6 September 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register: September 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 172)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52504-52519]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06se06-39]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864; Notice 3]
RIN 2137-AD98
Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas From Rural
Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low-Stress Lines
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to extend pipeline safety regulations to
rural onshore hazardous liquid gathering lines and low-stress lines
within a defined buffer of previously defined ``unusually sensitive
areas.'' These are non-populated areas requiring extra protection
because of the presence of sole source drinking water resources,
endangered species, or other ecological resources.
This proposal will define ``regulated rural onshore gathering
lines'' and ``regulated rural onshore low-stress lines'' and require
operators of the lines to comply with certain safety requirements.
These proposed safety requirements will address the most common threats
to the integrity of these rural lines: corrosion and third-party
damage. This proposal is intended to provide additional integrity
protection for unusually sensitive areas that could be affected by
these lines and improve public confidence in the safety of hazardous
liquid rural onshore gathering and low-stress lines.
DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on the rules
proposed in this document must do so by November 6, 2006. PHMSA will
consider late filed comments so far as practicable.
[[Page 52505]]
ADDRESSES: You may send written comments to the docket by any of the
following methods:
Mail: Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Anyone
wanting confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-addressed
stamped postcard.
Hand delivery or courier: Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC. The Dockets Facility is open from 10 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov, click on ``Comments/
Submissions'' and follow instructions at the site. Alternatively, go to
http://regulations.gov.
All written comments should identify the docket number and notice
number stated in the heading of this notice.
Docket access. For copies of this notice or other material in the
docket, you may contact the Dockets Facility by phone (202-366-9329) or
go to the hand delivery address. For Web access to the docket to read
and download filed material, go to http://dms.dot.gov/search. Then type
in the last five digits of the docket number shown in the heading of
this notice, and click on ``Search.''
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments filed in any
of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual filing the comment (or
signing the comment, if filed for an entity such as an association,
business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the April 11, 2000 issue of the Federal Register (65 FR
19477) or go to http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DeWitt Burdeaux by phone at 405-954-
7220 or by e-mail at Dewitt.Burdeaux@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
a. History
Over the past six years, PHMSA has designed and executed a risk-
based system approach to oversight of the national pipeline
infrastructure. This approach is embodied in the ``Integrity Management
Program'' of the agency and its budget. The program has many elements,
including the data that supports the agency's decision making,
regulatory framework, enforcement program, training and preparation of
Federal and State inspectors, research and development to advance
integrity assessment and management, and performance measurement and
reporting. We have sought advice on each aspect of the program at the
conceptual stage from our technical advisory committee members and in
public meetings.
As to regulatory framework, we undertook rulemaking projects on a
risk-prioritized basis, acting first on those parts of the
infrastructure that posed the greatest risk to people and the
environment. To begin the program, we defined high consequence areas
and mapped the locations on the National Pipeline Mapping System,
including areas unusually sensitive to environmental damage, which we
previously defined in our 2000 regulation. Since 2000, we have
completed and implemented regulations that provided integrity
management protections for people and the environment that could be
affected by a failure from high pressure, large and small hazardous
liquid pipelines and provided protections to people that could be
affected by high pressure gas transmission pipelines. We recently
completed our gas gathering lines regulation by taking an integrity-
related approach to protecting people from gas gathering lines. We
began consideration of the current regulatory initiative in 2003 and
discussed it during our technical advisory committee meetings, and at
public meetings in 2004. This is the remaining element in the
regulatory framework designed to protect unusually sensitive areas from
hazardous liquid pipelines in rural areas.
b. PHMSA's Safety Rules for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Exempt Rural
Low-Stress Lines and Gathering Lines
Low-stress lines generally transport hazardous liquid at low-stress
levels for relatively short distances to and from refineries and
terminals, while gathering lines transport petroleum products from
production facilities to downstream locations, such as a refinery or
processing plant.
PHMSA's safety rules for hazardous liquid pipelines (49 CFR part
195) apply to both offshore and onshore gathering and low-stress lines.
PHMSA currently regulates gathering lines in populated areas, and those
in rural areas in the inlets of the Gulf of Mexico. PHMSA also
regulates low-stress lines that are located in populated areas or cross
commercially navigable waterways. It also regulates any low-stress line
transporting highly volatile liquids. These lines are subject to all of
the regulatory requirements in part 195.
This proposal impacts some of the onshore rural gathering lines and
low-stress lines that PHMSA currently exempts from all or portions of
the part 195 regulatory requirements. Onshore gathering lines in rural
areas are exempt from all part 195 rules except requirements for
inspection and burial in Gulf of Mexico inlets (Sec. 195.1(b)(4)).
Part 195 defines ``gathering line'' as a pipeline 8\5/8\ inches or less
in nominal outside diameter that transports petroleum from a production
facility. The term ``production facility'' is defined as piping or
equipment used in the production, extraction, recovery, lifting,
stabilization, separation, or treating of petroleum or carbon dioxide,
and associated storage or measurement. To qualify, piping or equipment
must be used to extract petroleum or carbon dioxide from the ground or
facilities where petroleum or carbon dioxide is produced and prepared
for transportation by pipeline. This includes piping between treatment
plants that extract carbon dioxide and facilities used for the
injection of carbon dioxide for recovery operations. The term
``petroleum'' means crude oil, condensate, natural gasoline, natural
gas liquids, and liquefied petroleum gas. Also, ``rural area'' means
outside the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town,
village, or any other designated residential or commercial area such as
a subdivision, a business or shopping center, or community development.
Part 195 defines ``low-stress'' as a hazardous liquid pipeline
operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the
specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of the line pipe. SMYS is the
minimum yield strength, expressed in p.s.i. (kPa) gage, prescribed by
the specification under which the material is purchased from the
manufacturer. Low-stress lines in rural areas are exempt from part 195
if they transport nonvolatile petroleum products and are located
outside a waterway currently used for commercial navigation. Under this
proposal, some of these rural lines will no longer be exempt if within
a defined buffer zone of an unusually sensitive area. This proposal
will not affect other exempt low-stress lines, specifically pipelines
subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard, or those
pipelines that serve certain refining and terminal facilities, if the
pipeline is less than 1-mile long (measured outside of facility
grounds) and does not cross an offshore area or a waterway currently
used for commercial navigation.
c. Statutory Authority
Except for a 1991 requirement establishing inspection and burial
rules for pipelines, including rural gathering
[[Page 52506]]
lines, located in Gulf of Mexico inlets, from 1979 until 1992, PHMSA
did not have statutory authority to regulate rural gathering lines.\1\
It was not until the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (codified at 49 U.S.C.
60101(a)(22)), that Congress gave DOT authority to regulate certain
rural gathering lines. This legislation directed DOT to define the term
``gathering line'' by October 24, 1994, and the term ``regulated
gathering line'' by October 24, 1995 (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(1)(A) and
(b)(2)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although these lines are not regulated under part 195,
PHMSA's rules for onshore oil spill response plans (49 CFR part 194)
cover many rural crude oil gathering lines and low-stress lines.
Part 194 regulations apply to oil pipelines that could cause
substantial harm to the environment by spilling oil into or on any
navigable water of the United States or adjoining shoreline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four years later, in the Accountable Pipeline Safety and
Partnership Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-304), Congress moderated its
directive to define ``regulated gathering line'' by adding the words
``if appropriate'' (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(2)(A)). Congress also gave DOT
specific authority to collect information from gathering line operators
related to deciding whether and to what extent to regulate rural
gathering lines (49 U.S.C. 60117(b)). Because of the need to regulate
the safety of certain rural petroleum gathering lines (as explained in
section II of this preamble), we think it is now appropriate to define
the term ``regulated gathering line'' for hazardous liquid
transportation.
In defining ``regulated gathering line'' for hazardous liquid
transportation, PHMSA is required by statute to consider various
physical characteristics to decide which rural onshore gathering lines
need safety regulation. These characteristics include location, length
of line from the well site, operating pressure, throughput, and
composition of the transported hazardous liquid (49 U.S.C.
60101(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B)(i)). Further, the statute states a
``regulated gathering line'' may not include ``a crude oil [petroleum]
gathering line that has a nominal diameter of not more than 6 inches,
is operated at low pressure, and is located in a rural area that is not
unusually sensitive to environmental damage'' (49 U.S.C.
60101(b)(2)(B)(ii)).\2\ In other words, in rural areas unusually
sensitive to environmental damage, PHMSA may regulate petroleum
gathering lines of any diameter or operating pressure. But in other
rural areas, PHMSA may not regulate petroleum gathering lines 6 inches
or less in nominal diameter operating at a low pressure. Congress did
not define ``low pressure'' or areas ``unusually sensitive to
environmental damage.'' PHMSA, however, has defined ``unusually
sensitive areas'' in Sec. Sec. 195.2 and 195.6, and low-stress
hazardous liquid pipeline in Sec. 195.2, as discussed above. PHMSA
considers a low pressure pipeline synonymous to a low-stress pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In addition to these requirements related specifically to
regulated gathering lines, under the Federal pipeline safety law,
PHMSA must consider various other factors in prescribing pipeline
safety rules (see 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA has statutory authority under 49 U.S.C. 60102 to prescribe
regulations that provide adequate protection against risks to life and
property posed by pipeline transportation. This statute requires PHMSA
to develop practicable standards designed to ensure hazardous liquids
are safely transported by pipeline of any stress level, and to protect
people and the environment. PHMSA's authority (49 U.S.C. 60102(k))
specifically prohibits it from excepting from regulation a hazardous
liquid pipeline facility only because the facility operates at low
internal stress.
d. Public Participates in Decision Making
1. Meetings
In 2003, PHMSA invited the public to discuss oil and gas gathering
line issues at meetings in Austin, Texas (68 FR 62555; Nov. 5, 2003)
and Anchorage, Alaska (68 FR 67129; Dec. 1, 2003). The meetings gave
people an opportunity to comment on what might make regulating the
safety of rural gathering lines appropriate, and what the safety rules
should be. State pipeline safety agencies also actively participated in
these meetings. Transcripts of both meetings are in the docket (PHMSA-
2003-15864-2 and 3).
Following the two public meetings, PHMSA published a notice to
clarify its plans about regulating rural gathering lines (69 FR 5305;
Feb. 4, 2004). In the notice, PHMSA sought comments on a suitable
approach to identifying gathering lines it should regulate.
PHMSA held a public workshop to discuss the need to regulate rural
low-stress lines on June 26, 2006, in Alexandria, Virginia. This
meeting is discussed further in section C.3. of this document.
2. Comments Addressing Rural Gathering Lines
Because of the public meetings and clarification notice, PHMSA
received several comments on regulating rural gathering lines. Next is
a summary of the significant comments.
The Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL), a trade association
representing operators of hazardous liquid pipelines, stated gathering
lines usually are in areas of little population and operate at low
pressures. It said most releases are due to small corrosion leaks and
operators repair the leaks quickly. AOPL found that 67 percent of these
hazardous liquid leaks resulted in spills of less than five barrels.
Thus, AOPL said, releases were unlikely to have serious public safety
or environmental consequences. Nevertheless, in recognition of
Congress' safety concerns, AOPL said it would support limited pipeline
safety regulation of certain higher-risk rural gathering lines as a
reasonable balance between costs and risk. It said comprehensive
regulation could cause oil producers to shut in marginally profitable
wells or switch to riskier truck transport.
AOPL put forward a regulatory plan for rural crude oil gathering
lines. The plan covers any line 6 inches or more in nominal diameter
operating at a hoop stress of more than 20 percent of SMYS if the line
could affect a high consequence area. AOPL said operators should have
discretion in selecting a method to identify which gathering lines
could affect high consequence areas. (Section 195.450 defines a ``high
consequence area'' as a commercially navigable waterway, an area of
high or concentrated population, or an unusually sensitive area. And
Sec. 195.6 defines ``unusually sensitive area'' as a drinking water or
ecological resource unusually sensitive to environmental damage from a
hazardous liquid pipeline release. Both sections contain subordinate
definitions that further explain the meaning of ``high consequence
area'' and ``unusually sensitive area.'')
AOPL's plan recommended certain safety regulations it thought would
be suitable for higher-risk rural gathering lines. AOPL's plan includes
the corrosion control rules in subpart H of part 195. In addition, to
address excavation damage, AOPL's plan includes the public education
rules in Sec. 195.440 and the damage prevention program rules in Sec.
195.442. Finally, the plan includes the accident and safety-related
condition reporting rules in subpart B of part 195.
AOPL also suggested PHMSA regulate nonrural gathering lines in
locations with rural characteristics in the same manner as rural
gathering lines. Although AOPL did not offer a method to identify these
lines, the most likely method would be a population density survey.
Part 195 does not require operators of nonrural gathering lines to
conduct population density surveys. Thus, PHMSA believes it would be
burdensome for operators to conduct
[[Page 52507]]
such surveys just to identify nonrural line segments in rural-like
settings and to discover later changes in population. Apart from AOPL's
comment, operators of nonrural gathering lines have not expressed
dissatisfaction with the present regulatory scheme of part 195.
Therefore, PHMSA is not proposing to change how part 195 applies to
nonrural gathering lines.
After filing its written comment, AOPL sent PHMSA data for the
years 2001-2003 on 583 gathering line spills collected from five of its
member companies, representing multiple gathering systems. The origin
of the data was the industry's Pipeline Performance Tracking System, a
voluntary data collection effort that began in 1999. Participants
report spills of 5 gallons or more to land and all spills to water from
oil pipelines, whether regulated by part 195 or not. AOPL's data shows
one third of the spills were 5 barrels or more. The data also show
corrosion (84%) and excavation damage (7%) caused 91 percent of the
reported gathering line spills; pipe material and weld failure, 2
percent; and other identified causes, less than 1 percent.
Arctic Connections, an environmental consulting firm based in
Alaska, urged PHMSA to regulate rural gathering lines in sensitive
Alaskan wetlands and coastal environments because oil spills threaten
subsistence living and have lasting effects in the Arctic. The Cook
Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council, a nonprofit environmental
protection organization, and Cook Inlet Keeper, a nonprofit watershed
protection organization, also supported regulation of unregulated
pipelines that threaten Alaska's Cook Inlet. To show the need for
regulation, Arctic Connections and Cook Inlet Keeper filed data from
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and other
sources on releases by various unregulated pipelines in Alaska.
Although the data do not distinguish pipelines by type, Cook Inlet
Keeper said its review showed most of the oil spills in Cook Inlet
between 1998 and 2003 came from unregulated gathering lines.
North Slope Borough, the northernmost county of Alaska, favored
regulation of all high-pressure, large-diameter North Slope lines that
could injure residents or affect subsistence living, the environment,
or traditional use areas.
Delta County Colorado considered regulation of rural gathering
lines essential to assure safe development of oil and gas in areas
experiencing increased pressures of population growth. Delta County
thought safety rules should apply to all gathering lines (rural and
nonrural), but should be suitable for the risks involved.
Chevron Texaco Upstream and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
suggested PHMSA identify and analyze the risks of rural gathering lines
and target regulations to specific problems. The Independent Petroleum
Association of America (IPAA) also urged PHMSA to focus on actual--not
speculative--risks.
DOE and IPAA were concerned with the possible increased costs of
gathering crude oil could cause producers to shut in marginally
profitable wells. They pointed out that added costs would have the
potential to reduce the nation's oil supply and hinder development of
new wells.\3\ The Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission defines
marginal wells, sometimes called ``stripper'' wells, as wells producing
10 barrels of oil per day or less. DOE also said some part 195 rules,
such as integrity management, corrosion control, personnel
qualification, public education, accident reporting, and determining
whether a pipeline could affect a high consequence area, could be too
costly for smaller operators to carry out. (A discussion of energy
impacts is under the Regulatory Analyses and Notices section of this
document.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Marginal wells account for 16 percent of US oil production
(Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, ``Marginal Oil and
Natural Gas: American Energy for the American Dream, 2005).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) also
expressed concern about the potential impact on marginal wells of
imposing new safety rules on rural gathering lines. In addition, OIPA
argued PHMSA should not consider regulating rural gathering lines until
it has data showing the types and scale of safety problems.
3. Comments Addressing Rural Low-Stress Lines
On June 26, 2006, PHMSA held both a public workshop and meeting of
the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee to
discuss how best to regulate low-stress lines to better protect
unusually sensitive areas from risks from spills. During this meeting
PHMSA received several significant comments.
API and AOPL presented their proposal, which is discussed in detail
in Section II. b. below. The majority of the participants agreed that
recent accidents reinforced the need for PHMSA's plan to regulate low-
stress lines near unusually sensitive areas (USAs), and supported, for
the most part, API's and AOPL's regulatory proposal. API and AOPL's
proposal recommended low-stress lines located within \1/4\ mile of an
USA, i.e., buffer, be partially regulated under part 195. Their
analysis of the spill data for low-stress pipelines showed that the \1/
4\-mile buffer would contain the spread in 99.6% of the releases.
Several of the commenters questioned whether the proposed \1/4\-mile
buffer was large enough to provide adequate protection to these
critical areas. Some commented on whether a larger buffer would
encompass too many lines. Others questioned the effectiveness of leak
detection methods on these lines. The transcript of this meeting is in
the docket (PHMSA-2003-15864). PHMSA invites comments on whether the
proposed \1/4\-mile buffer zone is appropriate.
Conoco Phillips noted that most unregulated low-stress pipelines
are less than 1-mile long, and are rarely more than 25 miles. Conoco
Phillips also noted that the primary threat to the unregulated low-
stress lines is corrosion because many lack an effective coating and
cathodic protection. Further, it noted that internal corrosion may be
exacerbated by water and microbiological organisms.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation also believes
that government oversight is needed for unregulated low-stress lines,
and shared its proposal on how Alaska plans to address lines not
currently regulated by PHMSA.
II. Need To Regulate
a. Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines
Congress recognized some rural gathering lines might pose risks
warranting federal safety regulation and authorized DOT to regulate a
class of rural gathering lines called ``regulated gathering lines''
based on risk-related physical characteristics, such as diameter,
pressure, location, and length of line. In its report on H.R. 1489, a
bill that led to the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992, the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce said ``DOT should find out whether any gathering
lines present a risk to people or the environment, and if so how large
a risk and what measures should be taken to mitigate the risk'' (H.R.
Report No. 102-247--Part 1, 102d Cong., 1st Session, 23 (1991)). In
PHMSA's view, Congress wanted to limit ``regulated gathering lines'' to
lines posing a significant risk and to limit regulation of those lines
to suitable risk-reduction measures.
To get more information about rural crude oil gathering lines PHMSA
asked the public whether these pipelines pose a risk warranting
pipeline safety
[[Page 52508]]
regulation, and, if so, what those rules should be. As discussed in
section I of this preamble, commenters largely recognized a need for
PHMSA safety rules to prevent serious accidents and to respond to
Congress' safety concern. Most commenters backed rules addressing known
risks of a significant scale. However, a few commenters expressed
concern that extensive rules could cause producers to shut in marginal
wells or divert transportation to riskier modes--mainly trucks.
A few commenters submitted data about oil pipeline accidents,
including accidents on rural crude oil gathering lines. AOPL's data
show corrosion damage and excavation damage were the leading causes of
spills, and 33 percent of the spills were 5 barrels or more. Although
the data do not separate spills occurring from rural gathering lines
from those occurring from other unregulated liquid lines, the spill
causes are consistent with PHMSA's accident data on hazardous liquid
pipelines overall. Also, there is no reason to expect rural gathering
lines are less vulnerable to corrosion, excavation damage, and other
integrity threats than nonrural gathering lines. They may be even more
vulnerable because they have not been subject to federal safety
regulation to ensure their continued integrity. While we have limited
data, we think it is reasonable to assume AOPL's data are
representative of rural crude oil gathering lines. A full discussion of
the available data is in the regulatory evaluation for this proposed
rulemaking, which can be obtained in the docket listed above.
A 1997 report by California's Office of the State Fire Marshal,
``An Assessment of Low-Pressure Crude Oil Pipelines and Gathering
Lines,'' strengthens this assessment. In California, the State Fire
Marshal regulates intrastate pipelines covered by part 195. The report,
available online at http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/lowpressrpt.html, concerns
accidents during 1993-1995 on rural gathering lines and other pipelines
specifically exempt from part 195. According to the report, the leading
causes of the accidents `` corrosion and excavation damage--matched the
leading causes of accidents on regulated pipelines.
b. Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Low-Stress Lines
The original safety regulations for hazardous liquid pipelines did
not apply to any low-stress pipelines. Because of their low operating
pressures and minimal accident history, low-stress hazardous liquid
pipelines were thought to pose little risk to public safety. PHMSA
began rulemaking in this area in 1990 following one of the most
prominent hazardous liquid pipeline accidents on record involving the
spill of approximately 500,000 gallons of heating oil from an
underwater pipeline in Arthur Kill Channel in New York.
To get more information on low-stress lines, in 1990, PHMSA
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (55 FR
45822; October 31, 1990). In the ANPRM, PHMSA sought information about
the costs and benefits of regulating low-stress lines. The analysis of
the data received in response to the ANPRM showed regulation of all
low-stress pipelines could impose costs disproportionate to benefits.
