[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46560-46563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18286]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket ID PHMSA-2013-0161]
Pipeline Safety: Class Location Requirements
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is seeking public comment on whether applying the
integrity management program (IMP) requirements, or elements of IMP, to
areas beyond current high consequence areas (HCAs) would mitigate the
need for class location requirements for gas transmission pipelines.
Section 5 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011 requires the Secretary of Transportation to
evaluate and issue a report on whether IMP requirements should be
expanded beyond HCAs and whether such expansion would mitigate the need
for class location requirements.
DATES: The public comment period for this notice ends September 30,
2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket ID PHMSA-
2013-0161 by any of the following methods:
E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, Room W12-140, on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Instructions: Identify the Docket ID at the beginning of your
comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit
[[Page 46561]]
two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA has received
your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov.
Note: Comments will be posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided.
Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published April 11, 2000,
(65 FR 19477).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni at 202-366-4571 or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 5 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 requires the Secretary of
Transportation to evaluate and issue a report on whether IMP
requirements, or elements of IMP, should be expanded beyond HCAs and,
with respect to gas transmission pipeline facilities, whether applying
IMP requirements to additional areas would mitigate the need for class
location requirements. The 2011 Act requires that in conducting the
evaluation, the Secretary shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The continuing priority to enhance protections for public
safety.
(2) The continuing importance of reducing risk in high consequence
areas.
(3) The incremental costs of applying integrity management (IM)
standards to pipelines outside of high-consequence areas where
operators are already conducting assessments beyond what is required
under chapter 601 of Title 49, United States Code.
(4) The need to undertake IM assessments and repairs in a manner
that is achievable and sustainable, and that does not disrupt pipeline
service.
(5) The options for phasing in the extension of IM requirements
beyond high-consequence areas, including the most effective and
efficient options for decreasing risks to an increasing number of
people living or working in proximity to pipeline facilities.
(6) The appropriateness of applying repair criteria, such as
pressure reductions and special requirements for scheduling
remediation, to areas that are not high-consequence areas.
Class Location
Regulations for gas transmission pipelines establish pipe strength
requirements based on population density near the pipeline. Locations
along gas pipelines are divided into classes from 1 (rural) to 4
(densely populated) and are based upon the number of buildings or
dwellings for human occupancy. Allowable pipe stresses, as a percentage
of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), decrease as class location
increases from Class 1 to Class 4 locations.
Class locations were an early method of differentiating risk along
gas pipelines. The class location concept pre-dates Federal regulation
of pipelines. These designations were previously included in the ASME
International standard, ``Gas Transmission and Distribution Pipeline
Systems,'' (ASME B31.8) from which the initial pipeline safety
regulations were derived.
Class location is determined by counting the number of dwellings
within 660 feet of the pipeline for 1 mile (for Classes 1-3) or by
determining that four-story buildings are prevalent along the pipeline
(Class 4). Design factors, which are used in the formula to determine
the design pressure for steel pipe and which generally reflect the
maximum allowable percentage of SMYS, are 0.72 for Class 1, 0.60 for
Class 2, 0.50 for Class 3, and 0.40 for Class 4. Pipelines are designed
based on population along their route, and thus class location.
A class location can change as population grows and more people
live or work near the pipeline. When a class location changes, pipeline
operators must either reduce the pipe's operating pressure to reduce
stress levels in the pipe; replace the existing pipe with pipe that has
thicker walls or higher yield strength to yield a lower operating
stress at the same operating pressure; or where the class is changing
only one class rating, such as from a Class 1 to Class 2 location,
conduct a pressure test at a higher pressure. Operators can apply for
special permits to prevent the need for pipe replacement or pressure
reduction after a class location changes. Based on certain operating
safety criteria and periodic integrity evaluations, PHMSA has approved
some class location special permits.
Integrity Management Approach
Gas IM requirements use a different approach to identify areas of
higher risk along pipelines. The term ``high consequence area'' is used
to identify pipelines that are subject to ongoing pipeline integrity
assessments. HCAs are defined by counting the number of dwellings for
human occupancy or identified sites where people congregate or where
they are confined, such as a hospital, daycare facility, or a
retirement or assisted-living facility, within a calculated impact
circle that a potential pipeline failure could affect. Operators must
periodically inspect the condition of their pipelines in an HCA and
remediate any degradation that might affect the pipeline's integrity.
