[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5918-5924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-2860]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-144; Notice 2]
[RIN 2137-AC 78]


Risk-Based Alternative To Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid 
and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines Rule

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to allow operators of older hazardous 
liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines to elect a risk-based alternative 
in lieu of the existing rule. The existing rule requires the 
hydrostatic pressure testing of certain older pipelines. The risk-based 
alternative would allow operators to elect an approach to evaluating 
the integrity of these lines that takes into account individual risk 
factors. This would allow operators to focus resources on higher risk 
pipelines and effect a greater reduction in the overall risk from 
pipeline accidents.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by April 6, 1998. Late filed comments 
will be considered to the extent practicable.

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 notice 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.


[[Page 5919]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni, (202) 366-4571, regarding 
the subject matter of this proposed rule, or Dockets Unit (202) 366-
4453, for copies of this final rule document or other material in the 
docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 7, 1994, RSPA published a final rule, ``Pressure Testing 
Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines,'' (Amdt. 195-51; 
59 FR 29379) to ensure that certain older pipelines have an adequate 
safety margin between their maximum operating pressure and test 
pressure. This safety margin is to be provided by pressure testing 
according to part 195 standards or operation at 80 percent or less of a 
qualified prior test or operating pressure. The pipelines covered by 
the rule are steel interstate pipelines constructed before January 8, 
1971, steel interstate offshore gathering lines constructed before 
August 1, 1977, or steel intrastate pipelines constructed before 
October 21, 1985, that transport hazardous liquids subject to part 195. 
Also covered are steel carbon dioxide pipelines constructed before July 
12, 1991, subject to part 195.
    On June 23, 1995, the American Petroleum Institute (API) filed a 
petition on behalf of many liquid pipeline operators that proposed a 
risk-based alternative to the required pressure testing rule. API 
indicated that its proposal would allow operators to focus resources on 
higher risk pipelines and to effect a greater reduction in the overall 
risk from pipeline accidents.
    In order to determine whether the API proposal had merit, RSPA held 
a public meeting on March 25, 1996. On May 8 and November 7, 1996, and 
on May 17, 1997, RSPA briefed the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline 
Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) on the API proposal and steps 
taken by RSPA to develop a proposed rule. As discussed in more detail 
below, RSPA finds considerable merit in a risk-based approach to 
pressure testing of older hazardous liquid pipelines. It provides 
accelerated testing of electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe, 
incorporates the use of new technology, and provides for continuing 
internal inspection of older pipelines through a pigging program. RSPA 
has been working actively with the pipeline industry to develop a risk 
management framework for pipeline regulations. The API proposal is 
consistent with the risk assessment and management approach to safety. 
The API proposal provides an opportunity to pilot a risk-based approach 
in a rulemaking forum. Accordingly, this notice of proposed rulemaking 
proposes a risk-based alternative to the pressure testing rule that has 
been modeled after the API proposal.
    RSPA has extended time for compliance with the pressure testing 
rule in order to allow completion of this rulemaking on a risk-based 
alternative. The deadline for complying with Sec. 195.302 (c)(1) is 
extended to December 7, 1998. The deadline for complying with 
Sec. 195.302(c)(2)(i) is extended to December 7, 2000. The deadline for 
complying with Sec. 195.302(c)(2)(ii) is extended to December 7, 2003. 
[62 FR 54591; October 21, 1997].
    RSPA seeks comment and information on how to measure the 
performance of this risk-based alternative to determine effectiveness, 
particularly in comparison with the pressure test rule.

II. Major features of risk-based alternative

    The proposed risk-based alternative to the rule requiring the 
pressure testing of older pipelines has six main features:

1. Highest Priority is Given to the Highest Risk Facilities; Lowest 
Risk Facilities are Excepted From Additional Measures

    Pre-1970 electric resistance welded (ERW) and lapweld pipelines 
susceptible to longitudinal seam failures exhibit the highest potential 
risk because of their combination of probability of failure and 
potential for larger volume releases as evidenced by historical 
records. Pressure testing is the only available technology for 
verifying the integrity of pre-1970 ERW and lapweld pipelines, because 
it can detect the type of seam failures endemic to some ERW and all 
lapweld pipe. This risk-based alternative requires accelerated testing 
of pre-1970 ERW and lapweld pipe susceptible to longitudinal seam 
failure in certain locations (risk classification C and B) where people 
might be significantly affected. However, in rural areas (risk 
classification A), where consequences to the public are less 
significant, the risk-based alternative allows delayed testing for pre-
1970 ERW and lapweld pipe susceptible to longitudinal failure and 
allows the operator to determine the need for pressure testing of other 
types of pipe.

