[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 47 (Friday, March 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9415-9419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5489]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-144; Notice-1]


Risk-Based Alternative to the Pressure Testing Older Hazardous 
Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

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

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) 
invites representatives of industry, state, and local government, and 
the public to an open meeting to discuss a proposal by the American 
Petroleum Institute (API) for a risk-based alternative to the pressure 
testing older hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines rule (see 
Attachment). The purpose of this meeting is to obtain public views 
before RSPA considers API's proposal.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 25, 1996, from 1:00 p.m. to 
5:00 p.m. Written comments, in duplicate, are due by April 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments in 
duplicate to Dockets Unit, room 8421, Research and Special Programs 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, room 9230-34, Washington, DC. 
Non-federal employee visitors are admitted into DOT headquarters 
building through the southwest entrance at Seventh and E Streets, SW.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Israni, (202) 366-4571, regarding the subject matter of this 
document, or the Dockets Unit (202) 366-5046, for copies of this 
notice, the attachment or other material referenced in this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 7, 1994, RSPA issued a final rule 
(59 FR 29379) requiring the hydrostatic pressure testing of certain 
older hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. On June 23, 1995, 
API filed a petition on behalf of many liquid pipeline operators 
expressing strong concerns about the pressure testing rule in its 
present form and proposing a risk-based alternative to the pressure 
testing rule. API argued that its proposal would allow operators to 
focus resources for a greater reduction in the overall risk from 
pipeline accidents. In addition, RSPA has received a few requests for 
waivers of compliance with the June 7, 1994, final rule.

[[Page 9416]]

    RSPA wants to carefully evaluate the API proposal because RSPA has 
been working actively with the pipeline industry to develop a risk 
management framework for pipeline regulations. RSPA realizes that 
substantial planning is required before pressure testing of older 
pipelines. Operators 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 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. Therefore, RSPA issued a 
notice (60 FR 54328; October 23, 1995) of an extension of the time for 
compliance to allow for evaluation of the API petition.
    On January 31, 1996, RSPA held a meeting with the representatives 
of API to explore technical details of the API's proposal. Main 
features of the API's risk-based proposal are as follows:
    (a) Highest priority is given to the highest risk facilities; 
lowest risk facilities are excepted;
    (b) Consequence factors such as location, product type, and release 
potential are taken into consideration when setting testing priorities;
    (c) Best available technology is applied to verify pipeline 
integrity; and
    (d) Timing of tests is based on risk.
    It is important to note that current rule does not require any 
continuing effort to reassess the pipeline; however, under API's risk-
based alternative, the operator may be obliged to reassess the risk 
classification on a continuing basis.
    It should also be noted that in the API's risk-based proposal, 
there may be many pipelines that would not be hydrostatically tested. 
Those pipelines that pose the lowest risks would be excepted from 
testing. API's proposal provides for an alternative to hydrostatic 
testing in most cases where testing would be required. The alternative 
would be internal inspection using ``smart pigs.''
    RSPA is concerned that the risk classifications in API's proposal 
do not specifically account for the probability of pipeline failures. 
RSPA is suggesting that this could be remedied by including 
consideration of the history of past failures for a particular pipeline 
system in the API proposal. The following versions of API Tables have 
been modified by RSPA to suggest such an approach.

                      Table 2.--Risk Classification                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Probability                                         
 Hazard location     of failure       Product/volume           Risk     
    indicator        indicator          indicator         classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H                  Any..........  Any combination......  C              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   H............  H/H..................  C              
M                  M............  Any combination......  B              
                   L............  L/L..................  A              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   H............  H/H..................  B              
L                  M............  Any combination......  B              
                   L............  L/L..................  A              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 H=High, M=Moderate, L=Low.                                             


   Table 6.--Probability of Failure Indicators (in each haz. location)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Indicator            Failure history (Time-Dependent Defects) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H                             Release >1000 bbls in last 5 years.       
M                             1 or more reportable incidents in last 5  
                               years.                                   
L                             0 reportable incidents in last 5 years.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The API's proposal on risk-based alternative to the pressure 
testing rule is attached to this notice. RSPA is seeking comment on any 
of the above-described matters.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 4, 1996.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

BILLING CODE 4910-60-M

[[Page 9417]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR96.005


BILLING CODE 4910-60-C

[[Page 9418]]


API'S RISK-BASED ALTERNATIVE TO THE HYDROTEST RULE

    Note: Italicized comments are included in order to help clarify 
the accompanying text of this proposed alternative to the Hydrotest 
Rule.