Comparison of Class Location and IM Approaches
The class location requirements provide an additional safety margin
for more densely populated areas. However, class location does not
address the potential reduction of that safety margin over the course
of time due to corrosion or other types of pipe degradation. IM
requirements and HCA calculations provide additional safety for more
densely populated areas because operators are required to conduct
periodic inspections of the pipe and because repair timelines are
specified for the anomalies identified within an HCA. Substituting an
IM approach for the use of class locations would allow the operation of
the pipeline at higher pressures while conducting integrity inspections
and remediation to maintain safety.
On August 25, 2011, PHMSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to seek comments on revising the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to the safety of gas transmission and gas gathering
pipelines. At that time, PHMSA requested comments on whether existing
HCA criteria should be revised to potentially include more mileage or
whether IMP requirements should be strengthened or expanded beyond the
HCAs.
The comments received on this topic are summarized as follows:
From Industry:
An industry commenter stated that no change to the regulations is
needed and suggested applying IM principles to non-HCA areas should be
left to industry as a voluntary effort. This commenter maintained that
because the current definition is based on sound science and is serving
its purpose, no fundamental change is needed.
The Texas Pipeline Association and the Texas Oil & Gas Association
commented that no change should be made until the studies required by
the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011
are completed.
From State Representatives:
The National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR)
suggested that PHMSA eliminate IM requirements and instead require all
transmission pipelines to meet Class 3
[[Page 46562]]
and 4 requirements. NAPSR suggested that alternatively, PHMSA should
revise HCA criteria to include all Class 3 and 4 locations and segments
that could affect critical infrastructure.
The Jersey City Mayor's office submitted a petition for rulemaking
dated March 15, 2012, contending that the current Class Location system
``does not sufficiently reflect high density urban areas, as the
regulations fail to contemplate either (1) the dramatic differences in
population densities between highly congested areas and other less
dense class 4 locations, or (2) the full continuum of population
densities found in urban areas themselves.'' Based on this, Jersey City
petitioned PHMSA to add three (3) new class locations, which would be
defined as follows:
A Class 5 location is any class location unit that
includes one or more building(s) with between four and eight stories;
(design factor--0.3);
A Class 6 location is any class location unit that
includes one or more building(s) with between 9 and 40 stories; (design
factor--0.2); and
A Class 7 location is any class location unit that
includes at least 1 building with at least 41 stories. (design factor--
0.1)
The Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority stated that their
experience has shown that improved pipeline design and construction
requirements are needed to assure pipeline integrity. The Authority
also commented that design requirements need to accommodate likely
changes in class location, noting that explosive growth in some Alaska
areas has resulted in certain class locations rapidly changing from
Class 1 to Class 3.
From the Public:
A comment from the public suggested that PHMSA revise the IM
requirements to potentially include more mileage (e.g., include entire
Class 3 and 4 area in lieu of only the potentially impacted area inside
Class 3 & 4) and critical infrastructure. The commenter further stated
that PHMSA should expand IM principles to non-HCA areas, improve public
awareness and involvement in HCAs, make maps publicly available,
redefine class locations for high population areas, clarify Class 4,
and establish a Class 5.
The same commenter suggested that IM plans for densely populated
areas (Class 4) and for a new Class 5 encompassing cities with
population greater than 100,000, be developed in consultation with
local emergency responders. The commenter further suggested that these
plans should be available for review during the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's environmental impact study and should be
reviewed with local authorities.
Part 192 Regulations Impacted by Class Location
There are indirect or secondary links to class location throughout
Part 192. These links include sections that do not specifically mention
class location; however, the sections may reference maximum allowable
operating pressure (MAOP). If the use of class location designation
were to be eliminated or merged, many regulatory sections will need to
be reevaluated. The following Subparts would be affected:
Subpart A--General
Subpart B--Materials
Subpart C--Pipe Design
Subpart D--Design of Pipeline Components
Subpart E--Welding of Steel in Pipelines
Subpart G--General Construction Requirements for Transmission Lines
and Mains
Subpart I--Requirements for Corrosion Control
Subpart J--Test Requirements
Subpart K--Uprating
Subpart L--Operations
Subpart M--Maintenance
Subpart O--Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management
PHMSA is inviting comment on the following:
1. Should PHMSA increase the existing class location design factors
in densely populated areas where buildings are over four stories?
2. Should class locations be eliminated and a single design factor
used if IM requirements are expanded beyond HCAs?
3. Should there only be a single design factor for areas where
there are large concentrations of populations, such as schools,
hospitals, nursing homes, multiple-story buildings, stadiums, and
shopping malls, as opposed to rural areas like deserts and farms where
there are fewer people?
4. Should operators be allowed to increase the MAOP of a pipeline
from the present MAOP if a single design factor is created for all
levels of population density?