2. Consequence Factors Such as Location, Product Type, and Release 
Potential are Taken Into Consideration When Setting Testing Priorities

    This risk-based alternative takes into account the most significant 
variables that may impact the severity of a release, i.e., location 
with respect to populated areas, the nature of the product transported, 
and the potential volume of product release. Historically, a very small 
percentage of releases adversely impacted public safety. By taking 
these potential consequences into consideration in the timing of tests, 
an operator's resources will be more effectively applied to reduce 
risks.

3. Best Available Technology is Applied To Verify Pipeline Integrity

    The risk-based alternative encourages the use of the most effective 
means to ensure pipeline integrity. This proposal utilizes the strength 
of two primary technologies--pressure testing and magnetic flux 
leakage/ultrasonic internal inspection devices. Each technology 
provides testing advantages in particular circumstances. This proposal 
allows the operator to evaluate the pipeline risk considerations and to 
choose the most appropriate technology.

4. Timing of Tests is Based on Risk

    Considering the probability and consequence factors, the risk-based 
concept increases the priority of a limited amount of pre-1970 ERW and 
all lapweld pipelines and maintains the three-year timing for risk 
classification B and C lines which represent the highest risk to 
people. Pipelines with lower risks (risk classification A) are allowed 
a longer testing schedule or are eliminated (non high risk pre-1970 ERW 
pipelines) from a mandatory testing requirement. Nothing in this 
proposed alternative precludes an operator from accelerating these 
schedules based on their pipeline operating and maintenance history.

5. Reduces Test Water Requirements

    This proposal would allow operators options that require less test 
water and generate less water requiring treatment.

6. Provides an Opportunity To Reduce Operating Costs and Maintain the 
Necessary Margins of Safety by Applying the Risk-based Concept

    Acceptance and implementation of this proposal provides an 
opportunity to pilot a risk-based approach to regulation. OPS 
anticipates increased use of risk-based approaches in future 
rulemakings.

III. Proposed Rule

    RSPA is proposing to add a new section to Part 195 entitled ``Risk-
based alternative to pressure testing.'' Existing sections Sec. 195.303 
``Test pressure'', and Sec. 195.304 ``Testing of components'' will be 
renumbered as Sec. 195.304 and Sec. 195.305 respectively.

[[Page 5920]]