PHMSA, therefore, focused on those low-stress pipelines posing a higher
risk to people and the environment. The risk factors identified were
the commodity in transportation and the location of the pipeline. In
1994, PHMSA extended the hazardous liquid safety requirements to low-
stress pipelines that transport highly volatile liquids (HVL) in all
locations, and other low-stress lines in populated areas and where the
pipeline segments cross navigable waterways. In this rulemaking, PHMSA
deferred regulating non-HVL low-stress pipelines in rural
environmentally sensitive areas pending development of a suitable
definition of ``environmentally sensitive area.'' The agency said it
was developing a better concept of what constitutes an environmentally
sensitive area for purposes of pipeline regulation and this would
provide the groundwork for the future rulemaking on rural low-stress
lines. PHMSA explained that it needed to learn the extent to which low-
stress pipeline spills affect environmentally sensitive areas and the
definition used in part 194 (Response Plans for Onshore Oil Pipelines)
was too broad for part 195.
In 2000, PHMSA issued a final rule defining ``unusually sensitive
areas'' (USAs) (65 FR 246). The USAs address higher risk
environmentally sensitive areas needing extra protection. In this rule,
PHMSA noted its 1994 decision to defer regulating nonvolatile products
transported in low-stress pipelines located in rural sensitive areas
until it defined these areas. The agency reiterated its intention to
reconsider the issue once there was a sensitive area definition. In
2000, PHMSA defined protection of USAs for most hazardous liquid
pipelines through its integrity management regulations. As explained
previously in section I.a, this definition was essential to PHMSA's
completing its series of risk-based rulemakings to provide better
protection to people and the environment from high pressure hazardous
liquid pipelines, high pressure gas transmission pipelines and rural
gas gathering pipelines. Protecting these areas from rural low-stress
lines is the last of these initiatives.
Since 2000, there have been about 30 hazardous liquid low-stress
line incidents on lines PHMSA currently regulates. While PHMSA does not
have incident data for non-regulated lines, we believe a comparable
number of incidents have occurred on currently unregulated low-stress
lines, some of which have been significant. For instance on August 6,
2006, a crude oil spill occurred on a 30-inch, unregulated low-stress
pipeline in the Eastern Operating Area of the Prudhoe Bay Field on the
North Slope of Alaska. This spill resulted in the release of at least
20 barrels of crude oil onto the tundra, and at least another 175
barrels that were collected in a portable tank. Previously, on March 2,
2006, a leak from a 34-inch, unregulated low-stress pipeline was
discovered in the Western Operating Area of the Prudhoe Bay Field. This
leak resulted in the release of approximately 5,000 barrels of
processed crude oil. Although we believe these incidents are not
representative of the condition of unregulated rural low-stress lines
in the lower 48 states, these incidents reinforced the necessity for
PHMSA to complete this rulemaking to better protect USAs from any spill
that could occur from an unregulated rural low-stress pipeline.
As PHMSA was developing its proposal on how best to address rural
low-stress lines, after the March incident, API and AOPL submitted a
regulatory proposal on how PHMSA should address certain currently
exempt low-stress pipelines. The proposal requests PHMSA:
Add a new subpart in part 195 to address assessment and
control of low pressure pipelines;
Define regulated low-stress lines as pipelines with a
diameter greater than 8\5/8\ inches, operating at 20 percent or less of
SMYS, located off the operator's property, and located within \1/4\-
mile of an unusually sensitive area; and
Modify 49 CFR 195.1(b)(iii) to add petroleum storage
facilities to the list of facilities exempt from regulation, unless a
facility crosses a sole source aquifer in an unusually sensitive area.
Further, API and AOPL propose that PHMSA add programmatic
requirements to require operators of a regulated rural low-stress line
to comply with the reporting requirements in subpart B, the corrosion
control requirements in subpart H, the line marker requirements in
Sec. 195.410, and four additional requirements:
[[Page 52509]]
1. Assessment: The operator should inspect the pipeline using in-
line inspection tools or commensurate technology to assess the pipeline
segment every five years unless the operator performs an engineering
analysis to justify a longer timeframe.
2. Leak Detection: The operator should have a means to detect leaks
on the covered pipelines.
3. Damage Prevention: The operator should put in place basic damage
prevention practices, such as registering facilities with one-call
organizations and excavation monitoring.
4. Training for Abnormal Operating Conditions: The operator should
be trained to recognize and respond to abnormal operating conditions.
Lastly, API and AOPL recommend, with the exception of line
identification, operators have up to 5 years after the effective date
of a rule to begin compliance.
As a follow-up to the June 26th public meeting, the Cook Inlet
Regional Citizens Advisory Council submitted comments to the docket.
Cook Inlet recommends eliminating the low-stress regulatory exemption
in 49 CFR 195.1(b)(3)(i). Instead, Cook Inlet recommends PHSMA apply
its baseline pipeline regulations to all low-stress transmission
pipelines, and its integrity management program rules to those low-
stress transmission pipelines that may affect High Consequence Areas.
API and AOPL also submitted supplemental information reflecting
their analysis of spill data. They found that of the 312 large releases
of hazardous liquids (greater than five barrels) between 1999 and 2004,
only 67 (21%) were from low-stress transmission pipelines. Further,
releases from low-stress lines accounted for only 7% of the total
volume of hazardous liquid releases from all pipeline incidents. They
determined that corrosion (64%) and third party damage (21%) together
caused 85% of these releases from low-stress pipelines.
c. Conclusion for Need To Regulate
Based on our consideration of Congress' safety concern, the public
comments, and the accident data, we believe the potential for future
harm to the public's health and environment from rural onshore
gathering and rural low-stress lines is clear. The record shows rural
gathering lines experience the same leading causes of accidents as
hazardous liquid pipelines we now regulate, and releases from
unregulated low-stress lines can affect unusually sensitive areas.
Therefore, we believe it no longer appropriate to continue to exempt
rural onshore gathering lines and rural low-stress lines from nearly
all safety requirements in part 195.
III. Regulatory Options
In considering what safety rules should apply to ``regulated rural
gathering lines'' and ``regulated rural low-stress lines,'' the first
alternative we considered was to collect more information about the
potential hazards of these lines before proposing any specific safety
rules. We rejected this alternative because we believe we have
sufficient information; collecting more information would be unlikely
to change our current understanding of the risks these lines pose.
The second alternative we considered was to apply all part 195
rules to regulated rural gathering lines and, as suggested by Cook
Inlet, for regulated rural low-stress lines. We rejected this
alternative because it could impose significant costs on the industry
without offsetting safety benefits. Also, the costs could have a
significant effect on U.S. oil supplies by causing production to stop
at many marginal oil wells. Further, while we understand Cook Inlet's
desire to extend oversight to all low-stress lines, we believe we
should focus on those posing the most significant threats to USAs, and
on the most critical issues associated with those lines. Therefore, the
proposal only includes safety requirements that address the most
prominent threats to low-stress lines. This determination is based on
our analysis of the most critical safety concerns, including the data
submitted by API and AOPL demonstrating that corrosion and third party
damage cause the greatest threat to the integrity of these lines.
The third alternative was to adopt the approaches API and/or AOPL
suggested. For gathering lines, AOPL's suggested approach includes
limited operation and maintenance rules and reporting rules for
accidents and safety-related conditions. The operation and maintenance
rules would be the public education rules in Sec. 195.440, the
excavation damage prevention rules in Sec. 195.442, and the corrosion
control rules in subpart H of part 195. The reporting rules would be
provisions of subpart B of part 195 related to accidents and safety-
related conditions. The benefit of this alternative is it would focus
on the leading threats to rural gathering lines--corrosion and
excavation damage. Also the information collected would enable PHMSA to
recognize safety problems and evaluate the effectiveness of adopting
only limited safety rules.
By focusing mainly on the threats of excavation damage and
corrosion, the AOPL approach does not address significant safety issues
related to pipeline design, construction, and testing, such as choice
of materials, qualification of welding procedures, and suitable test
pressure. AOPL's approach does not include installation and maintenance
of line markers under Sec. 195.410 or operator qualification program
requirements under part 195, subpart G. The use of line markers to warn
excavators of the presence of hazardous liquid pipelines has long been
a safety practice in the hazardous liquid pipeline industry. Regarding
operator qualifications, Congress mandated PHMSA establish regulations
for operator qualification programs on pipelines. Congress also
directed pipeline operators to develop and adopt a qualification
program should DOT fail to prescribe standards and criteria.
The fourth alternative to address rural onshore low-stress lines
was also the approach suggested by API and AOPL. This approach would
subject rural onshore hazardous liquid low-stress lines that have a
diameter greater than 8\5/8\ inches, operate at 20 percent SMYS, and
are located within a \1/4\-mile of an unusually sensitive area to
certain regulatory requirements. The regulatory approach includes the
reporting requirements of part 195, subpart B, the corrosion control
rules in part 195, subpart H, the damage prevention rules in Sec.
195.442, and installation of line markers in Sec. 195.410. The API and
AOPL approach also includes leak detection, assessment, and limited
operator qualification requirements. We believe the information
collected about threats on non-regulated gathering lines also applies
to threats associated with regulated hazardous liquid lines. Based on
this information, we believe corrosion and excavation damage are the
leading causes of accidents on low-stress lines. Thus, the benefit of
this approach is it focuses on these leading threats to rural onshore
low-stress lines.
A disadvantage of the API and AOPL approach for rural gathering
lines is it does not address other significant safety issues related to
pipeline design, construction, and testing, and does not include the
public awareness requirements under Sec. 195.440. In its petition, API
and AOPL did not explain why these safety requirements were omitted.
Regarding public awareness, in 49 U.S.C. 60112(c), Congress mandated
that pipeline facility operators establish and carry out continuing
public awareness programs to notify the public about the location of
its facilities, one-call programs and accident procedures. Further, the
API and AOPL proposal does not fully address the operator
[[Page 52510]]
qualification requirements. Congress mandated PHMSA establish
regulations for operator qualification programs on pipelines. Congress
also directed pipeline operators to develop and adopt a qualification
program should DOT fail to prescribe standards and criteria. Although
Congress provided some flexibility in the statute, we believe that the
API and AOPL approach is too limited because it only addresses one of
the multiple facets of the operator qualification requirements.
As a fifth alternative, we considered developing new safety rules
for ``regulated rural gathering lines'' and ``regulated rural low-
stress lines.'' We rejected this alternative because we have no reason
to conclude part 195 safety rules now in effect for non-rural gathering
and low-stress lines would be less effective if applied to rural lines.
