{"operation":"document","citation":"67 FR 68815","title":"Pipeline Safety: Further Regulatory Review; Gas Pipeline Safety Standards","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Research and Special Programs Administration","status":"proposed","official":true,"published_on":"2002-11-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"RSPA is proposing to change some of the safety standards for gas pipelines. The changes are based on recommendations by the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR) and a review of the recommendations by the State Industry Regulatory Review Committee (SIRRC). We believe the changes will improve the clarity and effectiveness of the present standards.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-02-28240.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-02-28240.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-02-28240","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/11/13/02-28240/pipeline-safety-further-regulatory-review-gas-pipeline-safety-standards","body":"Federal Register, Volume 67 Issue 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2002) [Federal Register Volume 67, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2002)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 68815-68827] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 02-28240] [[Page 68815]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Part 192 [Docket No. RSPA-02-13208; Notice 1] RIN 2137-AD01 Pipeline Safety: Further Regulatory Review; Gas Pipeline Safety Standards AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RSPA is proposing to change some of the safety standards for gas pipelines. The changes are based on recommendations by the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR) and a review of the recommendations by the State Industry Regulatory Review Committee (SIRRC). We believe the changes will improve the clarity and effectiveness of the present standards. DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on the rules proposed in this notice must do so by January 13, 2003. Late filed comments will be considered so far as practicable. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by mailing or delivering an original and two copies to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The Dockets Facility is open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays when the facility is closed. Or you may submit written comments to the docket electronically at the following Web address: http://dms.dot.gov . See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional filing information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. Furrow by phone at 202-366-4559, by fax at 202-366-4566, by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or by e-mail at [email protected] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Filing Information, Electronic Access, and General Program Information All written comments should identify the docket and notice numbers stated in the heading of this notice. Anyone who wants confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. To file written comments electronically, after logging on to http://dms.dot.gov , click on ``ES Submit.'' You can also read comments and other material in the docket at http://dms.dot.gov . General information about our pipeline safety program is available at http://ops.dot.gov . Background NAPSR is a non-profit association of officials from State agencies that participate with RSPA in the Federal pipeline safety regulatory program. Each year NAPSR holds regional meetings to discuss safety and administrative issues, culminating in resolutions for program improvement. In 1990 we asked NAPSR to review the gas pipeline safety standards in 49 CFR part 192. The purpose of the review was to identify standards that NAPSR considered insufficient for safety or not clear enough to enforce. NAPSR compiled the results of its review in a report titled ``Report on Recommendations For Revision of 49 CFR part 192,'' dated November 20, 1992. The report, a copy of which is in the docket of the present proceeding, recommends changes to 40 sections in part 192. By the time NAPSR completed its report, we had published a notice of proposed rulemaking to change many part 192 standards that we considered unclear or overly burdensome (Docket PS-124; 57 FR 39572; Aug. 31, 1992). Because a few of NAPSR's recommendations related to standards we had proposed to change, we published the report for comment in the PS-124 proceeding (58 FR 59431; Nov. 9, 1993). The PS- 124 Final Rule (61 FR 28770; June 6, 1996) included four of NAPSR's recommended rule changes, and we scheduled the remaining recommendations for future consideration. Later, at a meeting on corrosion problems held in San Antonio, Texas on April 28, 1999, we opened NAPSR's recommendations on corrosion control to further public discussion (Docket RSPA-97-2762; 64 FR 16885; April 7, 1999). In PS-124 we received 79 comments on NAPSR's recommendations, primarily from pipeline trade associations, pipeline operators, and State pipeline safety agencies. Industry commenters generally opposed most of NAPSR's recommendations on grounds that standards would be changed not for safety reasons or clarity but to make compliance auditing easier. In contrast, the State agencies generally supported NAPSR's recommendations. NAPSR denied it was merely trying to simplify the auditing process, and said its experience provided a unique perspective on which standards are ineffective or inappropriate. Because industry and State views were so divergent, in October 1997, the American Gas Association (AGA), the American Public Gas Association (APGA), and NAPSR formed SIRRC to iron out their differences over the recommendations. SIRRC agreed on all but eight of the recommendations scheduled for future consideration. A copy of SIRRC's report titled ``Summary Report,'' dated April 26, 1999, is in the docket of the present proceeding. We have completed our review of NAPSR's 1992 recommendations as updated by SIRRC's 1999 Summary Report. The review also covered a NAPSR resolution on