    Proposed new section Sec. 195.303 ``Risk-based alternative to 
pressure testing'' would allow an operator of older hazardous liquid 
and carbon dioxide pipeline to elect an approach to evaluating the 
integrity of lines that takes into account individual risk factors. 
This alternative establishes test priorities based on the inherent risk 
of a given pipeline segment. Each pipeline is assigned a risk 
classification based on several indicators. In assigning a risk 
classification to a given pipeline segment, the first step is to 
determine whether or not the segment contains pre-1970 ERW and lap-weld 
pipe susceptible to longitudinal seam failures \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Certain pre-1970 ERW and lap-weld pipeline segments are 
susceptible to longitudinal seam failures. An Operator must consider 
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 quality control of the steel-making process; and other factors 
pertinent to seam properties and quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next step is to determine the pipeline segment's proximity to 
populated areas (Location).
    We are not now proposing to include environmentally sensitive 
locations within the risk factors for application of the alternative. 
This is consistent with the API proposal for a risk based alternative. 
Following public briefings on the progress of the rulemaking at the 
THLPSSC meetings in November 1996 and May 1997, API objected to 
inclusion of an environmental factor as premature in light of the 
ongoing rulemaking to define unusually sensitive areas (USAs). While we 
do not necessarily agree that a definition of USAs will provide the 
sole basis for inclusion of an environmental factor for a risk-based 
alternative to pressure testing, we recognize the difficulties in 
including such a factor before the USA definition is formulated. The 
difficulty in even articulating a factor at this time was made very 
apparent by THLPSSC members at the May 1997 meeting (while one member 
argued that the environmental factor under consideration for the 
proposed rule was inadequate, two other members challenged that 
argument) and discussions with the members and API following that 
meeting. Because this alternative takes into consideration other 
significant risk factors that may impact severity of a release, i.e., 
proximity to populated areas, potential volume of the product release, 
the nature of product transported, pipeline failure history and 
pipeline susceptible to longitudinal seam failures, it is unlikely that 
pipeline testing is being undermined by not considering the 
environmental factor in the interim. Therefore, we have decided to omit 
an environmental factor at this time and explore the issue further once 
we have defined ``unusually sensitive areas''.
    The risk classification of a segment is also adjusted based on the 
pipeline failure history, the product transported, and the volume 
potentially releasable in a failure. Additional guidance for use of the 
alternative is provided in a new proposed Appendix B.
    The pipeline failure history, denoted in the proposed rule as 
``Probability of Failure Indicator,'' is an important factor. The 
history of past failures (types of failures, number of failures, sizes 
of releases, etc.) plays an important role in determining the chances 
of future occurrences for a particular pipeline system. Therefore, it 
has been included as risk factor in the matrix for determining the risk 
classification. In the proposed rule the probability of failure 
indicator is considered ``high risk'' if the pipeline segment has 
experienced more than three failures in last 10 years due to time-
dependent defects (due to corrosion, gouges, or problems developed 
during manufacture, construction or operation, etc.). Pipeline 
operators should make an appropriate investigation of spills to 
determine whether they are due to time-dependent defects. An operator's 
determination should be based on sound engineering judgment and be 
documented. RSPA seeks comment on whether some failures are so minimal 
as to be appropriately excluded from the failure history risk factor. 
If so, how should the failure be quantified? Should it only be a 
reportable incident?
    In addition, the proposed rule provides compliance dates and 
recordkeeping requirements for those operators who elect the risk-based 
alternative to pressure testing of older hazardous liquid and carbon 
dioxide pipelines.
    RSPA believes the proposed rule will provide the pipeline industry 
with the flexibility to elect alternative technology for evaluating 
pipeline integrity without sacrificing safety.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this notice was reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget. In addition, this proposed rule is 
significant under DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 
11034; February 26, 1979) because it is the first explicitly risk-based 
approach to rulemaking proposed by the Office of Pipeline Safety. A 
copy of the draft regulatory evaluation to this proposal is also 
available in the docket office for review.
    This section summarizes the conclusions of the draft regulatory 
evaluation. RSPA's pressure testing final rule was published on June 7, 
1994 (59 FR 29379) along with a regulatory evaluation which found that 
the rule had a positive net benefit to the public, i.e., the benefits 
of the rule exceeded the cost (Present value costs of the earlier 
proposal were estimated to be between $134-$179 million in 1997 dollars 
while the present value benefits were estimated as $230-$283 million). 
Since the risk-based alternative maintains the necessary margins of 
safety, the benefits of this alternative should be similar to the 
benefits of the earlier proposal. The present value costs for the risk-
based alternative are estimated to be between $88.4-$98.4 million for 
reasons described below. The proposed rule allows the use of 
alternative technology (smart pigs) for evaluating pipeline integrity. 
On average smart pig testing is less expensive than pressure testing by 
$2,650/mile. In some cases smart pig technology provides more 
information about pipeline anomalies than pressure testing. The 
alternative would reduce the total amount of test water, which should 
lower the waste treatment costs and generate less hazardous waste. The 
alternative would allow operators to forgo testing where pipelines have 
low operating pressures, transport non-volatile product, operate in 
rural areas, and have good records on pipeline failure history.
    This risk-based approach is an ongoing process. RSPA believes that 
the risk-based alternative maintains the necessary margins of safety 
for the public. Moreover, RSPA concludes that this alternative has the 
potential for positive improvements for the environment while reducing 
operating costs by allowing operators to elect those test methods most 
appropriate to the circumstances of each pipeline.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
    The regulatory flexibility analysis of the earlier final rule 
concluded that it would not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. RSPA believes that because this proposed 
regulation offers an alternative to operators that could reduce the 
impact of the earlier regulation, this

