[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17594-17595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8814]



[[Page 17594]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. RSPA-00-7666; Notice 7]
RIN 2137-AD54


Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High 
Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines)

AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Research and Special Programs 
Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a one-day public meeting to solicit 
comments on issues raised at a recent meeting of the Technical Pipeline 
Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC), at a public meeting OPS held on 
March 14, 2003, and at a public workshop held February 21-22, 2003, 
which was jointly organized by the Interstate Natural Gas Association 
of America (INGAA) Foundation and the American Gas Association (AGA). 
At this meeting we intend to present the issues for comment and to 
question further those offering comments to assure that we completely 
understand each issue.

ADDRESSES: The meeting is open to all. There is no cost to attend. This 
meeting will be held on Friday, April 25, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 
at the Marriott at Washington Dulles Airport, 4520 Aviation Drive, 
Dulles, VA 20166. Tel: 703-471-9500; Web site: http://www.marriott.com. 
You may register electronically for this meeting at: http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/meetings. Please make your reservations as soon as 
possible as hotel rooms are limited. For other details on this meeting 
contact Juan Carlos at 202-366-1933.
    You may submit written comments by mail or delivery to the Dockets 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The dockets facility is open 
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal 
holidays. You should submit the original and one copy. Anyone who wants 
confirmation of receipt of their comments must include a stamped, self-
addressed postcard. You may also submit comments to the docket 
electronically. To do so, log on to the Internet Web address http://dms.dot.gov. And click on ``Help'' for instructions on electronic 
filing of comments. All written comments should identify the docket 
number RSPA-00-7666; Notice 7.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comments (or signing the comments, if submitted on 
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review 
the U.S. Department of Transportation's complete Privacy Act Statement 
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78) 
or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Milam at (202) 493-0967 or Jenny 
Donohue at (202) 366-4046, regarding this document. General information 
about RSPA/OPS programs may be obtained by accessing RSPA's Internet 
page at http://rspa.dot.gov.
    Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities: For 
information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities 
or to request special assistance, contact Juan Carlos, (202) 366-1933.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    To better prevent pipeline failures that can imperil the health and 
safety of nearby residents and cause significant damage to their 
property, RSPA/OPS is promulgating a series of rules to require 
pipeline operators to develop integrity management programs. These 
programs are intended to identify the best methods for maintaining the 
structural soundness of pipelines operating across the United States. 
The programs operators develop are to include conducting baseline and 
periodic assessments of certain pipeline segments. RSPA/OPS has 
completed the integrity management program rules for hazardous liquid 
operators and is now addressing the requirements for natural gas 
transmission pipeline operators. RSPA/OPS proposed a rule on integrity 
management program requirements on January 28, 2003, (68 FR 4278).
    The proposed rule has been discussed at a meeting of the Technical 
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) on March 27, 2003, at a 
public meeting OPS held in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2003, and at a 
workshop jointly organized by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of 
America (INGAA) Foundation and the American Gas Association (AGA) held 
in Houston, TX, on February 21-22, 2003. Discussions from the public 
meeting and the workshop are in the docket. Several issues were raised 
during these discussions that OPS/RSPA would like to explore further. 
RSPA/OPS is holding the April public meeting to present the issues for 
comment and to question further those offering comments to assure that 
we completely understand each issue.
    The preliminary agenda for the April meeting includes the following 
questions for discussion:

Assessment

Low Stress Pipelines
    Should assessment requirements for low-stress pipeline (i.e., 
operating at less than 30 percent SMYS) allow use of confirmatory 
direct assessment (CDA) for all assessments (baseline and 
reassessments)?
Pressure Testing
    Should the requirement to pressure test pipelines to verify 
integrity against material and construction defects be limited to 
pipeline segments for which information suggests a potential 
vulnerability to such defects? If so, what information should be relied 
upon?
Direct Assessment Equivalency
    Should the assessment intervals for direct assessment be revised to 
be the same as those applicable to in-line inspection or pressure 
testing? Are there opportunities to quickly schedule and assess 
research demonstrations to provide additional data on which to base 
judgments about validity?
Plastic Transmission Lines
    What assessment requirements should be applicable to plastic 
transmission pipelines?

Repairs

Dents and Gouges
    Should a repair criteria for constraint dents on the bottom of the 
pipe be different from that allowed for dents located on the top? 
Should the presence of stress risers, cracking or metal loss affect 
this decision?

Preventive and Mitigation Measures

Third Party Damage
    Should additional third-party damage prevention methods be utilized 
instead of explicit assessments for third-party damage? What methods 
should be used in conjunction with other assessment methods to detect 
delayed third party damage?
Segments Outside HCAs
    How can the requirements be clarified for the situations when an 
operator should look beyond the segment in a high consequence area, 
when segments outside the HCA are likely to have similar integrity 
concerns as those found inside an HCA?

[[Page 17595]]

Performance Measures

    Should we require monthly electronic reporting of performance 
measures?

Definitions

High Consequence Area--Bifurcation Option
    Should a rule allow two options: following the definition of high 
consequence areas defined by final rule on August 6, 2002; (67 FR 
50824) or using potential impact circles along the entire length of the 
pipeline? Under either option, an operator would calculate the 
potential impact circles for each segment, but the use of those circles 
would differ depending on the option. If the operator used the class 
location component of the high consequence area definition, the 
operator would treat entire class 3 and 4 areas as high consequence 
areas and use the potential impact circles to determine population 
density beyond 660 feet using specified number of buildings intended 
for human occupancy. Under the potential impact circle option, 
operators would use the circles to identify areas where the density of 
buildings intended for human occupancy exceeds a specified number and 
then focus the integrity assessments, repairs and other protections in 
these areas.
    Requirements for how an operator treats identified sites that are 
defined in the high consequence area would not change under either 
option.
Population Threshold
    Should the criterion for determining the population density 
component of a high consequence area be based on 10 or 20 buildings 
intended for human occupancy within the impact circle?
Impact Radius Safety Margin
    Should additional safety margin be applied to the potential impact 
circle radius calculated using the C-FER equation?
Extrapolation
    Should a rule allow an operator to use data regarding the number of 
buildings within 660 feet of the pipeline (available now to operators 
because of the existing definition of class locations) to infer 
(extrapolate) the building density in potential impact circles larger 
than 660 feet? Should this be limited to an interim period of five 
years to allow operators to collect additional data on buildings beyond 
660 feet?

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2003.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 03-8814 Filed 4-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P