Our experience shows part 195 rules are effective and should work well
for ``regulated rural gathering lines'' and ``regulated rural low-
stress lines'' because the integrity threats involved are similar for
all the lines.
Finally, we considered modified versions of the approaches API and
AOPL suggested for rural gathering and low-stress lines. This approach
would provide integrity protection by focusing on the primary threats
to these lines--corrosion and third-party damage. For rural gathering,
this alternative would add, line marker requirements under Sec.
195.410 and the qualification requirements in subpart G for the
operator's personnel. Markers are a traditional way of alerting
excavators to dig carefully in the presence of hazardous liquid
pipelines. Under 49 U.S.C. 60131, DOT must require pipeline operators
to develop and adopt a qualification program that complies with the
standards DOT develops for such programs.
In addition, the modified version would require operators to
establish a maximum operating pressure for each steel line according to
Sec. 195.406, and to design, construct, and test lines according to
applicable part 195 rules. A maximum operating pressure would guard
against the danger of accidental overpressure. Part 195 design,
construction, and testing rules would ensure a minimum standard of
integrity for all new, replaced, and relocated ``regulated gathering
lines.'' We required similar rules on markers, operating pressure,
design, construction, and testing for rural gas gathering lines in a
final rule published March 15, 2006 (71 FR 13289). These requirements
should not be too burdensome, because similar safety requirements are
in the ASME B31.4 Code, ``Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid
Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids,'' a consensus standard followed widely
throughout the hazardous liquid pipeline industry.
Our modified approach to the API and AOPL suggestion for rural
onshore low-stress lines would include public awareness requirements in
Sec. 195.440 and a modified version of the operator qualification
requirements. These operators are also required under 49 U.S.C.
60102(a) to have public awareness program. Under 49 U.S.C. 60131(e)(5)
and (f), Congress allowed DOT and State pipeline safety agencies to
waive or modify any operator qualification requirement if not
inconsistent with the pipeline safety laws. PHMSA believes an approach
similar to the modified approach used for gas gathering would be
appropriate for low-stress lines. This modification would allow
operators to describe the processes they have in place to ensure
personnel performing operations and maintenance activities are
qualified.
Additionally, the modified version would require operators to
establish a maximum operating pressure for each steel line according to
Sec. 195.406, and to design, construct, and test lines according to
applicable part 195 rules. A maximum operating pressure would guard
against the danger of accidental overpressure. Part 195 design,
construction, and testing rules would ensure a minimum standard of
integrity for all new, replaced, and relocated ``regulated rural low-
stress lines.'' Lastly, the modified version would require an operator
to periodically assess the integrity of the lines to identify and
address any conditions affecting the integrity of the lines, no matter
the cause, and to establish and maintain a leak detection program based
on API's recommended practice 1130 (API 1130) ``Computational Pipeline
Monitoring,'' which is currently being used by industry and is
incorporated by reference into our existing regulations. Because API
1130 only addresses pipelines transporting a stable single phase
product, operators transporting other products will need to develop
another appropriate leak detection method.
Further, our modified version includes additional corrosion control
requirements for onshore rural gathering lines and low-stress lines.
Our proposal includes a requirement to continuously monitor these lines
and based on identified changes to clean and accelerate the corrosion
control program when necessary.
A discussion of the safety rules we are proposing is in section IV
of this preamble.
IV. Proposed Regulations for Regulated Rural Gathering Lines
a. Proposed Definition of ``Regulated Rural Gathering Line''
We are defining those rural gathering lines presenting a higher
risk to public health and the environment as regulated rural gathering
lines.\4\ PHMSA believes Congress did not think all rural gathering
lines subject people or the environment to a high enough risk to
qualify as a regulated rural gathering line. This reasoning is based on
the various risk factors the statute requires us to consider, the
complete exemption in most rural areas of low-pressure lines 6 inches
or less in nominal diameter. Thus, we have determined higher risk rural
areas are those areas we defined in Sec. 195.6 as unusually sensitive
areas. These areas include drinking water and ecological resource
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Although the statute directs us to define a regulated
gathering line, for purposes of this rulemaking, we are proposing to
define regulated rural line. Non rural onshore gathering is already
regulated under part 195 and we are not proposing to change
regulation of these currently regulated lines. This rulemaking
focuses on certain rural onshore gathering not presently regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA considered whether the present definition of gathering line
in Sec. 195.2 is acceptable. This definition represents the typical
function of a crude oil gathering line--to move crude oil away from a
production facility. It also represents the typically small size of
crude oil gathering lines--8\5/8\ inches or less in nominal outside
diameter. Since its adoption, the definition has served to identify
which petroleum pipelines in rural areas are exempt from part 195
because they are gathering lines. Also, in our experience, operators
and government inspectors have had little difficulty using the
definition for that purpose. We decided, therefore, the Sec. 195.2
definition of gathering line is acceptable for helping to define a
regulated rural gathering line. Furthermore, because we are not
changing the coverage of the non-rural gathering lines we now regulate,
we see no reason to change the long-standing definition of a gathering
line.
Congress identified ``throughput'' and ``composition of the
transported hazardous liquid'' as two other possible risk factors to
consider in determining which rural gathering lines should be
regulated. We think it unnecessary to include these factors.
Throughput, or volume of oil moved in a unit of time, is largely
dependent on pipe diameter and operating pressure. And the composition
of hazardous liquids transported by gathering lines is chiefly crude
oil.
[[Page 52511]]
AOPL was the only commenter to offer a definition of ``regulated
gathering line.'' Under this definition, a ``regulated gathering line''
would be a line 6 inches or more in nominal diameter operating above 20
percent of SMYS that could affect a high-consequence area.
An advantage of AOPL's definition is its use of the statutory risk
factors of diameter, operating pressure (expressed as a percentage of
SMYS), and location (could affect a high consequence area) to identify
higher-risk lines. And we think the definition uses these factors in a
reasonable way.
Our proposed definition of a regulated rural gathering line is
based in part on AOPL's suggested definition. AOPL's definition is
based on gathering lines in high consequence areas. High consequence
areas include populated areas. We already regulate onshore gathering
lines in populated areas and are not proposing to change any of the
pipeline safety requirements applicable to these lines. Therefore, we
are basing our definition on those rural gathering lines meeting
certain criteria and located within a defined zone of an unusually
sensitive area as defined in Sec. 195.6. Unusually sensitive areas
include drinking water and ecological resource areas. These areas are
unusually sensitive to environmental damage from a hazardous liquid
pipe release because a release into these areas could substantially
impact the Nation's supply of drinking water, endanger public health,
and create long-term or irrevocable damage to the habitat of threatened
and endangered species.
Our proposed definition, like AOPL's definition, does not use line
length as a defining characteristic of these higher-risk rural lines.
Line length, a statutory risk factor, is relevant to potential spill
volume, because the shorter the line, the less oil there is to drain
out after shutdown. Part 194 recognizes this risk factor by not
requiring spill response plans for certain small pipelines 10 miles or
less in length. However, because short lines can cause substantial
environmental harm in vulnerable locations, part 194 does not allow
operators to use the 10-mile exception for lines proximate to navigable
waters, public drinking water intakes, or environmentally sensitive
areas.
Instead of using AOPL's criteria to define a regulated rural
gathering line as one that could affect an unusually sensitive area, we
have decided to use a buffer. We saw a potential difficulty in
operators determining which lines could affect an unusually sensitive
area. Part 195 uses the phrase ``could affect a high consequence area''
to identify pipelines subject to integrity management rules (Sec.
195.452). Section I. B. of Appendix C to part 195 lists various risk
factors, such as topography and shutdown ability, an operator can use
in deciding if a pipeline ``could affect a high consequence area.''
PHMSA believes this would be too burdensome for most operators. To
reduce the burden of making this decision for possibly thousands of
rural line segments, we are proposing a buffer--a distance beyond the
defined area where a rural gathering line presumably could not affect
that area.
PHMSA considered the buffers used in Sec. Sec. 194.103(c)(4) and
(5) of the Oil Spill response plan requirements. Those sections require
a buffer of five miles from a public drinking water intake and one mile
from an environmentally sensitive area. However, after reviewing the
incident data, we concluded those buffer sizes were not warranted.
During the June 26th public meeting, AOPL clarified it recommended a
buffer of \1/4\-mile for rural gathering lines because its data
revealed the largest on land spill from a pipeline traveled no more
than 2 acres. The operating pressure is also a factor when evaluating
the potential spill volume from a pipeline. Thus, gathering lines
operating at lower pressures do not have the potential to release as
much product as those operating at higher pressures. Thus, we have
determined that gathering lines that operate above 20% SMYS and that
are between 6\5/8\ inches and 8\5/8\ inches in diameter and are located
in or within \1/4\-mile of an USA have the potential to substantially
impact public health and the environment. We invite comments and
supporting technical documentation on whether a larger buffer is needed
to provide better protection for these critical environmental areas.
PHMSA would also like data on the miles of gathering lines likely to be
affected by any increase in the size of the buffer.
Thus, we are proposing to add a new section 195.11(a) that would
define a ``regulated rural gathering line'' as a rural onshore
gathering line with the following characteristics:
A nominal diameter between 6\5/8\ inches and 8\5/8\
inches;
Operates at a maximum operating pressure established under
Sec. 195.406 that corresponds to a stress level greater than 20
percent of SMYS or, if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is
not constructed with steel pipe, at a pressure of more than 125 psig;
and
Is located in or within \1/4\-mile of an unusually
sensitive area as defined in Sec. 195.6.
A pressure of 125 psig conservatively approximates 20 percent of
SMYS for steel pipe of unknown stress level, based on minimum weight
pipe 8 inches in nominal diameter with 24000 psi yield strength.
We invite comments and supporting technical documentation on
whether values other than 125 psig and \1/4\-mile would be more
suitable for the respective purposes. We are particularly interested in
comment on whether the proposed \1/4\-mile buffer is adequate to
protect those drinking water and ecological resources particularly
vulnerable to damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release, or
whether a larger buffer is needed. If commenters believe a larger
buffer is needed, data on the pipeline mileage that would be affected
would be helpful.
b. Proposed Rewrite of Sec. 195.1
Section 195.1 specifies the hazardous liquid pipeline facilities
subject to the requirements of part 195 and those exempt from coverage.
We propose to rewrite this section to clarify which lines are subject
to part 195. This section clarifies that onshore non-rural gathering
lines are subject to all of part 195's requirements. A regulated rural
gathering line, as defined in this proposal, would be subject to the
limited safety requirements provided in a new Sec. 195.11, discussed
below.
