[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 114 (Friday, June 13, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32252-32255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15088]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 250
RIN 1010-AC17
Seismic Reassessment of California Outer Continental Shelf
Platforms; Republication
Editorial Note: The document set forth below was originally
published at 62 FR 31538-31541, Tuesday, June 10, 1997, and is being
reprinted in its entirety because of typesetting errors.
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: MMS has developed proposed regulations for the seismic
reassessment of offshore platforms. This proposed rule would only apply
to platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore the State of
California. This proposed rule includes criteria for determining a
platform's fitness through a structural analysis. Each platform on the
California OCS would need to undergo a seismic assessment within 3
years of publication of the final rule. An analysis would also be
triggered by damage to primary structural members, proposals to
significantly increase loads, or other significant changes. Previously,
MMS has allowed for good engineering judgment to determine how
modifications or significant changes would affect a platform's
structural integrity. This proposed rule will provide for more
consistency in seismic reassessment analysis.
DATES: MMS will consider all comments received by August 11, 1997. We
will begin reviewing comments then and may not fully consider comments
we receive after August 11, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry written comments to the Department of the
Interior; Minerals Management Service; 381 Elden Street; Mail Stop
4700; Herndon, Virginia 22070-4817; Attention: Rules Processing Team.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Ake, Engineering and Research
Branch, at (703) 787-1567.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Platforms installed offshore Southern
California prior to the 1970's were designed and constructed according
to onshore codes used at the time of their installation. In 1969, the
American Petroleum Institute (API) published a document entitled
``Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms,'' or API RP 2A, containing guidelines developed
[[Page 32253]]
specifically for offshore structures. The 7th edition of API RP 2A
(1976) was the first version to include guidelines for seismic loading.
The 19th edition of API RP 2A is currently incorporated into MMS
regulations, although the latest 20th edition was published in July
1993.
Following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, MMS and the
California State Lands Commission (CSLC) began investigating seismic
reassessment of structures located offshore Southern California. The
agencies began to evaluate seismic analyses that had been performed for
offshore platforms in their design phases. MMS decided to require
operators of the oldest platforms, constructed before the 1976 API RP
2A 7th edition guidelines were in place, to conduct preliminary seismic
analyses that are normally required for new platforms. The CSLC began a
program to reassess platforms that were undergoing significant changes
in operations, loads, or personnel. Experience with this process has
shown the need for the development of uniform seismic design criteria.
Aware of growing MMS and CSLC interest in reassessment and the lack
of credible reassessment criteria, the API funded an independent study
in 1991 by a panel of four distinguished experts in matters related to
seismic design. The results of the study were based on the underlying
recommendation that the seismic risk offshore should be similar to that
used for well-designed structures onshore. An API task group was formed
to develop reassessment procedures and criteria for storm and ice loads
as well as seismic loads. Its members were composed of technical
experts from the offshore industry, academia, and the MMS.
Using the panel's study on seismic reassessment as a guide, the API
task group developed a Supplement to the 20th edition of API RP 2A that
covers all environmental loading conditions. It provides technical
criteria to be used in reassessing existing structures. The criteria
embrace a fitness-for-purpose evaluation coupled with the risk of
structural failure and the consequences of that failure. The details of
the Supplement will not be discussed here since it has already been the
subject of several 1994 Offshore Technology Conference papers. The API
finalized and published this Supplement document as Supplement 1 to API
RP 2A in December 1996.
MMS held several workshops to involve industry, the public,
regulatory agencies, and academia in the development of reassessment
guidelines. MMS, CSLC, and others sponsored an international workshop
on seismic reassessment of offshore structures in December 1992. In
November 1993, MMS and CSLC co-sponsored a workshop on public policy
issues related to the seismic reassessment of platforms offshore
Southern California. In December 1993, MMS, API, and others sponsored
an international workshop on reassessment for structures located in all
areas for both earthquake and storm loadings. The workshops were well
attended by the interested parties. Discussions on public policy issues
at all three meetings resulted in consensus on the treatment of seismic
reassessment at the final workshop. The technical aspects of these
numerous public discussions have been incorporated into the API
Supplement, and MMS has made the proposed rule consistent with these
results. Proceedings are available for each of the workshops held.
MMS is moving forward with proposed seismic reassessment
regulations since seismic reassessments can provide critical
information about the offshore facilities in the seismically active
California OCS. Consideration is also being given to incorporating the
20th edition of API RP 2A, including the Supplement, into MMS
regulations instead of proceeding with this proposed rule. Commenters
are urged to provide comments on the relative merits of incorporating
the API documents into MMS regulations, as well as proceeding with this
rule.
