected for 4 or more continuous hours that can be demonstrated 
by recording charts or logs made at the time the test or operations 
were conducted.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 1994.
Ana Sol Gutierrez,
Acting Administrator, RSPA.
[FR Doc. 94-13806 Filed 6-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P