The rewrite of Sec. 195.1 clarifies the present rulemaking does
not affect onshore gathering lines in inlets of the Gulf of Mexico.
Onshore gathering in these inlets would continue to be subject only to
the inspection and burial rules in Sec. 195.413. At no point during
our public meetings on regulating onshore gathering lines in rural
areas did anyone comment on the need to expand these rules.
We also have clarified the language in several of the exceptions
from part 195's coverage. We have not changed the intent or scope of
any of these. We have simply cleaned up some of the language to make
the exceptions easier to read.
c. Proposed Safety Requirements for ``Regulated Rural Gathering Lines''
A new Sec. 195.11(b) would be added to the part 195 regulations to
specify the safety requirements for these lines. We have developed
these proposed requirements to manage the integrity of rural gathering
lines by providing complete protections to address the known
significant threats and to continue to collect more information about
these lines through the reporting requirements. Based on our review of
the gathering lines in populated areas and our investigation of the
non-
[[Page 52512]]
regulated lines in rural areas, we have found that the highest risks to
these lines are corrosion and third party damage. This proposal focuses
on those threats. Through continuous monitoring of the lines, required
as part of the corrosion program, the operators will gather more
information about the risk the lines pose. We seek comments on whether
this proposal should specifically address other threats. We also seek
comment on whether PHMSA should require all gathering line operators to
submit an annual report and accident reports as required for regulated
operators by Sec. Sec. 195.49 and 195.59.
Operators would first have to identify all segments of regulated
rural gathering pipeline. Operators would have to design, install,
construct, initially inspect, and initially test new, replaced,
relocated, or otherwise changed steel lines according to certain
existing part 195 rules. However, for pipelines converted to hazardous
liquid service, operators would have the option of following the
conversion rules in Sec. 195.5.
Operators of newly constructed non-steel lines would have to notify
PHMSA at least 90 days before the start of transportation. The notice
would give PHMSA an opportunity to review the pipeline and order any
changes necessary for safety.
Under the proposal, operators would have to comply with the
reporting requirements in subpart B of part 195. The other proposed
safety requirements for these regulated rural lines include:
Establishing a maximum operating pressure under Sec.
195.406;
Installing and maintaining line markers under Sec.
195.410;
Establishing and applying a public education program
according to Sec. 195.440;
Establishing and applying a damage prevention program
according to Sec. 195.442;
For steel lines, controlling and remediating corrosion
according to subpart H of part 195; to include cleaning, continuous
monitoring, and remediating any problems identified; and
Establishing and applying an operator qualification
program that describes the processes the operator has in place to
ensure the personnel performing operations and maintenance activities
are qualified.
To address one of the major threats to these lines, we are
proposing operators include these lines in their corrosion control
program. A corrosion control program under part 195's subpart H
includes provisions on how an operator is to remediate corroded pipe.
We are also proposing additional corrosion control requirements in the
form of continuous monitoring and cleaning. We seek public comment on
whether the continuous monitoring provision primarily associated with
corrosion control should be as proposed, or extended to other
provisions of this proposed rule.
Although not listed as a specific safety requirement in the rule,
operators are required to continue to comply with the drug and alcohol
testing rules in 49 CFR part 199. Part 199 requires operators of
pipelines subject to part 195 to test personnel for use of prohibited
drugs and misuse of alcohol. Persons subject to testing are those who
perform a regulated operation, maintenance, or emergency-response
function on a regulated pipeline.
Under Sec. 195.406, the maximum operating pressure of a pipeline
is the lowest pressure applicable to the pipeline among a list of
pressures. However, most of the pressures listed apply only to
pipelines subject to the design and pressure testing rules of part 195.
The only pressure applicable to pipelines not subject to those rules is
in Sec. 195.406(a)(2)--the design pressure of any other component of
the pipeline. Because operators normally do not operate a hazardous
liquid pipeline above its design pressure, compliance with Sec.
195.406(a)(2) should not be difficult on ``regulated rural gathering
lines'' to which part 195 design and pressure testing rules would not
apply. Still, we do not want operators to reduce operating pressure
unnecessarily on any existing line with a history of satisfactory
operation. So we invite comments on the need to amend Sec. 195.406 to
allow such continued operation and, if so, what that amendment should
be.
The proposal provides, except for the requirements applicable to
newly-constructed pipelines and corrosion control, the safety
requirements apply to all materials of construction.
The proposed time frames for compliance with each proposed safety
requirement are shown in section V.d. of this document. The proposed
compliance deadlines vary according to the safety requirements. To gain
a better understanding of how different time frames will affect the
costs and feasibility of an operator's compliance, we have proposed a
range of compliance times. This approach will allow operators longer
time frames for complex activities that are more costly to implement,
and to readily implement less complex safety requirements. For example,
under the proposal, operators would have six months, 12 months or some
period in between those time frames after the effective date of the
final rule to identify regulated rural gathering pipeline segments and
to comply with the reporting requirements. The corrosion control
program, including the additional requirements for continuous
monitoring, remediation and cleaning, would have to be in place within
two to three years from the final rule's effective date. We believe a
longer time frame for the corrosion control program may be necessary
for pipelines that require major construction to implement new
monitoring, remediation, or cleaning facilities. Additionally,
recoating of the line involves major construction and a longer planning
and construction cycle may be necessary.
A final rule will require a period somewhere in the proposed
ranges. Our preference is for shorter compliance periods. But we have
proposed a lower and upper range of compliance periods so that in a
final rule we can set compliance times that can be done quickly enough
to address any problems on these lines but are not cost burdensome,
impractical or have an adverse effect on energy supply. We seek
comments and supporting documentation to address the effects of these
compliance periods on an operator's operations. These comments should
address cost, operational difficulties in complying, technology
concerns, and other issues, such as time needed to secure necessary
permits.
d. New Unusually Sensitive Areas
Proposed Sec. 195.11(c) concerns onshore rural gathering lines
that become ``regulated rural gathering lines'' because of a new
unusually sensitive area. Operators should at least annually review the
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) to determine if the addition of
a new unusually sensitive area has caused any of their unregulated
rural gathering lines to become ``regulated rural gathering lines.'' We
are proposing a range between six months to one year for compliance
with applicable safety requirements when a previously unregulated line
becomes regulated. We seek comments and supporting documentation that
address the effect of these time frames on the costs and feasibility of
compliance. We want to completely understand the impacts of an
operator's ability to comply with a shorter or longer time frame.
e. Records
Proposed Sec. 195.11(d) provides record retention requirements.
Certain records,
[[Page 52513]]
such as the segment identification records, would have to be retained
for the life of the pipe. Other records would have to be kept according
to the record keeping requirements of the specific section or subpart
referenced.
V. Proposed Rules for ``Regulated Rural Low-Stress Lines''
a. Proposed Definition of ``Regulated Rural Low-Stress Lines''
We are proposing to define regulated rural low-stress lines as
those rural low-stress lines presenting a higher risk to the public's
health and the environment. Congress directed PHMSA to focus pipeline
regulation on protecting people and the environment against risks
presented by pipeline transportation, but not to exempt pipeline
facilities solely because they operate at low-stress levels. Thus, as
with rural gathering lines, we determined the higher risk rural areas
that should be protected from a release from a low-stress pipeline are
those areas we defined in Sec. 195.6 as unusually sensitive
environmental areas. These areas include drinking water and ecological
resource areas.
After evaluating the accident history and the API and AOPL proposed
definition, we believe PHMSA's definition should focus on rural low-
stress lines with a diameter of 8\5/8\ inches or more and operating at
20 percent or less of SMYS that could cause harm to an USA. In its
proposed definition, API and AOPL recommended a buffer zone of \1/4\-
mile from an USA and provided data showing the impact from a spill has
not gone beyond \1/4\-mile. Their data showed hazard liquid releases,
regardless of whether the spill has a radius, diameter, or ellipse
formation, will not spread more than \1/4\-mile. Based on this data,
PHMSA proposes a \1/4\-mile buffer as the zone of protection for an
USA. Thus, if a rural low-stress line meets the above criteria and is
within \1/4\-mile of an USA, it would be regulated.
PHMSA considered the buffer zones used in Sec. 194.103(c)(4) and
(5) of the Oil Spill response plan requirements, but after reviewing
the incident data found those buffer sizes were not warranted. We
believe regulating low-stress pipeline segments located within \1/4\-
mile of an unusually sensitive area provides a reasonable zone of
protection for these areas from the release of large quantities of
hazardous liquids. We invite comments and supporting technical
documentation on whether a larger buffer is needed to provide better
protection for these critical environmental areas. PHMSA would also
like data on the miles of low-stress lines likely to be affected by
increasing the buffer size.
We are proposing to add a new section Sec. 195.12(a) to define a
``regulated low-stress line'' as an onshore line in a rural area
meeting the following criteria:
A nominal diameter of 8\5/8\ inches or more;
Located within \1/4\-mile of an unusually sensitive area
as defined in Sec. 195.6; and
Operates at a maximum pressure established under Sec.
195.406 that corresponds to a stress level equal to or less than 20
percent of SMYS, or if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is
not constructed with steel pipe, a pressure equal to or less an 125
psig.
b. Proposed Rewrite of 195.1
We propose to rewrite this section to clarify which lines are
subject to part 195. This section clarifies which low-stress pipelines
are subject to part 195 and which are exempt. A regulated rural low-
stress line would be subject to the limited safety requirements
provided in a new Sec. 195.12, discussed below.
We also have clarified the language in several of the exceptions
from part 195's coverage. We have not changed the intent or scope of
any of these. We have simply cleaned up some of the language to make
the exceptions easier to read. PHMSA is not adopting AOPL's suggestion
to exempt petroleum storage facilities in Sec. 195.1 because the
proposal is unclear as to which storage facilities should be exempt.
For example, regulated tanks are tanks that are used to relieve surges
in a pipeline system or used to receive and store hazardous liquid
transported by a pipeline for reinjection and continued transportation
by pipeline. API/AOPL, in their proposal and presentation at the public
meeting, did not explain why these facilities should be exempted.
c. Proposed Safety Requirements for ``Regulated Rural Low-Stress
Pipelines''
A new Sec. 195.12(b) would be added to part 195 regulations to
specify the safety requirements for regulated rural low-stress lines.
As we did with rural gathering lines, we have developed these safety
protections to address the known threats to the integrity of these
lines. Based on our review of regulated low-stress lines and our
investigation of non-regulated lines in rural areas, we have found that
the highest risks to these lines are corrosion and third party damage.
Although this proposal focuses on those threats, operators will gather
additional information through the reporting requirements, the
continuous monitoring required as part of the corrosion program, and
the integrity assessment that includes identification and remediation
of any condition presenting a threat to the integrity of these lines,
no matter the cause. We seek comments on whether this proposal should
specifically address other threats. We seek comment on whether PHMSA
should require all operators of low-stress lines to submit an annual
report as required by Sec. 195.49.
