[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10307-10308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5552]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
[Docket No. P-97-2W; Notice 1]
Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities Petition for Waiver; Northern
Eclipse, Inc.
Northern Eclipse, Inc. (NE) has petitioned the Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA) for a waiver from compliance with 49 CFR
storage tank impounding system. Section 193.2155(c) requires a Class 1
impounding system whenever an LNG storage tank is located within 20,000
feet from the nearest runway serving large aircraft. The petition
applies to the Northern Eclipse's proposed LNG storage facility at
Fairbanks, Alaska.
The petitioner's rationale for the waiver from compliance rests on
the following reasons:
1. Fairbanks does not currently have natural gas service, and given
the distance to gas fields and the size of the market, petitioner
believes that LNG is the only feasible way to provide natural gas
service in the community.
2. Fairbanks is a small town by a lower-48 states standards,
however, due to international air transport and reliance of Alaskans on
air travel, Fairbanks has an international airport (FIA) with a 11,050
foot long runway. In addition, Fairbanks has a similar runway for a
U.S. military base (Fort Wainwright), and other smaller runways in the
area. The 20,000 foot restriction requirement eliminates any reasonable
site in Fairbanks for an LNG storage tank and it would not be
economically feasible to build an impounding system which would
withstand a direct impact from a 747, in order to provide gas service
to the Fairbanks community.
3. NE does not propose to locate its storage tank in the approach/
departure corridor for heavy aircraft. The areas under consideration
are approximately two miles to the side of the FIA runway.
4. NE proposes the use of a shop fabricated, heavy outer wall
storage tank of less than 70,000 gallon capacity, built to National
Aeronautical and Space Administration specifications, and likely to
survive even a direct impact from small aircraft.
5. Similar LNG storage tanks and dispensing facilities are
routinely allowed at airports without impoundment as they are not
subject to Part 193 requirements, but they pose precisely the same risk
in the event of a collision, and due to their location at the airport
pose a much greater risk of impact from an aircraft. To support this
fact, NE provided pictures of an above ground NFPA 59A LNG storage tank
at the Dallas/Fort Worth airport.
6. Part 193 contains special provisions for LNG tanks with less
than a 70,000 gallon capacity. However, Section 193.2155(c) fails to
reflect the vastly different risks posed by different sized LNG storage
tanks. A small LNG tank like that proposed by NE poses no significant
risk, and certainly no more than any other similar small energy storage
tank, such as a propane tank or a non-Part 193 LNG tank.
7. During the December 9, 1996, meeting between NE and OPS on this
issue, NE was informed that the origin of the distance of 20,000 feet
from the airport was taken from the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) Regulations under 14 CFR part 77, which define a critical area
surrounding a large airport. According to NE, only Sec. 77.13(a)(2)(i)
of 14 CFR part 77, addresses 20,000 ft. restriction, which exists where
there are runways of over 3,200 feet in length, and that section refers
only to the heights of structures. NE believes that the FAA may be
concerned with the height of the structure rather than the contents.
Because of the unusual circumstances described above at NE's
proposed LNG facility, relatively low risk to the public safety due to
a smaller tank, and the operators's use of a shop fabricated heavy
outer wall built to more stringent standards than those specified under
part 193, RSPA believes that granting a waiver from the requirements of
49 CFR 193.2155(c) would not be inconsistent with pipeline safety, nor
would it lessen public safety in this case. The operator must comply
with all other requirements of part 193 including Class 2 impounding
system for the storage tank. Therefore, RSPA proposes to grant the
waiver.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the proposed waiver by
submitting in duplicate such data, views, or arguments as they may
desire. Comments should identify the docket number and the RSPA
rulemaking number. Comments should be addressed to the Docket Facility,
U.S. Department Of Transportation, plaza 401, 400
[[Page 10308]]
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
All comments received before April 7, 1997 will be considered
before final action is taken. Late filed comments will be considered so
far as practicable. No public hearing is contemplated, but one may be
held at a time and place set in a notice in the Federal Register if
required by an interested person desiring to comment at a public
hearing and raising a genuine issue. All comments and other docketed
material will be available for inspection and copying in room 401 Plaza
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 2002(h) and 2015; and 49 CFR 1.53.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 3, 1997.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 97-5552 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P