5. If class locations are eliminated and a single design factor
used, should that single design factor be applied to existing
pipelines:
a. Installed before 1970 (pre-Federal regulation);
b. That use low-frequency electric resistance welded pipe, electric
flash welded pipe, lap-welded pipe, or other pipe manufactured with a
seam factor less than 1.0 in accordance with Section 192.113;
c. That include pipe without mechanical (strength) and chemical
properties reports;
d. That include pipe that has not been tested at or above 1.25
times MAOP;
e. That include pipe that operates without a pressure test in
accordance with the Grandfather Clause in Section 192.619(c);
f. That include pipe that is presently operating above the design
factor of a Class 1 location due to the Grandfather Clause in Section
192.619(c); and
g. That include pipe with external coatings that shield cathodic
protection?
6. Should a pipeline that is operated with a single design factor
be subject to periodic operational IM measures, similar to the criteria
for HCA locations, including:
a. Close interval surveys;
b. Coating surveys and remediation;
c. Stress corrosion cracking surveys (SCC) and segment replacement
(if a SCC threat is found and not remediated);
d. An ongoing monitoring program for DC currents and induced AC
currents in high-voltage power transmission line corridors (including
proper remediation plans);
e. In-line tool inspections (ILI) to inspect for pipe metal loss
(corrosion), cracks, hard spots, weld seams, and other integrity
threats in steel pipe (ILI tool evaluations for metal loss must use
specified-or-greater interaction criteria to ensure defects meet a
minimum integrity criterion);
f. Repairs to defects within a periodic time interval that is based
on maintaining the pipeline design safety factor with a maximum pipe
wall loss;
g. Pipe surveys of the depth of cover over buried pipelines;
h. Data integration of all surveys, excavations, remediation, and
other integrity threats; and
i. Pipeline remediation based on assessment and data integration
findings.
7. Should pipelines where a single design factor is used for
establishing the MAOP be required to ensure that:
a. Pipe seam quality issues are assessed and those pipes with
quality or integrity concerns are removed from service;
b. Pipe coatings on the pipeline and girth weld joints are non-
shielding to cathodic protection;
c. Pipe in a cased crossing can be assessed for metallic and
electrolytic shorts;
d. Pipe defects or anomalies that cause the pipeline to not meet
the pipeline's MAOP are remediated based on the design factor of the
pipeline with a maximum pipe wall loss;
[[Page 46563]]
e. All girth welds are nondestructively tested at the time of
construction;
f. Minimum pipeline hydrostatic test pressures, based on MAOP and
pipe yield strength, are met;
g. Maximum spacing for cathodic protection pipe-to-soil test
stations exists;
h. Additional safety measures are implemented in areas with reduced
depth of cover over buried pipelines;
i. Line-of-sight markings on the pipeline are maintained, except in
agricultural areas or at large water crossings (such as lakes) where
line-of-sight signage is not practical;
j. Monthly ground or aerial right-of-way patrols are performed;
k. The applicable best practices of the Common Ground Alliance are
included in the operator's damage prevention program; and
l. The pipeline is incorporated into an IM program as a ``covered
segment'' in a HCA in accordance with Section 192.903, which will
include seven-year maximum periodic reassessment intervals according to
Sec. 192.939.
8. Should a root cause analysis be required to determine the cause
of all in-service and hydrostatic test failures or leaks?
9. Should pipelines without documented and complete material
strength, wall thickness and seam records for pipe, fittings, flanges,
fabrications, and valves, in accordance with Sections 192.105, 192.107,
and 192.109 be allowed to operate at the single design factor?
10. Should operators of pipelines that are allowed to operate at
the single design factor complete hydrostatic tests as required by Part
192, Subpart J, and maintain records as required in Section 192.517?
11. Should pipelines, under a single design factor, be required to
meet additional pipe manufacturing quality controls to minimize defects
such as low-strength pipe, steel laminations, and pipe seam defects?
12. Should pipeline construction personnel who would work in areas
subject to the single design factor be required to take a construction
operator qualification program?
13. For emergency response and pipeline isolation purposes in the
event of a rupture or leak, if a single design factor is allowed, what
should the maximum spacing be between the mainline valves on a
pipeline?
a. Should all mainline valves be remotely or automatically
activated if there is a rupture or leak on the pipeline?
b. If, during a rupture or a leak, the mainline valves are not
remotely or automatically activated, what should the maximum time be
for a pipeline crew to isolate the mainline section?
14. What should pressure limiting devices be set to for a pipeline
operating with a single design factor?
15. If the design factors of class locations were to be eliminated,
and a single design factor used instead, what additional design,
construction, and operational criteria are required to maintain
pipeline safety in urban areas and in rural areas?
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 25, 2013.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013-18286 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P