Risk-Based Hydrotest Rule

    All previously grandfathered Class B and Class C pipeline segments, 
and Class A pipeline segments containing ``High Hazard'' pre-1970 ERW 
pipe shall either:
    1. Show that a past pressure test has been completed. (Proof of a 
past pressure test has been demonstrated when records can be (recording 
charts, logs, applicable test specifications, employee or inspector log 
books or other company or project records made at the time of the test 
and which result directly from that test), the preponderance of which 
substantiates a successfully completed past test at 125% of the maximum 
operation pressure); or
    2. Re-establish a maximum operating pressure at 80% of the highest 
operating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for more than 
four or more continuous hours, which can be demonstrated by recording 
charts or logs made at the time the operations were conducted; or
    3. Re-establish a maximum operating pressure in accordance with 
Subpart E--Pressure Testing and Table 1.
    All previously grandfathered Class A pipeline segments that do not 
contain ``High Hazard'' pre-1970 ERW pipe and non-HVL pipelines which 
operate at less than 20% of SMYS are excepted from the above 
requirements. See Tables 2-5 for definitions of Class A, B, and C 
facilities. For the purposes of this rule, all pipeline segments 
containing ``High Hazard'' pre-1970 ERW pipe and considered a Class C 
or B facility shall be treated as the top priority for testing because 
of the higher risk which may exist due to susceptibility to 
longitudinal seam failures.
    In all cases, operators should periodically review their facilities 
in order to reassess the classification which has been designated. 
Pipeline failures, changes in the characteristics of the pipeline 
route, or changes in service should all trigger a reassessment of the 
originally designated classification.

API's Risk-Based Alternative to the Hydrotest Rule

    **Comment: The following Table defines 4 levels of test 
requirements depending on the inherent risk of a given pipeline 
segment. The overall risk classification is determined based on the 
type of pipe involved, the facility's location, the product 
transported, and the relative volume of flow as determined from Tables 
2-5.**

          Table 1.--Test Requirements--Mainline Segments Outside of Terminals, Stations, and Tank Farms         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Pipeline Segment                 Classification         Test deadline \1\           Test medium       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``High Hazard'' Pre-70 Pipeline       Class C or B...........  3 yrs \3\.............  Water only.              
 Segments.\2\                                                                                                   
                                      Class A................  5 yrs \3\.............  Water only.              
All Other Pipeline Segments.........  Class C................  5 yrs \4\.............  Water only.              
                                      Class B................  9 yrs \4\.............  Water/Liq. \5\           
                                      Class A................  Additional pressure                              
                                                                testing not required.                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If operational experience indicates a history of past failures for a particular pipeline system, failure    
  causes shall be reviewed to determine whether the timing of the pressure test should be accelerated.          
\2\ All pre-1970 ERW pipeline segments may not require testing. All pre-1970 ERW pipe is not subject to the same
  susceptibility to longitudinal seam failures. In determining which ERW pipeline segments should be included in
  this category, operators should consider such factors as: the seam-related leak history of the pipe and pipe  
  manufacturing information as available, which may include the pipe steel's mechanical properties, including   
  fracture toughness; the manufacturing process and controls related to seam properties, including whether the  
  ERW process was high-frequency or low-frequency, whether the weld seam was heat treated, whether the seam was 
  inspected, the test pressure and duration during mill hydrotest; the cleanliness and quality control of the   
  steel-making process; and, other factors pertinent to seam properties and quality.                            
\3\ For those pipeline operators with extensive mileage of pre-1970 ERW pipe, any waiver requests for timing    
  relief should be supported by an assessment of hazards in accordance with location, product, and volume       
  considerations consistent with Tables 3, 4, and 5.                                                            
\4\ A magnetic flux leakage or ultrasonic internal inspection survey may be utilized as an alternative to       
  hydrotesting where leak history and operating experience do not indicate leaks caused by longitudinal cracks  
  or seam failure.                                                                                              
\5\ Pressure tests utilizing a hydrocarbon liquid may be conducted, but only with a liquid which does not       
  vaporize rapidly.                                                                                             

