[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6677-6678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3345]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-121; Notice-2]
RIN 2137-AB46


Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide 
Pipelines

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

ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsideration; request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: On June 7, 1994, RSPA issued a final rule amending existing 
regulations for liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline facilities. The rule 
required the hydrostatic pressure testing of certain older pipelines 
that were never pressure tested to current standards. The American 
Petroleum Institute (Petitioner or API) and Williams Pipe Line Company 
(Petitioner or Williams) filed Petitions for Reconsideration 
(petitions) concerning certain provisions of the final rule. In 
response to these petitions, this document clarifies certain provisions 
of the final rule and seeks comments on one issue.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this notice 
by April 13, 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 OPS, Room 2335, 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. Alternatively, comments may be submitted via e-mail to 
``[email protected]''. Comments will become part of this docket 
and will be available for inspection or copying in Room 2335 between 
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each business day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni, (202) 366-4571, or e-
mail: [email protected], regarding the subject matter of this 
document, or OPS (202) 366-4046, for copies of this petition document 
or other material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The purpose of the pressure testing rule (59 FR 29379; June 7, 
1994) is to ensure that certain older hazardous liquid and carbon 
dioxide pipelines have an adequate safety margin between their maximum 
operating pressure and test pressure. The rule applied to those 
pipelines never pressure tested according to current standards. The 
compliance dates for pressure testing the older pipelines have been 
extended. (62 FR 54591; October 21, 1997). The extension is to allow 
for consideration of rulemaking providing an alternative to pressure 
testing in certain circumstances. This alternative to pressure testing 
is based on a petition from API.
    In its petitions for reconsideration of the final rule, API raised 
three issues and Williams raised two issues. The most significant issue 
raised by both API and Williams related to the prohibition of testing 
with petroleum. The pressure testing rule prohibited the use of 
petroleum as a test medium in pressure testing such pipelines. RSPA 
withdrew the prohibition by amendment of the pressure testing rule on 
August 11, 1994 in the Federal Register (59 FR 41259).

Remaining Issues in Petitions

Disposal of Test Water

    API asserted that the final rule did not adequately address its 
comments concerning problems with obtaining permits to acquire and 
dispose of test water. API reiterated concerns raised in its comments 
submitted during the pressure testing rulemaking comment period. 
Specifically, API asked that RSPA issue administrative procedures, 
perhaps in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
that would facilitate the process of obtaining permits to acquire and 
dispose of test water. In its petition, API claimed that RSPA's 
coordination effort ``has not reached the appropriate persons within 
EPA so that it has any impact on the ability of an operator to obtain a 
permit or waiver.'' Furthermore, API stated that some of its member 
companies have been attempting to get EPA's attention on the subject of 
permits for hydrostatic test water for several years with little 
success. API claimed that member companies in EPA Region VI have 
experienced ``delays of years in obtaining permits, with some permits 
never issued.'' API stated that, because

[[Page 6678]]

Texas and Louisiana do not have EPA approved state programs for issuing 
EPA disposal permits, operators must obtain permits from both the state 
and EPA in Texas and Louisiana (both in EPA Region VI). In addition, 
API claimed that its member companies have experienced similar delays 
in obtaining water disposal permits in other EPA regions. As a result, 
API asserted that operators will not be able to obtain such permits, 
and will be unable to schedule testing to meet the compliance deadlines 
established in the final rule.
    Response--RSPA has written to the Assistant Administrator for Water 
requesting that EPA give prompt attention to requests from operators 
for National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to 
dispose of test water used to comply with the final rule. We have 
provided EPA headquarters with information regarding delays in issuing 
permits. RSPA believes that EPA will provide permits to dispose of test 
water. If an operator cannot obtain such a permit, this would be a 
basis for a waiver request. In addition, as already noted, RSPA intends 
to publish an NPRM on an alternative to pressure testing in the near 
future. If adopted, the alternative would at times allow an operator to 
elect a means of ensuring the integrity of its pipeline other than 
pressure testing. This would avoid the need to dispose of test water.

