[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16882-16885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8574]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket No. RSPA-98-4733; Notice 1]
RIN 2137-AD25


Pipeline Safety: Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Repair

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to adopt a safety performance standard for 
the repair of corroded or damaged steel pipe in gas or hazardous liquid 
pipelines. Because present safety standards specify particular methods 
of repair, operators must get approval from government regulators to 
use innovative repair technologies. The proposed standard would 
encourage technological innovations and reduce repair costs without 
reducing safety.

DATES: Submit written comments by June 7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: All comments should identify the docket number and title of 
this action, which are stated above in the heading. Comments may be 
mailed or delivered to the Docket Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Room #PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590-0001. The original and two copies should be submitted. Persons 
who want confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-addressed 
stamped postcard. Comments may also be e-mailed to 
[email protected] in ASCII or text format. The Dockets Facility 
is open from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on 
Federal holidays when the facility is closed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow at (202)366-4559 or 
[email protected]. Comments may be read on the internet at http://
dms.dot.gov. General information about RSPA's pipeline safety program 
can be obtained at http://ops.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Current Pipeline Repair Safety Standards

    If a pipeline operator discovers an unsafe pipe dent during the 
construction of a steel gas transmission line or main to be operated at 
20 percent or more of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), DOT 
safety standards require that the operator remove the dent by cutting 
out the damaged piece of pipe as a cylinder (49 CFR 192.309(b)). This 
repair requirement does not allow operators to use new or more 
innovative technologies to repair the dent.
    One of the DOT maintenance standards for steel gas transmission 
lines operating at 40 percent or more of SMYS similarly disallows the 
use of new technologies (49 CFR 192.713). Under this standard, if an 
operator discovers an imperfection or damage to pipe that impairs the 
serviceability of the line, the operator must either replace the pipe 
or repair it by installing a full encirclement split sleeve of 
appropriate design. Although this standard permits operators to use two 
widely-accepted methods of pipe repair, because it prescribes methods 
of repair rather than what the repair should accomplish, the standard 
lacks

[[Page 16883]]

flexibility. It denies operators the opportunity to take advantage of 
innovative repair methods. It also discourages operators from 
developing new repair methods that may be more economical.
    Some DOT safety standards governing the repair of corroded pipe 
also lack flexibility: If a gas transmission line has a large area of 
general corrosion that has reduced the pipe wall below the thickness 
required for the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), the 
corroded pipe must be replaced, unless its operating pressure is 
reduced (49 CFR 192.485(a)). In gas distribution pipelines, such 
corroded pipe must be replaced (49 CFR 192.487(a)). In hazardous liquid 
or carbon dioxide pipelines, such pipe must be replaced unless the 
operating pressure is reduced (49 CFR 195.416(f)).
    All these repair standards were based on recommended industry 
practices in vogue over 30 years ago. The 1968 edition of the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31.8 Code was the basis for 
Secs. 192.309(b) and 192.713, while Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.487(a) 
were based on the 1969 edition of the National Association of Corrosion 
Engineers Standard RP-01-69. Section 195.416(f) was based on a 
comparable provision of the 1966 edition of the ASME B31.4 Code. Since 
then, the DOT standards based on these practices have not kept pace 
with changes in technology.