API's Risk-Based Alternative to the Hydrotest Rule

    **Comment: Using LOCATION, PRODUCT, and VOLUME ``Indicators'' from 
Tables 3, 4 and 5, the overall risk classification of a given pipeline 
or pipeline segment can be established from Table 2. The LOCATION 
Indicator is the primary factor which determines overall risk, with the 
PRODUCT and VOLUME Indicators used to adjust to a higher or lower 
overall risk classification per the following table.**

          Table 2.--Facility Classification--Pipeline Segments          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location indicator      Product/Volume Indicators       Classification  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.................  Any combination.................  Class C.          
                    H/H.............................  Class C.          
M.................  All other combinations..........  Class B.          
                    L/L.............................  Class A.          
L.................  H/H.............................  Class B.          
                    All other combinations..........  Class A.          
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: For Location and Product/Volume Indicators, see Tables 3, 
4 and 5.

Risk-Based Alternative to the Hydrotest Rule

    **Comment: Tables 4 and 5 are used to establish the PRODUCT and 
VOLUME Indicators used in Table 2. The PRODUCT Indicator is selected 
from Table 4 as H, M, or L based on the acute and chronic hazards 
associated with 

[[Page 9419]]
the product transported. The VOLUME Indicator is selected from Table 5 
as H, M, or L based on the nominal diameter of the pipeline.**

                      Table 4.--Product Indicators                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Indicator            Considerations           Product examples    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H...................  Highly volatile and       Propane, butane, NGL,   
                       flammable.                ammonia.               
                      Highly toxic............  Benzene, high H2S       
                                                 content crude oils.    
M...................  Flammable--flashpoint<10  Gasoline, JP4, low      
                       0F.                       flashpoint crude oils. 
L...................  Non-flammable--           Diesel, fuel, oil,      
                       flashpoint 100+F.         kerosene, JP5, most    
                                                 crude oils.            
                      Highly volatile and non-  CO2                     
                       flammable/non-toxic.                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considerations: The degree of acute and chronic toxicity to humans, 
wildlife, and aquatic life; reactivity; and, volatility, flammability 
and water solubility determine the Product Indicator. CERCLA RQ 
(Reportable Quantity) values can be used as an indication of chronic 
toxicity. NPA health factors can be used for rating acute hazards.

                       Table 5.--Volume Indicators                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Indicator                            Line size            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H....................................  18''                  
M....................................  10''-16'' nominal diameters.     
L....................................  8'' nominal diameter. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

API'S Risk-Based Alternative to The Hydrotest Rule

    **Comment: Table 3 is used to establish the LOCATION indicator used 
in Table 2. Based on the population (and possibly, in the future, 
environmental) characteristics associated with a pipeline facility's 
location, a LOCATION Indicator of H, M or L is selected. Please note 
that the identification of those areas which are unusually sensitive to 
environmental damage (which will affect these LOCATION Indicators) is 
currently being addressed by OPS. These deliberations will determine 
the final characterizations of Environment LOCATION Indicators.

            Table 3.--Location Indicators--Pipeline Segments            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Indicator            Population\1\             Environment       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.....................  Non-rural areas......  Currently, only          
                                                population (rural or non-
                                                rural) will determine   
                                                the LOCATION indicator. 
                                                Once a definition of    
                                                ``unusually sensitive   
                                                areas'' has been        
                                                established, the higher 
                                                of the Population or    
                                                Environment Indicator   
                                                will determine the      
                                                overall LOCATION        
                                                Indicator.              
M.....................  .....................  See above.               
L.....................  Rural areas..........  See above.               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pipeline segments transporting highly volatile or toxic products     
  should consider the effects of potential vapor migration.             

[FR Doc. 96-5489 Filed 3-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-M