[[Page 5921]]

proposed rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. 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.
    However, RSPA does not currently have specific information about 
small entities which may elect to use this alternative to pressure 
testing. RSPA requests comments from small entities directed at the 
impacts of this proposed rule.
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; October 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that this final 
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    This rule does not substantially modify the paperwork burden on 
pipeline operators. Under the current pressure testing regulations 
operators are required to have testing plans, schedules, and records. 
The risk-based alternative would require the same or equivalent plans, 
schedules, and records for either pressure testing or internal 
inspection. Therefore, there is no additional paperwork required. 
Operators who choose the risk-based alternative will be required to 
have records that the pipeline segment which is not being tested 
qualifies for the risk-based alternative. According to conversations 
between OPS and the pipeline industry some of this information is 
already available in the form of drawings or plans that can be found 
either in operators' Facility Response Plans required by the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) or in emergency response plans required 
by RSPA.
    Operators will be required to periodically review the pipelines 
that qualify for the risk-based alternative to ensure that they still 
qualify. OPS believes that operators can conduct this review as part of 
their normal procedures.
    Because of the above analysis, OPS does not believe that operators 
will have any additional paperwork burden because of this alternative, 
and therefore no separate paperwork submission is required.
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 proposes to amend 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 U.S.C. 60102, 60104, 60108, and 60109; and 49 CFR 
1.53.

    2. Section 195.302 would be amended by adding a new paragraph 
(b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 195.302  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Those portions of older hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide 
pipelines for which an operator has elected the risk-based alternative 
under Sec. 195.303 and which are not required to be tested based on the 
risk-based criteria.
* * * * *
    3. Section 195.302(a) is amended by removing cross-reference 
``Sec. 195.304(b)'' and adding in its place cross-reference 
``Sec. 195.305(b)''.
    4. In paragraph (c) of Sec. 195.302, the introductory text would be 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.302  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Except for pipelines that transport HVL onshore, low-stress 
pipelines, and pipelines covered under Sec. 195.303, 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:
* * * * *


Sec. 195.303 and 195.304  [redesignated]

    5. Section 195.303 ``Test pressure'' and Sec. 195.304 ``Testing of 
components'' are redesignated as Sec. 195.304 ``Test pressure'' and 
Sec. 195.305 ``Testing of components''
    6. Part 195 would be amended by adding a new Sec. 195.303 to read 
as follows:


Sec. 195.303  Risk-based alternative to pressure testing older 
hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines.

    (a) An operator may elect to follow a program for testing a 
pipeline on risk-based criteria as an alternative to the pressure 
testing in Sec. 195.302(b)(1)(i) through (iii) and 
Sec. 195.302(b)(2)(i) of this subpart. Appendix B provides guidance on 
how this program will work. An operator electing such a program shall 
assign a risk classification to each pipeline segment according to the 
indicators described in paragraph (b) of this section as follows:
    (1) Risk Classification A if the location indicator is ranked as 
low or medium risk, the product and volume indicators are ranked as low 
risk, and the probability of failure indicator is ranked as low risk;
    (2) Risk Classification C if the location indicator is ranked as 
high risk; or
    (3) Risk Classification B.
    (b) An operator shall evaluate each pipeline segment in the program 
according to the following indicators of risk:
    (1) The location indicator is--
    (i) High risk if an area is non-rural \1\; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An environmental factor will be considered in a later 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Medium risk \2\; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Not currently applicable; it may be applicable with addition 
of environmental factor to the location indicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Low risk if an area is not high or medium risk.
    (2) The product indicator is--
    (i) High risk if the product transported is highly toxic or is both 
highly volatile and flammable;
    (ii) Medium risk if the product transported is flammable with a 
flashpoint of less than 100 deg. F, but not highly volatile; or
    (iii) Low risk if the product transported is not high or medium 
risk.
    (3) The volume indicator is--
    (i) High risk if the line is at least 18 inches in nominal 
diameter;
    (ii) Medium risk if the line is at least 10 inches, but less than 
18 inches, in nominal diameter; or
    (iii) Low risk if the line is not high or medium risk.
    (4) The probability of failure indicator is--
    (i) High risk if the segment has experienced more than three 
failures in the last 10 years due to time-dependent defects (e.g., 
corrosion, gouges, or problems developed during manufacture, 
construction or operation, etc.); or

[[Page 5922]]