Operators would have to identify all segments of regulated rural
low-stress lines. They would also have to design, install, construct,
initially inspect and test new, replaced, relocated, or otherwise
changed steel lines according to certain existing part 195
requirements. However, for pipelines converted to hazardous liquid
service, operators would have the option of following the conversion
rules in Sec. 195.5.
Under the proposal, operators would have to comply with the
reporting requirements in subpart B of part 195. The other proposed
safety requirements for these regulated rural lines include:
Establishing a maximum operating pressure under Sec.
195.406;
Installing and maintaining line markers under Sec.
195.410;
Establishing and applying a public education program
according to Sec. 195.440;
Establishing and applying a damage prevention program
according to Sec. 195.442;
For steel lines, controlling and remediating corrosion
according to part 195, subpart H, and cleaning and continuous
monitoring to identify and remediate problems;
Establishing and applying a modified operator
qualification program to allow an operator to describe the processes
the operator has in place to ensure personnel performing operations and
maintenance activities are qualified under part 195, subpart G;
Establishing and applying a program to assess at
continuing intervals the integrity of the low-stress lines. The purpose
of this assessment is to determine and remediate any condition
presenting a threat to the integrity of these regulated segments. These
conditions are not limited to those caused by corrosion or third-party
damage. The proposal allows an operator to use in-line inspection tests
and pressure testing as assessment methods. An operator could also use
alternative technology, such as direct assessment, if the operator
demonstrates the technology can provide an equivalent understanding of
the line
[[Page 52514]]
pipe. If an operator uses direct assessment, PHMSA would expect the
methodology to follow that required for using direct assessment in the
gas integrity management regulations; and
Establishing and applying a leak detection program based
on API 1130, or other appropriate method suitable for the commodity
being transported.
To address one of the major threats to these lines, we are
proposing operators include these lines in their corrosion control
program. A corrosion control program under part 195's subpart H
includes provisions on how an operator is to remediate corroded pipe.
We are also proposing additional corrosion control requirements in the
form of continuous monitoring, cleaning and remediating problems
identified from the continuous corrosion monitoring. We seek public
comment on whether the continuous monitoring provision associated
primarily with corrosion control should be as proposed or extended to
other provisions of this proposed rule.
Although not listed as a specific safety requirement in the
proposed rule, operators are required to continue to comply with the
drug and alcohol testing rules in 49 CFR part 199, which requires
operators to test personnel for use of prohibited drugs and misuse of
alcohol. Individuals subject to testing are those who perform a
regulated operation, maintenance, or emergency-response function on a
regulated pipeline.
The proposed compliance deadlines vary according to the safety
requirements, and are listed below. To gain a better understanding of
how different time frames will affect the costs and feasibility of an
operator's compliance, we have proposed a range of compliance times.
API and AOPL recommended that compliance begin for all requirements
within 5 years, but we believe a phased approach is more appropriate.
This approach will allow operators longer time frames for complex
activities that are more costly and time consuming to implement, and to
readily implement less complex requirements. For example, under the
proposal, operators would have six months, 12 months or some period in
between those ranges after the effective date of the final rule to
identify regulated rural low-stress pipeline segments and to comply
with the reporting requirements. The proposal would have an operator
establish an integrity assessment program within one year to two years
from the final rule's effective date, and allow 5 years to 7 years to
complete the integrity assessment of all regulated rural low-stress
segments, with half of those segments having to be completed within
three to four years from the final rule's effective date. The proposed
time frame for the integrity assessment takes into account the time
necessary to address physical changes to the pipeline for the use of
internal inspection devices, and any extensive planning and
construction. The corrosion control program, including the additional
requirements for continuous monitoring and cleaning, would have to be
in place within two to three years from the final rule's effective
date.
A final rule will require a completion period somewhere in the
proposed ranges. Our preference is for shorter compliance periods.
Shorter periods should be feasible because operators currently comply
with many of these requirements and would merely be adding low-stress
lines to their current operations. But we have proposed a lower and
upper range of compliance periods so that in a final rule we can set
compliance times that can be completed quickly enough to address any
problems on these lines but are not cost burdensome, impractical or
have an adverse effect on energy supply. We seek comments and
supporting documentation to address the effects of these compliance
periods on an operator's operations. These comments should address
cost, operational difficulties in complying, technology concerns, and
other issues, such as time needed to secure necessary permits. We also
seek comment on whether there are simpler and more immediate methods an
operator could use to identify the condition of these regulated rural
low-stress pipelines.
d. Compliance Time Frames for Gathering Lines and Low-Stress Lines
Unless otherwise indicated the time frames shown in the chart below
are applicable to both onshore rural gathering lines and low-stress
lines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety requirement Time frame
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification of Line Segments........ 6 months-12 months following
effective date of rule.
Design, Construction, and Testing of 1 year-2 years following
Steel Pipelines. effective date of rule.
Reporting Requirements................. 6 months-12 months following
effective date of rule.
Maximum Operating Pressure............. 12 months-18 months following
effective date of rule.
Installation of Line Markers........... 12 months-18 months following
effective date of rule for
existing lines.
Public Education Program............... 12 months-18 months following
effective date of rule for
existing lines.
Damage Prevention Program.............. 12 months-18 months following
effective date of rule for
existing lines.
Corrosion Control Program.............. 2 years-3 years following
effective date of rule.
Operator Qualification Program......... 1 year-2 years following
effective date of rule.
Integrity Assessment Program **........ 1 year-2 years following
effective date of rule.
Integrity Assessment--50% completed **. 3 years-4 years following
effective date of rule.
Completed Integrity Assessments **..... 5 years-7 years following
effective date of rule.
Leak Detection Program \5\............. 2 years-3 years following
effective date of rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. New Unusually Sensitive Areas
Proposed Sec. 195.12(c) concerns onshore rural low-stress lines
that become ``regulated rural low-stress lines'' because of a new
unusually sensitive area. Operators should, at least annually, review
the NPMS to determine whether their unregulated low-stress lines have
become ``regulated rural low-stress lines.'' We are proposing a range
of time periods for compliance with applicable safety requirements when
a previously unregulated line becomes regulated. We would establish a
period between six months to one year for operators to comply with all
proposed requirements except the integrity assessment, and two to three
years to do the integrity assessment. We request comment and supporting
documentation that addresses the effect of these time frames on the
costs and feasibility of compliance. We want to completely understand
the impacts of an operator's ability to comply with a shorter or longer
time frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The compliance time frame applies only to onshore rural low-
stress lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52515]]
f. Records
Proposed Sec. 195.12(d) provides record retention requirements.
Certain records such as the segment identification records would have
to be retained for the life of the pipe. Other records would have to be
kept according to the record keeping requirements of the specific
section or subpart referenced.
g. Minor Changes to Existing Rules
A few corrosion control rules in subpart H of part 195 address
procedures under Sec. 195.402(c)(3). Under the requirements proposed
for regulated rural gathering and low-stress lines, operators would
have to establish corrosion control procedures under Sec.
195.11(b)(9), not under Sec. 195.402(c)(3). So in existing Sec. Sec.
195.555, 195.565, 195.573(d), and 195.579(d), we are proposing to
replace ``Sec. 195.402(c)(3)'' with ``Sec. Sec. 195.11(b)(9),
195.12(b)(8) or Sec. 195.402(c)(3).''
Existing Sec. Sec. 195.557(a) and 195.563(a) refer to pipelines
``constructed, relocated, replaced, or otherwise changed after the
applicable date in Sec. 195.401(c),'' the deadline for compliance with
part 195. Comparable deadlines for ``regulated rural gathering lines
and regulated rural low-stress lines are in proposed Sec. Sec.
195.11(b)(9) and 195.12(b)(8), respectively. Thus, in Sec. Sec.
195.557(a) and 195.563(a), we are proposing to replace ``Sec.
195.401(c)'' with ``Sec. Sec. 195.11(b)(9), 195.12(b)(8) or
195.401(c).''
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures. PHMSA
considers this proposed rulemaking to be a significant regulatory
action under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; Oct.
4, 1993). Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
received a copy of this proposed rulemaking to review. This proposed
rulemaking is also significant under DOT regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979).
PHMSA prepared a draft Regulatory Evaluation of the proposed rule.
A copy is in Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864. If you have comments about
the Regulatory Evaluation, please file them as described under the
ADDRESSES heading of this document.
For the purpose of the Regulatory Evaluation, PHMSA estimates 599
of the 2,722 miles of onshore rural hazardous liquid gathering lines
would be newly defined as regulated rural gathering lines as a
consequence of the proposed regulatory changes. Since these lines
operate at greater than 20 percent of SMYS (or 125 psig), PHMSA assumes
major pipeline firms operate these lines.
PHMSA estimates 684 of the 5,000 miles of onshore rural hazardous
liquid low-stress lines would be newly defined as regulated rural low-
stress lines as a consequence of this proposal. Although these lines
operate at lower than 20 percent of SMYS, PHMSA believes the affected
operators also are major pipeline firms.
PHMSA acknowledges these mileage figures are estimates. PHMSA
invites comments on the reasonableness of those estimates.
Overall, the initial costs of the proposed regulatory changes are
expected to be approximately $5 million, the recurring annual costs are
expected to be $2 million during years 2 through 6, and the recurring
annual costs are expected to be $1 million for years 7 and beyond. The
present value of the NPRM over 20 years using a 3 percent discount rate
would be $21 million, while its present value over 20 years using a 7
percent discount rate would be $17 million.
Evidence suggests the two most significant safety problems on
onshore rural hazardous liquid gathering lines and low-stress lines are
corrosion and excavation damage. The proposed regulatory changes
address both. Consequently, the intended benefits of the proposed
regulatory changes are that they will reduce both.
It is difficult to quantify the benefits that would result from the
proposed regulatory changes. Information that could be used to estimate
the benefits attributable to improved safety through reduced incidents
and incident consequences on gathering lines is difficult to quantify.
Benefits due to improved safety can be estimated for low-stress lines,
however. Those benefits are $3.3 million per year. The present value of
those benefits over 20 years using a 3 percent discount rate would be
$49 million, while their present value over 20 years using a 7 percent
discount rate would be $35 million. PHMSA invites public comment on its
cost and benefit estimates.
In addition to any reduction in incidents that might be
attributable to the proposed regulatory changes, we expect the proposed
changes to improve public confidence in the safety of onshore hazardous
liquid gathering lines and low-stress lines in rural areas. This we
believe would be a significant benefit of the proposed regulatory
changes.