Performance Oriented Standards and Recent Waivers

    For steel pipe not subject to repair restrictions under 
Secs. 192.309(b), 192.485(a), 192.487(a), 192.713, or 195.416(f), 
operators may and do use methods besides pipe replacement and split 
sleeves to repair corroded or damaged steel pipe. These methods include 
composite pipe wraps, grinding, hot tapping, and weld deposition. For 
example, a gouge that impairs the serviceability of a steel gas 
transmission line operating at less than 40 percent of SMYS is not 
covered by Sec. 192.713. This defect would be subject to the less 
restrictive repair requirement of Sec. 192.703(b), which allows repair 
by any method that returns the pipe to a safe condition.
    In recent years, various pipeline operators have sought relief from 
the requirement to repair high-stress steel gas transmission lines by 
the traditional methods of pipe replacement or installation of full-
encirclement split sleeves. These operators wanted to use a new repair 
system called Clock Spring to simplify and reduce the 
average cost of repairs. This system, which consists of a fiberglass/
polyester composite material coiled with adhesive in layers over a 
filler, reinforces steel pipe that has certain non-leaking defects. 
According to tests and analyses done by the Gas Research Institute 
(GRI), when properly installed, the system permanently restores the 
pressure containing capability of the pipe.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ D. R. Stephens, Summary of Validation of Clock 
Spring for Permanent Repair of Pipeline Corrosion 
Defects, GRI-98/0227, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 
October 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on GRI's field and laboratory performance data, we concluded 
that this new technology provides at least the same level of safety on 
high-stress transmission lines as pipe replacement or a full-
encirclement split sleeve. Therefore, we granted the operators' 
requests by waiving the applicable requirements.2 No 
problems involving installations under the waivers have been reported. 
Moreover, GRI's inspection of a statistical sample of installations 
under the waivers did not show any evidence of creep, degradation, or 
loss of reinforcement.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ First we granted the Panhandle Eastern Corporation a waiver 
of Sec. 192.713(a) to install Clock Spring over six 
corrosion anomalies on Line #2 in Ohio, subject to certain 
monitoring and reporting conditions (58 FR 13823; March 15, 1993). 
Then we granted 28 interstate operators and their subsidiaries a 
waiver of Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.713(a) to install Clock 
Spring on transmission line pipe operating at 40 percent 
or more of SMYS, provided the operators follow the manufacturer's 
installation procedures, use GRIWrap (a computer program 
that determines if a defect is suitable for Clock Spring 
repair), participate in GRI's evaluation plan, notify us and state 
interstate agents of planned installations, and use trained 
installers (60 FR 10630; February 27, 1995). Next we extended the 
February 27th waiver to include six more interstate operators (60 FR 
47800; September 14, 1995). Subsequently, we authorized a few 
additional interstate operators to apply the February 27th waiver, 
and we approved similar waivers granted intrastate operators by 
state pipeline safety agencies in Illinois, Wyoming, and Minnesota.
    \3\ D. R. Stephens, op. cit., p. 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal

    To add flexibility to Secs. 192.309(b), 192.485(a), 192.487(a), 
192.713, and 195.416(f), we are proposing to allow operators to use 
repair methods that meet a performance standard. The proposed standard 
is that the method must be able to ``permanently restore the 
serviceability of the pipe.'' We chose this wording because it 
describes the result expected from replacing damaged pipe or installing 
a full-encirclement split sleeve over the damage to pipe. We expect at 
least the same result from a qualified alternative repair method.
    As to the permanency of repair, we are not suggesting that the 
repair should last indefinitely. It need last only as long as the pipe 
is expected to last under normal operating and maintenance conditions.
    Whether a particular repair method will restore the serviceability 
of the pipe depends on the loading the repaired pipe must support. 
Sometimes pipe and particularly pipe joints are subjected to 
significant longitudinal forces imposed by external loads. Where 
longitudinal forces are a design consideration, a repair method that 
structurally serves only to contain internal pressure might not suffice 
to restore the serviceability of the pipe. On the other hand, if 
longitudinal forces are not a design consideration, a repair method 
that restores the pressure containing capability of the pipe would 
restore its serviceability.
    We are also proposing that a qualified repair method must have 
undergone ``reliable engineering tests and analyses'' to confirm that 
the method meets the performance standard. We do not believe it 
necessary to propose guidelines for these tests and analyses because of 
the widespread use of alternative repair methods without reports of 
failures. So the tests and analyses need only be what a reasonable and 
prudent professional engineer would consider adequate to demonstrate 
compliance with the performance standard.
    The proposed change to Sec. 192.309(b) merely adds the performance 
standard to the end of the introductory clause. Operators would then 
have the option of either removing or repairing the described dents.
    In Secs. 192.485(a), 192.487(a), and 195.416(f), the proposed 
performance standard would take the place of present wording that 
allows the repair of small areas of general corrosion. Consequently, 
any corroded area, large or small, could be repaired as long as the 
repair method meets the performance standard. The primary purpose of 
this change would be to allow the repair of large corroded areas. But 
we are proposing to apply the proposed performance standard to small 
corroded areas as well because of the difficulty of distinguishing 
between small and large areas. Also, current methods being used to 
repair small corroded areas readily qualify under the proposed 
performance standard.
    As for Sec. 192.713, besides including the proposed performance 
standard, we are proposing to remove the sentences specifically 
allowing repair by full-encirclement split sleeves (paragraphs (a)(2) 
and (b)). This well-established repair method readily qualifies under 
the proposed performance standard.
    In addition, we are proposing to drop the priority that 
Sec. 192.713 now gives to