The proposed rule would require lessees to conduct seismic
reassessments of OCS platforms located offshore the State of California
within three years of final rule publication. Reassessments would also
be triggered by changing circumstances at the platform such as an
increase of loads on the structure, or a change from an unmanned
platform to a manned platform. Most changes that trigger reassessments
would have to be judged ``significant'', which the proposed rule
defines as cumulative changes that cause a 10 percent decrease in the
platform's loading capacity or a 10 percent increase in the platform's
loads.
A manned platform would undergo an assessment to determine if it
could withstand a median 1000 year seismic event; an unmanned
platform's stability would be compared with the forces from a 500 year
seismic event. The more stringent requirement for a manned platform is
based on the higher standard needed to protect human life. Each seismic
reassessment must be verified by a Certified Verification Agent (CVA)
who has been approved by the MMS.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This rule was reviewed under E.O. 12866. The Department of the
Interior (DOI) has determined that the rule is not a significant rule
under the criteria of E.O. 12866 and therefore, the rule was not
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
DOI has determined that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Any direct effects of this rulemaking will primarily affect the OCS
lessees and operators--entities that are not small due to the technical
complexities and financial resources necessary to conduct OCS
activities. The indirect effects of this rulemaking on small entities
that provide support for offshore activities have also been determined
to be small.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains a collection of information which has
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, MMS invites the public and other Federal agencies to
comment on any aspect of the reporting burden. Submit your comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; OMB; Attention Desk
Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB control number 1010-
0058); 725 17th Street, NW.; Washington, D.C. 20503. Send a copy of
your comments to the Minerals Management Service; Attention: Rules
Processing Team; Mail Stop 4700; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia
20170-4817. You may obtain a copy of the proposed collection of
information by contacting the Bureau's Information Collection Clearance
Officer at (202) 208-7744.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the
proposed regulations.
The title of this collection of information is ``30 CFR 250,
Subpart I, Platforms and Structures,'' OMB control number 1010-0058.
The proposed rule adds the following requirements to the
[[Page 32254]]
currently approved collection of information required in Subpart I:
Submit a plan for analyzing the platform structure;
Obtain Regional Supervisor approval for analysis criteria
if utilizing a probabilistic analysis;
Review of a site-specific study by an independent peer
review panel; and
Obtain and submit a CVA report.
MMS would use this information to ensure that offshore structures
located on the California OCS meet today's standards for seismic
loading.
Respondents are Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulphur lessees with
platforms located on the California OCS. The proposed rule requires
compliance once within 3 years after publication of the final rule and
thereafter as applicable. The current approved reporting burden for
Subpart I is 21,803 hours. MMS estimates eight new responses each year
for the first three years. Additional years would average fewer than
two responses. We estimate the additional annual reporting burden as a
result of this rule would be 1,256 hours (157 hours per response).
Based on $35 per hour, the burden hour cost to respondents is estimated
to be $43,960.
In addition to the hour burden discussed above, the proposed rule
would add one other cost burden associated with the collection of
information. Section 250.145(e) requires respondents to obtain a final
report prepared by a CVA and submit it to the Regional Supervisor. We
estimate the cost of preparing that report (including the costs of
conducting engineering analysis) is $100,000 per platform.
MMS will summarize written responses to this notice and address
them in the final rule. All comments will become a matter of public
record.
1. MMS specifically solicits comments on the following questions:
(a) Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the
proper performance of MMS's functions, and will it be useful?
(b) Are the burden hour and cost of the final CVA report estimates
reasonable for the proposed collection?
(c) Do you have any suggestions that would enhance the quality,
clarity, or usefulness of the information to be collected?
(d) Is there a way to minimize the information collection burden on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information
technology?
2. In addition, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires
agencies to estimate the total annual cost burden to respondents or
recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. MMS needs
your comments on this item. Your response should split the cost
estimate into two components:
(a) Total capital and startup cost; and
(b) Annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of services.
Your estimates should consider the costs to generate, maintain, and
disclose or provide the information. You should describe the methods
you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology
acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount
rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup
costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase
to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, drilling,
and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your
estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: before
October 1, 1995; to comply with requirements not associated with the
information collection; for reasons other than to provide information
or keep records for the Government; or as part of customary and usual
business or private practices.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provides that an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
Takings Implication Assessment
DOI determined that this proposed rule does not represent a
governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally
protected property rights. Thus, DOI does not need to prepare a Takings
Implication Assessment pursuant to E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
E.O. 12988
DOI has certified that this proposed rule meets the applicable
civil justice reform standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
E.O. 12778.