The proposed rules also may produce public benefits by preventing
disruptions in fuel supply caused by pipeline failures. Any
interruption in fuel supply impacts the U.S. economy by putting upward
pressure on the prices paid by businesses and consumers. Supply
disruptions also have national security implications, because they
increase dependence on foreign sources of oil. In most cases, we would
not expect failures of onshore rural gathering lines to have
significant impacts on fuel supply. However, low-stress pipelines in
Alaska feeding major liquid pipelines are important links in the fuel
supply chain, as recent incidents have illustrated.
Other additional benefits expected to result from the proposed rule
include avoided environmental and other damage from pipeline spills.
These benefits can be significant. For example, on January 1, 1990, a
low-stress pipeline operated by Exxon ruptured and eventually spilled
567,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil into the Arthur Kill, which separates
Staten Island from New Jersey. The incident has a known cost of nearly
$84 million (in 2005 dollars). While the figure includes costs
attributable to the spill response by the responsible parties, the
natural resources damage assessment, penalties, and ``Other'', it does
not include any public response costs or third party claims against the
responsible parties. Even though the proposed rule does not include
such costs in its cost estimates, if the rule would prevent only one
incident similar to the Arthur Kill spill during the first 20 years,
the overall benefits of the proposed rule could potentially increase by
between 95% and 166%.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA must consider whether its rulemaking actions
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
PHMSA assumes major pipeline firms operate the lines that will be
regulated under this proposal. These operators are already subject to
part 195 because they operate pipelines covered by part 195. These
operators will experience slight added costs because they will be
required to fold their newly regulated rural gathering lines into their
existing part 195 compliance programs.
PHMSA consulted the International Petroleum Association of America
(IPAA), which represents over 6,000 independent crude oil and natural
gas producers throughout the U.S., and IPAA believes small operators
would not be impacted. PHMSA also consulted with the Small Business
Administration, which also believes this proposal will not impact small
entities. Therefore, PHMSA does not expect the
[[Page 52516]]
proposed rules to impact any small entities.
Based on these facts, I certify that a small number of major
operators will experience increased costs, but this impact will not be
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. PHMSA invites public comment on its estimate of the number of
small entities that would become subject to part 195 for the first time
as a result of this rulemaking.
Executive Order 13175. PHMSA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking
according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order
13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.'' Because the proposed rulemaking would not significantly
or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments nor
impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This proposed rulemaking contains
information collection requirements applicable to operators of
hazardous liquid gathering lines and low-stress lines in rural areas.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
PHMSA has submitted a paperwork analysis to the Office of Management
and Budget for its review.
Operators of rural gathering lines and low-stress lines proposed to
be regulated would have to comply with part 195 information collection
requirements regarding corrosion control, damage prevention programs,
public education programs, and accident reporting. These operators
would also have to comply with the information collection requirements
in 49 CFR part 199 concerning drug and alcohol testing.
Certain gathering lines and low-stress lines in nonrural areas are
currently subject to part 195. The number of gathering line and low-
stress line operators subject to regulation may vary as lines are
brought into and taken out of service and as changes occur in the
boundaries of nonrural locations. If the proposed rules become final,
this number also may vary as changes occur in the boundaries of
unusually sensitive areas.
PHMSA currently has an OMB approved information collection request
(2137-0047) for hazardous liquid operators under its jurisdiction.
PHMSA currently has an OMB approved information collection request
(2137-0047) for hazardous liquid operators under its jurisdiction. This
proposed rule, if adopted, will not increase the number of operators
under PHMSA jurisdiction and will only marginally increase the burden
hours currently approved under OMB No. 2137-0047. We estimate that this
proposal will require an additional burden of 8 hours. This is for all
impacted operators. The total cost of this operator burden is
approximately $520.56 (= $65.07 x 8 hours, assuming a senior engineer
costing $65.07 fully loaded is preparing the incident reports).
Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of an Existing
Collection.
Title of Information Collection: Transportation of Hazardous
Liquids by Pipeline.
Recordkeeping and Accident Reporting Requirements Respondents:
Estimated 0 new operators.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on New Respondents: 0 hours.
PHMSA invites comments on the above estimates.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This proposed rulemaking does
not include unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. It would not result in costs of $100 million or more (adjusted
for inflation) to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, and it is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the proposed rulemaking.
National Environmental Policy Act. PHMSA has analyzed the proposed
rulemaking for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). PHMSA has preliminarily determined that the
proposed rulemaking is unlikely to significantly affect the quality of
the human environment.
The proposed rulemaking would require only limited physical
modification or other work that would disturb pipeline rights-of-way,
such as, identifying segments of pipelines meeting the regulatory
definitions, inspection and testing, installing and maintaining line
markers, implementing corrosion controls, pipeline cleaning, and
establishing integrity assessment and leak detection programs. All of
these activities result in negligible to minor negative environmental
impact. PHMSA also believes that many of these safety measures (for
example, implementing corrosion control and installing and maintaining
line markers) are already being undertaken for a large portion of the
pipeline mileage that would become regulated under the proposed rules.
Furthermore, by requiring these and other safety rules such as accident
reporting, implementing public education and damage prevention
programs, and establishing operator qualification programs, it is
likely the number of spills on rural gathering lines and low-stress
lines will be reduced, thereby resulting in minor to moderate positive
environmental impact that would offset the negative environmental
impacts.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This EA considers the pipeline safety actions proposed for
rural onshore gathering and low-stress pipelines. This EA does not
consider other actions that operators are required to take to comply
with other statutory authorities, such as the Clean Water Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An environmental assessment document is available for review in
Docket No. PHMSA-2003-15864. A final determination on environmental
impact will be made following the close of the comment period. If you
have any comments about this draft and environmental assessment, please
submit them as described under the ADDRESSES heading of this document.
Executive Order 13132. PHMSA has analyzed the proposed rulemaking
according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 (``Federalism''). None of the proposed regulatory requirements
(1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship
between the national government and the States, or the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2)
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments; or (3) preempts state law. Therefore, the consultation and
funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
Although the state consultation requirements do not apply to this
proposed regulatory action because there are no preemption issues,
PHMSA has involved state pipeline safety personnel in discussing
approaches on regulating rural gathering and low-stress pipelines.
PHMSA representatives met on several occasions with the National
Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), an organization
of state pipeline safety personnel, to discuss regulation of rural
onshore gathering pipelines. In September 2003 and February 2004, PHMSA
met with the NAPSR gathering pipeline committee and also gave
presentations at the national NAPSR meetings in 2004 and 2005. In 2003,
PHMSA discussed the potential impact of a regulation on rural liquid
gathering pipelines with State officials in West Virginia and
Louisiana. In April 2006, PHMSA looked at the impact of the regulation
on rural gathering and low-stress pipelines in West Virginia and Ohio.
PHMSA also met with State
[[Page 52517]]
officials at the Texas Railroad Commission in April 2002 to gather data
on rural low-stress lines in Texas. Further, PHMSA talked to the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation about low-stress lines in
Alaska.
Executive Order 13211. The transportation of hazardous liquids
through rural gathering lines and low-stress lines has a substantial
aggregate effect on the nation's available energy supply. However,
after analysis, PHMSA has determined this proposed rulemaking is not a
``significant energy action'' under Executive Order 13211. It is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. It is possible avoiding future spills
may have a positive effect on the supply of energy. We invite comments
on the Energy Impact Analysis, which is available for review in the
docket.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
Carbon dioxide, Crude oil, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend
49 CFR part 195 as follows:
PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE
1. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;
and 49 CFR1.53.
2. Amend Sec. 195.1 to revise the section heading and to revise
paragraphs (a) and (b), to redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d)
and to add a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 195.1 Which pipelines are covered by this part?
(a) Except for the pipelines listed in paragraph (c) of this
section, this part applies to pipeline facilities and the
transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide associated with
those facilities in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
including pipeline facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
(b) This part applies to:
(1) Any pipeline that transports a highly volatile liquid (HVL);
(2) Transportation through any pipeline, other than a gathering
line, that has maximum operating pressure (MOP) greater than 20 percent
of the specified minimum yield strength;
(3) Any pipeline segment that crosses a waterway currently used for
commercial navigation;
(4) Transportation of petroleum in any of the following onshore
gathering pipelines:
(i) A pipeline located in a non-rural area;
(ii) A regulated rural gathering pipeline defined in Sec. 195.11.
The requirements for these lines are provided in Sec. 195.11; or
(iii) A pipeline located in an inlet of the Gulf of Mexico. These
lines are only subject to the requirements in Sec. 195.413;
(5) Transportation of a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide through
a low-stress pipeline in a non-rural area; or
(6) Transportation of a hazardous liquid through a regulated low-
stress pipeline in a rural area as defined in Sec. 195.12. The
requirements for these lines are provided in Sec. 195.12.
(c) This part does not apply to any of the following--
(1) Transportation of a hazardous liquid transported in a gaseous
state;
(2) Transportation of a hazardous liquid through a pipeline by
gravity;
(3) A pipeline subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast
Guard;
(4) A low-stress pipeline that serves refining, manufacturing, or
truck, rail, or vessel terminal facilities, if the pipeline is less
than 1-mile long (measured outside facility grounds) and does not cross
an offshore area or a waterway currently used for commercial
navigation;
(5) Transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in an
offshore pipeline in State waters where the pipeline is located
upstream from the outlet flange of the following farthest downstream
facility: the facility where hydrocarbons or carbon dioxide are
produced or the facility where produced hydrocarbons or carbon dioxide
are first separated, dehydrated, or otherwise processed;
(6) Transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in a
pipeline on the OCS where the pipeline is located upstream of the point
at which operating responsibility transfers from a producing operator
to a transporting operator;
(7) A pipeline segment upstream (generally seaward) of the last
valve on the last production facility on the OCS where a pipeline on
the OCS is producer-operated and crosses into State waters without
first connecting to a transporting operator's facility on the OCS.
Safety equipment protecting PHMSA-regulated pipeline segments is not
excluded. A producing operator of a segment falling within this
exception may petition the Administrator, under 49 CFR Sec. 190.9, for
approval to operate under PHMSA regulations governing pipeline design,
construction, operation, and maintenance.