    (ii) Low risk if the segment has experienced less than three 
failures in the last 10 years due to time-dependent defects.
    (c) The program under paragraph (a) of this section shall provide 
for pressure testing for a segment constructed of electric resistance-
welded (ERW) pipe and lapweld pipe manufactured prior to 1970 
susceptible to longitudinal seam failures as determined through 
paragraph (d) of this section. The timing of such pressure test may be 
determined based on risk classifications discussed under paragraph (b) 
of this section. For other segments, the program may provide for use of 
a magnetic flux leakage or ultrasonic internal inspection survey as an 
alternative to pressure testing and, in the case of such segments in 
Risk Classification A, may provide for no additional measures.
    (d) All pre-1970 ERW pipe and lapweld pipe is deemed susceptible to 
longitudinal seam failures unless an engineering analysis shows 
otherwise. In conducting an engineering analysis an operator must 
consider 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 quality 
control of the steel-making process; and other factors pertinent to 
seam properties and quality.
    (e) Pressure testing done under this section must be conducted in 
accordance with this subpart. Except for segments in Risk 
Classification B which are not constructed with pre-1970 ERW pipe, 
water must be the test medium.
    (f) An operator electing to follow a program under paragraph (a) of 
this section must develop plans that include the method of testing and 
a schedule for the testing by December 7, 1998. The compliance 
deadlines for completion of testing are as shown in the table below:
    Table: Sec. 195.303--Test deadlines

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Pipeline segment                     Risk  classification                    Test deadline           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-1970 Pipe susceptible to            C or B                               12/7/2000                          
 longitudinal seam failures [defined    A                                                                       
 in Sec.  195.303(c) & (d)].            12/7/2002                                                               
All Other Pipeline....................  C                                    12/7/2002                          
Segments..............................  B                                    12/7/2004                          
                                        A                                                                       
                                        Additional testing not required.                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) An operator must review the risk classifications at intervals 
not to exceed 15 months. If the risk classification of a segment 
changes, an operator must take appropriate action within two years, or 
establish the maximum operating pressure under Sec. 195.406(a)(5).
    (h) An operator must maintain records establishing compliance with 
this section, including records verifying the risk classifications, the 
plans and schedule for testing, the conduct of the testing, and the 
review of the risk classifications.
    (i) An operator may discontinue a program under this section only 
after written notification to the Administrator and approval, if 
needed, of a schedule for pressure testing.


Sec. 195.406  [Amended]

    7. Section 195.406(a)(4) is amended by removing cross-reference 
``Sec. 195.304'' and adding cross-reference ``Sec. 195.305'' in its 
place.
    8. A new Appendix B would be added to Part 195 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 195--Risk-Based Alternative to Pressure Testing 
Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

Risk-Based Alternative

    This Appendix provides guidance on how a risk-based alternative 
to pressure testing older hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide 
pipelines rule allowed by Sec. 195.303 will work. This risk-based 
alternative establishes test priorities for older pipelines, not 
previously pressure tested, based on the inherent risk of a given 
pipeline segment. The first step is to determine the classification 
based on the type of pipe or on the pipeline segment's proximity to 
populated. Secondly, the classifications must be adjusted based on 
the pipeline failure history, product transported, and the release 
volume potential.
    Tables 2 through 6 give definitions of risk classification A, B, 
and C facilities. For the purposes of this rule, pipeline segments 
containing high risk electric resistance-welded pipe (ERW pipe) and 
lapwelded pipe manufactured prior to 1970 and considered a risk 
classification C or B facility shall be treated as the top priority 
for testing because of the higher risk associated with the 
susceptibility of this pipe to longitudinal seam failures.
    In all cases, operators shall annually, at intervals not to 
exceed 15 months, review their facilities to reassess the 
classification and shall take appropriate action within two years or 
operate the pipeline system at a lower pressure. Pipeline failures, 
changes in the characteristics of the pipeline route, or changes in 
service should all trigger a reassessment of the originally 
classification.
    Table 1 explains different 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, the relative volume of 
flow and pipeline failure history as determined from Tables 2 
through 6.

          Table 1.--Test Requirements--Mainline Segments Outside of Terminals, Stations, and Tank Farms         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Pipeline segment           Risk  classification         Test  deadline \1\             Test  medium       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-1970 Pipeline Segments    C or B                      12/7/2000 \3\               Water only.               
 susceptible to longitudinal  A                           12/7/2002 \3\               Water only.               
 seam failures \2\.                                                                                             
All Other Pipeline Segments.  C                           12/7/2002 \4\               Water only.               
                              B                           12/7/2004 \4\               Water/Liq.\5\             

[[Page 5923]]