National Environmental Policy Act
MMS has examined this proposed rulemaking and has determined that
this rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment pursuant to section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
DOI has determined and certifies according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rule will not impose a
cost of $100 million or more in any given year on State, local, and
tribal government, or the private sector.
List of Subjects in CFR Part 250
Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental
protection, Government contracts, Incorporation by reference,
Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas development and
production, Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas reserves, Penalties,
Pipelines, Public lands--mineral resources, Public lands--rights-of-
way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Dated: May 28, 1997.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Minerals Management Service
(MMS) proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as follows:
PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1334.
2. Section 250.145 is added to subpart I to read as follows:
Sec. 250.145 Seismic Reassessment of California OCS Platforms.
(a) Applicability. These requirements apply to all platforms
located on the California OCS.
(b) Definitions. When used in this section, the terms have the
following meanings:
Loss of Global Structural Stability means the point at which a
structure is unable to establish equilibrium under the applied gravity
loadings and induced earthquake forces.
Manned Platform means a platform that always has someone living on
it.
Platform Capacity means the platform's ability to resist loading or
to withstand a given maximum load.
Significant means cumulative damage or cumulative changes from the
original design premise that lead to a decrease in capacity or an
increase in loading greater than 10 percent.
Unmanned Platform means any platform other than a manned platform.
You means the lessee.
[[Page 32255]]
(c) When must I conduct a seismic reassessment? You must conduct a
seismic reassessment of each of your California OCS platforms in its
current condition by [Insert date that is 3 years after the date the
final rule is published in the Federal Register]. You must also conduct
a seismic reassessment when a reassessment initiator occurs.
Reassessment initiators are changes in the platform status which result
in a significant change in demand, capacity, or consequence of the
platform's failure, such as, but not limited to:
(1) Functional or operational changes which result in significantly
higher loads than in the original design (e.g., new waterflood
operations, additional tanks, or crew quarters, etc.).
(2) Significant damage to primary structural members or joints
found during an inspection.
(3) The availability of credible new seismic data that would
indicate significantly higher loads than those used in the original
design criteria.
(4) Significant changes in the original design criteria or
methodologies that would negatively affect the platform. An example of
this type of significant change is the evolution of the tubular joint
equation.
(5) A change from an unmanned platform to a manned platform.
(d) What are the criteria for a seismic reassessment? Before you
conduct the seismic reassessment, you must submit your plan for
analyzing the structure to the Regional Supervisor for approval. In
addition:
(1) For manned platforms, you must demonstrate that the platform in
its current condition can withstand a median 1000-year seismic event
without loss of global structural stability. The ultimate strength of
all undamaged members, joints and piles must be considered and, if
necessary, safety factors may be reduced to 1.0.
(2) For unmanned platforms, you must demonstrate that the platform
in its current condition can withstand a median 500-year seismic event
without loss of global structural stability. The ultimate strength of
all undamaged members, joints, and piles must be considered, and if
necessary, safety factors may be reduced to 1.0.
(3) The Regional Supervisor may accept a probabilistic analysis as
an alternative to the analyses required in paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2)
of this section. The probabilistic analysis must address the effects of
uncertainty and bias in loading and resistance. Before using this
method, you must obtain approval for your analysis criteria from the
Regional Supervisor.
(4) Topsides and appurtenances must withstand the seismic loads
from paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section and be in conformance
with the seismic provision of API RP 2A-WSD.
(5) You must conduct a site-specific study under 30 CFR 250.139
based on soil borings and geophysical data taken on or near the
platform vicinity, using the best available technology. You may use a
study previously conducted. An MMS approved independent peer review
panel must review the study.
(e) Does a third party need to verify the seismic reassessment? You
must use a Certified Verification Agent (CVA) approved by the MMS using
the qualification standards in Sec. 250.132(b)(1)(ii) to verify the
analyses required in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section.
You must submit the CVA's final report to the Regional Supervisor. It
must describe the analysis process and material reviewed, summarize the
findings, and include a recommendation to the Regional Supervisor. The
recommendation must advise the Regional Supervisor to either accept,
request modifications, or reject the reassessment.
(f) What if my platform does not pass the seismic reassessment? If
your structure does not meet the reassessment criteria, you must
contact the Regional Supervisor for approval to initiate one or more
mitigation actions. Mitigation actions are modifications to the
structure or to operational procedures that reduce loads, increase
capacities, or reduce consequences.
Editorial Note: This document was originally published at 62 FR
31538-31541, Tuesday, June 10, 1997, and is being reprinted in its
entirety because of typesetting errors.
[FR Doc. 97-15088 Filed 6-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D