(8) Transportation of a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide through
onshore production (including flow lines), refining, or manufacturing
facilities or storage or in-plant piping systems associated with such
facilities;
(9) Transportation of a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide--
(i) By vessel, aircraft, tank truck, tank car, or other non-
pipeline mode of transportation; or
(ii) Through facilities located on the grounds of a materials
transportation terminal if the facilities are used exclusively to
transfer hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide between non-pipeline modes
of transportation or between a non-pipeline mode and a pipeline. These
facilities do not include any device and associated piping that are
necessary to control pressure in the pipeline under Sec. 195.406(b);
or,
(10) Transportation of carbon dioxide downstream from the
applicable following point:
(i) The inlet of a compressor used in the injection of carbon
dioxide for oil recovery operations, or the point where recycled carbon
dioxide enters the injection system, whichever is farther upstream; or
(ii) The connection of the first branch pipeline in the production
field where the pipeline transports carbon dioxide to an injection well
or to a header or manifold from which a pipeline branches to an
injection well.
(d) Breakout tanks subject to this part must comply with
requirements that apply specifically to breakout tanks and, to the
extent applicable, with requirements that apply to pipeline systems and
pipeline facilities. If a conflict exists between a requirement that
applies specifically to breakout tanks and a requirement that applies
to pipeline systems or pipeline facilities, the requirement that
applies specifically to breakout tanks prevails. Anhydrous ammonia
breakout tanks need not comply with Sec. Sec. 195.132(b), 195.205(b),
195.242 (c) and (d), 195.264 (b) and (e), 195.307, 195.428 (c) and (d),
and 195.432 (b) and (c).
3. Amend Sec. 195.3(c) by revising item B. (12) of the 49 CFR
Reference table to read ``Sec. Sec. 195.12(b)(11), 195.134, 195.444.''
4. Add Sec. 195.11 and Sec. 195.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 195.11 What is a regulated rural gathering line and what
requirements apply?
Each operator of a regulated rural gathering line, as defined in
paragraph (a) of this section, must comply with the
[[Page 52518]]
safety requirements described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(a) Definition. As used in this section, a regulated rural
gathering line means an onshore gathering line in a rural area that
meets all of the following criteria--
(1) Has a nominal diameter between 6\5/8\ inches (168 mm) and 8\5/
8\ inches (219.1 mm);
(2) Is located in, or within \1/4\-mile (.40 km) of an unusually
sensitive area as defined in Sec. 195.6; and
(3) Operates at a maximum pressure established under Sec. 195.406
corresponding to--
(i) A stress level greater than 20 percent of the specified minimum
yield strength of the line pipe; or
(ii) If the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not
constructed with steel pipe, a pressure of more than 125 psi (861 kPa)
gage.
(b) Safety requirements. Each operator must prepare, follow, and
maintain written procedures to carry out the requirements of this
section. Except for the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(9) of
this section, the safety requirements are applicable to all materials
of construction.
(1) Identify all segments of regulated rural gathering pipeline
within [6 months-12 months following effective date of final rule].
(2) For steel pipelines constructed, replaced, relocated, or
otherwise changed after [1 year-2 years following effective date of
final rule], design, install, construct, initially inspect, and
initially test the pipeline according to this part, unless the pipeline
is converted under Sec. 195.5.
(3) For non-steel pipelines constructed after [1 year following
effective date of final rule], notify the Administrator according to
Sec. 195.8.
(4) Beginning [6 months-12 months following effective date of final
rule], comply with the reporting requirements in subpart B of this
part.
(5) Establish the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline
according to Sec. 195.406 before transportation begins, or if the
pipeline exists on [effective date of final rule], before [12 months-18
months following effective date of final rule].
(6) Install and maintain line markers according to Sec. 195.410
before transportation begins, or if the pipeline exists on [effective
date of final rule], before [12 months-18 months following effective
date of final rule].
(7) Establish and apply a public education program according to
Sec. 195.440 before transportation begins, or if the pipeline exists
on [effective date of final rule], before [12 months-18 months
following effective date of final rule].
(8) Establish and apply a damage prevention program according to
Sec. 195.442 before transportation begins, or if the pipeline exists
on [effective date of final rule], before [12 months-18 months
following effective date of final rule].
(9) For steel pipelines, control and remediate corrosion according
to subpart H of this part, except corrosion control is not required for
pipelines existing on [effective date of final rule] before [2 years-3
years following effective date of final rule]. In addition to the
requirements in subpart H, continuously monitor to identify and
remediate any changes in operating conditions that could necessitate
cleaning the lines and accelerating the corrosion control program.
(10) Demonstrate compliance with the Operator Qualification program
requirements in subpart G of this part by describing the processes used
to determine the qualification of persons performing operations and
maintenance tasks. These processes must be established before
transportation begins or if the pipeline exists on [effective date of
final rule], before [1 year-2 years following the effective date of the
final rule].
(c) New unusually sensitive areas. If, after [effective date of
final rule], a new unusually sensitive area is identified and a segment
of pipeline becomes regulated as a result, the operator must implement
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(10) of this section
within [ six months-one year] for the affected segment.
(d) Records. An operator must maintain the segment identification
records required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section for the life of
the pipe. For the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(10) of
this section, an operator must maintain the records necessary to
demonstrate compliance with each requirement according to the record
retention requirements of the referenced section or subpart.
Sec. 195.12 Which low-stress lines in rural areas are regulated and
what requirements apply?
Each operator of a regulated low-stress line in a rural area, as
defined in paragraph (a) of this section, must comply with the safety
requirements described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(a) Definition. As used in this section, a regulated low-stress
line in a rural area means an onshore line in a rural area that meets
all of the following criteria:
(1) Has a nominal diameter of 8\5/8\ inches (219.1 mm) or more;
(2) Is located in, or within \1/4\-mile (.40 km) of, an unusually
sensitive area as defined in Sec. 195.6; and
(3) Operates at a maximum pressure established under Sec. 195.406
corresponding to--
(i) A stress level equal to or less than 20 percent of the
specified minimum yield strength of the line pipe; or
(ii) If the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not
constructed with steel pipe, a pressure equal to or less than 125 psi
(861 kPa) gage.
(b) Safety requirements. Each operator must prepare, follow, and
maintain written procedures to carry out the requirements of this
section. Except for the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(8) of
this section, the safety requirements in this section are applicable to
all materials of construction.
(1) Identify all segments of regulated low-stress pipeline in rural
locations before [6 months-12 months following effective date of final
rule].
(2) For steel pipelines constructed, replaced, relocated, or
otherwise changed after [1 year-2 years following effective date of
final rule], design, install, construct, initially inspect, and
initially test the pipeline according to this part, unless the pipeline
is converted under Sec. 195.5.
(3) Beginning [6 months-12 months following effective date of final
rule], comply with the reporting requirements in subpart B of this
part.
(4) Establish the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline
according to Sec. 195.406 before transportation begins, or if the
pipeline exists on [effective date of final rule], before [12 months-18
months following effective date of final rule].
(5) Install and maintain line markers according to Sec. 195.410
before transportation begins, or if the pipeline exists on [effective
date of final rule], before [12 months-18 months following effective
date of final rule]
(6) Establish and apply a public education program according to
Sec. 195.440 before transportation begins, or if the pipeline exists
on [effective date of final rule], before [12 months-18 months
following effective date of final rule].
(7) Establish and apply a damage prevention program according to
Sec. 195.442 before transportation begins, or if the pipeline exists
on [effective date of final rule], before [12 months-18 months
following effective date of final rule].
(8) For steel pipelines, control and remediate corrosion according
to
[[Page 52519]]
subpart H of this part, except corrosion control is not required for
pipelines existing on [effective date of final rule] before [2 years-3
years following effective date of final rule]. In addition to the
requirements in subpart H, continuously monitor to identify and
remediate any changes in operating conditions that could necessitate
cleaning the lines and accelerating the corrosion control program.
(9) Demonstrate compliance with the Operator Qualification program
requirements in subpart G of this part by describing the processes used
to determine the qualification of persons performing operations and
maintenance tasks. These processes must be established before
transportation begins or if the pipeline exists on [effective date of
final rule], before [1 year-2 years following the effective date of the
final rule].
(10) Establish and apply a program to assess the integrity of the
regulated pipeline segments to determine and remediate any condition
presenting a threat to the integrity of these segments before [12
months-24 months following effective date of final rule]. These
conditions are not limited to those caused by corrosion and third-party
damage. An operator may use in-line inspection tools, pressure testing
conducted in accordance with subpart E of this part, or other
technology the operator demonstrates can provide an equivalent
understanding about the condition of line pipe. An operator must
prioritize the regulated rural low-stress segments for the integrity
assessment and conduct the integrity assessment of at least 50 percent
of these segments before [36 months-48 months following effective date
of final rule], and complete the assessment for all regulated segments
before [60 months-84 months following effective date of final rule]. An
operator must establish reassessment intervals for continually
assessing the pipe segments. The intervals must be as frequent as
necessary to ensure the continued integrity of each pipe segment, but
may not exceed 68 months. An operator may be able to justify an
engineering basis for a longer assessment interval on a segment of line
pipe. The justification must be supported by a reliable engineering
evaluation.
(11) Establish and apply a program, based on API 1130, or other
appropriate method suitable for the commodity being transported to
detect leaks on the regulated segments before [24 months-36 months
following effective date of the final rule]. The leak detection method
cannot be based solely on field personnel's visual and olfactory
senses. The program must evaluate the capability of the leak detection
means. The evaluation must consider the following factors:
(i) Length and diameter of the pipeline;
(ii) Product transported;
(iii) Timeliness of detection capability; and
(iv) Proximity of response personnel and equipment.
(c) New unusually sensitive areas. If, after [effective date of
final rule], a new unusually sensitive area is identified and a segment
of pipeline becomes regulated as a result, the operator must take the
following actions:
(1) Implement the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(9)
and (b) (11) of this section within six months-one year from the date
the area is identified; and
(2) Complete the assessment required by paragraph (b)(10) of this
section within two years-three years from the date the area is
identified.
(d) Records. An operator must maintain the segment identification
records required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section for the life of
the pipe. For the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(9) of
this section, an operator must maintain the records necessary to
demonstrate compliance with each requirement according to the record
retention requirements of the referenced section or subpart. For the
integrity assessment program required in paragraph (b)(10) and the leak
detection program required in paragraph (b)(11), an operator must
maintain the records for the life of the pipe.
5. Amend Sec. Sec. 195.555, 195.565, 195.573(d), and 195.579(d) by
removing ``Sec. 195.402(c)(3)'' and adding, in its place, ``Sec. Sec.
195.11(b)(9), 195.12(b)(8) or Sec. 195.402(c)(3).''
6. Amend Sec. Sec. 195.557(a) and 195.563(a) by removing ``Sec.
195.401(c)'' and adding in its place, ``Sec. Sec. 195.11(b)(9),
195.12((b)(8)) or Sec. 195.401(c).''
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2006.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 06-7438 Filed 8-31-06; 11:46 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P