                                                                                                                
                              A                           Additional pressure                                   
                                                           testing not required.                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If operational experience indicates a history of past failures for a particular pipeline system, failure    
  causes (time-dependent defects due to corrosion, construction, manufacture, or transmission problems, etc.)   
  shall be reviewed in determining risk classification (See Table 6) and the timing of the pressure test should 
  be accelerated.                                                                                               
\2\ All pre-1970 ERW pipeline segments may not require testing. In determining which ERW pipeline segments      
  should be included in this category, an operator must consider 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 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, volume, and      
  probability of failure considerations consistent with Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6.                                  
\4\ A magnetic flux leakage or ultrasonic internal inspection survey may be utilized as an alternative to       
  pressure testing where leak history and operating experience do not indicate leaks caused by longitudinal     
  cracks or seam failures.                                                                                      
\5\ Pressure tests utilizing a hydrocarbon liquid may be conducted, but only with a liquid which does not       
  vaporize rapidly.                                                                                             

    Using LOCATION, PRODUCT, VOLUME, and FAILURE HISTORY 
``Indicators'' from Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively, 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, VOLUME, and 
PROBABILITY OF FAILURE Indicators used to adjust to a higher or 
lower overall risk classification per the following table.

                                          Table 2.--Risk Classification                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Probability of failure 
       Risk classification         Hazard location indicator  Product/volume indicator          indicator       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................................  L or M                     L/L                       L                       
B................................                                                                               
(2) Not A or C Risk                                                                                             
 Classification                                                                                                 
C................................  H                          Any                       Any.                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 H=High, M=Moderate, and L=Low.                                                                                 
 Note: For Location, Product, Volume, and Probability of Failure Indicators, see Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6.         

    Table 3 is used to establish the LOCATION indicator used in 
Table 2. Based on the population (and environmental in the future) 
characteristics associated with a pipeline facility's location, a 
LOCATION Indicator of H, (M) or L is selected.

            Table 3.--Location Indicators--Pipeline Segments            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Indicator              Population \1\        Environment \2\  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H...........................  Non-rural areas       ....................
M...........................  ....................  ....................
L...........................  Rural areas           ....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The effects of potential vapor migration should be considered for   
  pipeline segments transporting highly volatile or toxic products.     
\2\ An environmental factor has not been included at this time, but may 
  be once a definition of ``unusually sensitive areas'' has been        
  established.                                                          

    Tables 4, 5 AND 6 are used to establish the PRODUCT, VOLUME, and 
PROBABILITY OF FAILURE Indicators respectively, 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 the product 
transported. The VOLUME Indicator is selected from Table 5 as H, M, 
or L based on the nominal diameter of the pipeline. The Probability 
of Failure Indicator is selected from Table 6.

                      Table 4.--Product Indicators                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Indicator              Considerations       Product examples  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H...........................  (Highly volatile and  (Propane, butane,   
                               flammable).           Natural Gas Liquid 
                                                     (NGL), ammonia).   
  ..........................  Highly toxic........  (Benzene, high      
                                                     Hydrogen Sulfide   
                                                     content crude      
                                                     oils).             
M...........................  Flammable--flashpoin  (Gasoline, JP4, low 
                               t <100F.              flashpoint crude   
                                                     oils).             
L...........................  Non-flammable--       (Diesel, fuel oil,  
                               flashpoint 100+F.     kerosene, JP5, most
                                                     crude oils).       
  ..........................  Highly volatile and   Carbon Dioxide.     
                               non-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. 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
Reportable Quantity values can be used as an indication of chronic 
toxicity. National Fire Protection Association health factors can be 
used for rating acute hazards.

[[Page 5924]]



                       Table 5.--Volume Indicators                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Indicator                            Line size          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H........................................  18''              
M........................................  10''-16'' nominal diameters. 
L........................................  8'' nominal       
                                            diameter.                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H=High, M=Moderate, and L=Low.                                          

    Table 6 is used to establish the PROBABILITY OF FAILURE 
Indicator used in Table 2. The ``Probability of Failure'' Indicator 
is selected from Table 6 as H or L.

   Table 6.--Probability of Failure Indicators (in each haz. Location)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Failure history (time-   
                Indicator                      dependent defects) \2\   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H \1\....................................  > Three spills in last 10    
                                            years.                      
L........................................   Three spills in  
                                            last 10 years.              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H=High and L=Low.                                                       
\1\ Pipeline segments with greater than three product spills in the last
  10 years should be reviewed for failure causes as described in        
  subnote(\2\). The pipeline operator should make an appropriate        
  investigation and reach a decision based on sound engineering         
  judgment, and be able to demonstrate the basis of the decision.       
\2\ Time-Dependent Defects are defects that result in spills due to     
  corrosion, gouges, or problems developed during manufacture,          
  construction or operation, etc.                                       

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on January 30, 1998.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 98-2860 Filed 2-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P