[[Page 16884]]

repair by replacement whenever it is feasible to take a damaged 
pipeline out of service. We know of no compelling safety reason to 
justify this priority, and it does not permit the use of other 
qualified, more economical repair methods while a pipeline is shut 
down. For regulatory consistency, we would also remove a similar 
replacement priority from Sec. 192.717, which governs the repair of 
leaks.
    Finally, we are proposing to terminate the requirement under 
Secs. 192.713(a)(1) and 192.717(a)(1) that replacement pipe have 
``similar or greater design strength'' than the pipe being replaced. 
This qualification, which does not apply to the replacement of corroded 
pipe under Secs. 192.485, 192.487, or 195.416, may result in an overly 
conservative design that is unnecessary for current operations. The 
safety of all replacement pipe in gas transmission lines is otherwise 
governed by the material, design, construction, and testing 
requirements of Part 192.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not consider this 
proposed rulemaking to be a significant regulatory action under Section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). 
Therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rulemaking document. DOT does not 
consider this proposed rulemaking significant under its regulatory 
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    The proposed rule changes would provide operators flexibility to 
choose the most cost-effective method of repairing pipe, while 
maintaining public safety. Thus, the changes would not add costs to 
industry, government, or the public. In fact, the proposed changes 
should reduce operators' costs of transporting oil and gas, and perhaps 
the price consumers pay for these products. In comments on a proposed 
waiver to the Panhandle Eastern Corporation, the American Gas 
Association estimated that industry could save $6.5 million a year by 
using composite wrap to repair corroded or damaged pipe. Although part 
of the gas pipeline industry is already realizing these savings because 
of the Panhandle and other waivers,\4\ the proposed changes would 
create a similar opportunity for savings by the entire oil and gas 
pipeline industry. And still more savings could possibly result from 
the use of innovative technologies not covered by the waivers. This 
proposed rulemaking fosters the use and development of new repair 
technologies without additional cost to the regulated industry. A 
regulatory evaluation document is available for review in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The proposed rule changes would not impose additional requirements 
on pipeline operators, including small entities that operate regulated 
pipelines. Rather, the proposed changes would offer operators the 
opportunity to use more economical methods of repairing corroded or 
damaged pipe. Thus, this proposal may reduce costs to operators, 
including small entities. Based on the facts available about the 
anticipated impact of this proposed rulemaking, I certify, pursuant to 
Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this 
proposed rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 13084

    The proposed rules have been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.'' 
Because the proposed rules would not significantly or uniquely affect 
the Indian tribal governments, the funding and consultation 
requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rulemaking contains no information collection that is 
subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates under 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not result in costs 
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and would be the least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed the proposed rule changes for purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Because the 
changes would require that alternative repair methods be as safe as the 
methods now allowed, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed 
changes would not significantly affect the quality of the human 
environment. An environmental assessment document is available for 
review in the docket.

G. Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems

    Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates will, on 
January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900. 
This glitch, the Year 2000 problem, could cause computers to stop 
running or to start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 problem 
poses a threat to the global economy in which Americans live and work. 
With the help of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, 
Federal agencies are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem 
and to offer support. We do not want to impose new requirements that 
would mandate business process changes when the resources necessary to 
implement those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year 
2000 Problem.
    This notice of proposed rulemaking does not propose business 
process changes or require modifications to computer systems. Because 
this notice apparently does not affect the ability of organizations to 
respond to the Year 2000 problem, we do not intend to delay the 
effectiveness of the rule changes proposed in this notice.

H. Executive Order 12612

    This action would 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 Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685; 
October 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that the proposed rules do not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 192

    Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

49 CFR Part 195

    Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.
    In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR parts 
192 and 195 as follows:

 PART 192--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as 
follows:


[[Page 16885]]


    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110, 
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. In Sec. 192.309, paragraph (b) introductory text would be 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 192.309  Repair of steel pipe.

* * * * *
    (b) Each of the following dents must be removed from steel pipe to 
be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of 20 percent, or 
more, of SMYS, unless the dent is repaired by a method that can 
permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe, as shown by 
reliable engineering tests and analyses:
* * * * *
    3. Section 192.485(a) would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 192.485  Remedial measures: Transmission lines.

    (a) General corrosion. Each segment of transmission line with 
general corrosion and with a remaining wall thickness less than that 
required for the MAOP of the pipeline must be replaced or the operating 
pressure reduced commensurate with the strength of the pipe based on 
actual remaining wall thickness. However, corroded pipe may be repaired 
by a method that can permanently restore the serviceability of the 
pipe, as shown by reliable engineering tests and analyses. Corrosion 
pitting so closely grouped as to affect the overall strength of the 
pipe is considered general corrosion for the purpose of this paragraph.
* * * * *
    4. Section 192.487(a) would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 192.487  Remedial measures: Distribution lines other than cast 
iron or ductile iron lines.

    (a) General corrosion. Except for cast iron or ductile iron pipe, 
each segment of generally corroded distribution line pipe with a 
remaining wall thickness less than that required for the MAOP of the 
pipeline, or a remaining wall thickness less than 30 percent of the 
nominal wall thickness, must be replaced.
    However, corroded pipe may be repaired by a method that can 
permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe, as shown by 
reliable engineering tests and analyses. Corrosion pitting so closely 
grouped as to affect the overall strength of the pipe is considered 
general corrosion for the purpose of this paragraph.
* * * * *
    5. Section 192.713 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 192.713  Transmission lines: Permanent field repair of 
imperfections and damages.

    (a) Each imperfection or damage that impairs the serviceability of 
pipe in a steel transmission line operating at or above 40 percent of 
SMYS must be--
    (1) Removed by cutting out and replacing a cylindrical piece of 
pipe; or
    (2) Repaired by a method that can permanently restore the 
serviceability of the pipe, as shown by reliable engineering tests and 
analyses.
    (b) Operating pressure must be reduced to a safe level during 
repair operations.
    6. In 192.717, paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (a)(2) introductory 
text would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 192.717  Transmission lines: Permanent field repair of leaks.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Remove the leak by cutting out and replacing a cylindrical 
piece of pipe.
    (2) Install a full encirclement welded split sleeve of appropriate 
design, unless the transmission line:
* * * * *

PART 195--[AMENDED]

    7. The authority citation for Part 195 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118, 
and 49 CFR 1.53.

    8. Section 195.416(f) would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.416  External corrosion control.

* * * * *
    (f) Any pipe that is found to be generally corroded so that the 
remaining wall thickness is less than the minimum thickness required by 
the pipe specification tolerances must be replaced with coated pipe 
that meets the requirements of this part. However, generally corroded 
pipe need not be replaced if--
    (1) The operating pressure is reduced to be commensurate with the 
limits on operating pressure specified in this subpart, based on the 
actual remaining wall thickness; or
    (2) The pipe is repaired by a method that can permanently restore 
the serviceability of the pipe, as shown by reliable engineering tests 
and analyses.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 1, 1999.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 99-8574 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P