Inert Gas as Test Medium

    Petitioner asserts that the final rule results in the prohibition 
of any test medium other than water, although some companies use inert 
gas to test short segments of line. API states that inert gas testing 
accomplishes the same purpose as hydrotesting.
    Response--The use of inert gas in lieu of water or liquid petroleum 
as test medium was not raised in the proposed rulemaking. Therefore, we 
can not address it in this response to petition for reconsideration of 
the pressure test rule. However, Sec. 195.306(c) allows, under 
specified conditions, the use of inert gas or carbon dioxide as a test 
medium rather than water or petroleum for carbon dioxide pipelines. 
Further, Sec. 195.306(d) permits the use of air or inert gas as the 
test medium in low-stress pipelines.

Terminal Piping

    Williams disagreed that piping systems within terminals need to be 
tested. Terminal piping includes receiving and reinjection lines, both 
connected by piping to breakout tanks. Williams believes that terminal 
piping systems should be exempt from the testing requirements of the 
regulation. Williams' position is that the final rule was issued to 
test older high pressure ``pipes'' in cross-country pipelines. Williams 
offered the following reasons not to test such systems.
    1. Williams' low pressure piping systems operate below 275 psi, 
below 20 percent of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS).
    2. The ERW or seamless piping in the low-pressure systems are 
generally Grade B pipe of standard wall construction in pipe sizes of 
6, 8, 10, and 12 inch diameter with maximum operating pressures (MOP) 
of 2130, 1881, 1711, and 1482 psi, respectively.
    3. These low-pressure piping systems have series 150 American 
National Standard Institute (ANSI) flanges good only for 275 psi MOP, 
well under 20 percent SMYS.
    4. These low-pressure piping systems are protected by full-flow low 
pressure manifold relief systems set to operate at 275 psi in 
accordance with 49 CFR Sec. 195.406(b).
    5. A one-time pressure leak test provides an insignificant amount 
of protection for the public safety and the environment.
    6. Williams has no records of any seam failures occurring in ERW 
pipe within its terminal boundaries.
    Response--In another final rule issued after Williams filed the 
petition for reconsideration (Transportation of Hazardous Liquids at 20 
percent or Less of Specified Minimum Yield Strength (59 FR 35465; July 
12, 1994)), RSPA extended Part 195 to cover certain previously 
unregulated low-stress pipelines. (These did not include piping in 
terminal areas which are addressed in the Williams petition.) However, 
RSPA did not apply the pressure testing requirements of Subpart E to 
these previously unregulated low-stress pipelines except for 
replacements, relocations, and lines carrying highly volatile liquids 
(HVL).
    The piping at Williams' terminal is designed with relief valves 
which ensure that the piping will never experience pressure at or 
exceeding 20% SMYS. If the same rationale used in the low-stress 
pipeline rule is applied, pressure testing may not be needed for safety 
as long as the piping does not transport HVL. However, RSPA wants to 
explore this issue further by inviting comments from the public on the 
following issues:
    (1) Should a segment of pipeline system (such as pipeline within 
terminal, or tank farm) which is designed and operated so that stress 
levels can never exceed 20% SMYS qualify for an exemption from pressure 
testing?
    (2) Should we require pressure testing of piping in terminals and 
tank farms based on risk (considering such risk factors as location, 
history of corrosion leaks, weld type, underground or above ground 
terminal piping, percentage of lines under corrosion protection, etc.)?
    As noted above, the requirement for pressure testing has been 
stayed to allow completion of rulemaking on a risk-based approach to 
pressure testing. This stay should provide sufficient time for RSPA to 
evaluate comments received in response to this request and to decide on 
a course of action. In any case, until these comments are evaluated and 
a course of action is decided on, RSPA will not enforce the requirement 
for pressure testing within terminal areas that are designed and 
operated so that stress levels can never exceed 20% SMYS.

    Issued in Washington D.C. on February 5, 1998.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 98-3345 Filed 2-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P