the definition of ``service line.'' Although this resolution was not in NAPSR's 1992 report, SIRRC dealt with the resolution in it's Summary Report. The purpose of the review was to decide which, if any, of NAPSR's recommendations warrant inclusion in a notice of proposed rulemaking. If SIRRC agreed to modify a recommendation, our review focused on that modification. If SIRRC did not reach agreement, we focused on NAPSR's recommendation in light of SIRRC's discussion. Our responses to the recommendations are discussed in the next section of the preamble. Disposition of NAPSR's Recommendations This section summarizes NAPSR's recommendations and SIRRC's consideration of those recommendations. It also states our responses to the recommendations. For ease of reference, we have numbered the recommendations according to their sequence in SIRRC's Summary Report. The following table categorizes the recommendations according to the rulemaking status indicated by our responses: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation No. Rulemaking status ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7, 15, 17, 20, and 26.................. Included in previous final rule actions. 8, 9, 30............................... Proposed in ``Periodic Updates to Pipeline Safety Regulations (1999)'' (Docket RSPA-99-6106; 56 FR 15290; Mar. 22, 2000). [[Page 68816]] 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 29 (in part), Proposed in present action. 31, 32, 35 18, 24, 25, 28, 33 (in Alternative proposed in part) and 34 (in part). present action. 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29 No rulemaking action. (in part), 33 (in part), and 34 (in part). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Section 192.3, Definitions of Main and Transmission Line. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 3) Recommendation. To help distinguish mains from transmission lines, revise the definition of ``main'' and the first paragraph of the definition of ``transmission line'' to read: [sbull] ``Main'' means a pipeline installed in a community to convey gas to individual service lines or to other mains. [sbull] ``Transmission line'' means a pipeline, or a series of pipelines, other than a gathering line, that: (a) Transports gas from a gathering line, storage field or another transmission line to a storage field or to one or more distribution systems or other load centers. SIRRC. The committee reached consensus to modify the recommendation as follows: [sbull] ``Main'' means a segment of pipeline in a distribution system installed to transport gas to individual service lines or other mains. [sbull] In the present definition of ``transmission line,'' change ``distribution center'' to ``distribution system'' to eliminate the only use of this undefined term in Part 192. Response: Part 192 defines ``distribution line'' but not ``distribution system.'' So substituting ``distribution system'' for ``distribution line'' in the present ``main'' definition and for ``distribution center'' in the present ``transmission line'' definition would not necessarily add clarity to either definition. Also, by referring to ``mains,'' SIRRC's definition of ``main'' loops back on itself. Therefore, we are not proposing to adopt the SIRRC's suggestion. 2. Section 192.3, Definitions of Service Line and Service Regulator. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 6) Recommendation. Adopt the following new and amended definitions to bring Part 192 in line with acceptable arrangements of service lines: [sbull] ``Customer meter'' means the meter that measures the transfer of gas from an operator to a consumer. [sbull] ``Service line'' means a distribution line that transports gas from a common source of supply to an individual customer, two adjacent or adjoining residential or small commercial customers, or to an aboveground meter header supplying up to ten residential or small commercial customer meters. A service line terminates at the outlet of the customer meter or at the connection to a customer's piping, whichever is further downstream, or at the connection to customer piping if there is no meter. [sbull] ``Service regulator'' means the device on a service line which controls the pressure of gas delivered from a high pressure distribution system to the level at which it is provided to the customer. A service regulator may serve one customer meter, or up to ten customer meters grouped on an aboveground meter header. SIRRC. The committee suggested modification of the definitions as follows: [sbull] ``Customer meter'' means the meter that measures the transfer of gas from an operator to a consumer. [sbull] ``Service line'' means a distribution line that transports gas from a common source of supply to an individual customer, to two adjacent or adjoining residential or small commercial customers, or to multiple residential or small commercial customers served through a meter header or manifold. A service line terminates at the outlet of the customer meter or at the connection to a customer's piping, whichever is further downstream, or at the connection to customer piping if there is no meter. [sbull] ``Service regulator'' means the device on a service line which controls the pressure of gas delivered from a higher pressure to the pressure provided to the customer. A service regulator may serve one customer, or multiple customers through a meter header or manifold. Response. Although Sec. 192.3 already defines the term ``customer meter,'' the definition of this term is included in the definition of ``service line.'' SIRRC's suggestion would merely move the ``customer meter'' definition to an alphabetical position in Sec. 192.3. Since ``customer meter'' is used in part 192 in places other than the ``service line'' definition, we agree that an alphabetical position is preferable. So we are proposing to amend Sec. 192.3 as SIRRC suggested. Under the part 192 definitions of ``service line'' and ``main,'' if an operator runs a single line from main to supply gas to two customers, the single line is itself a main because it is a common source of supply for more than one service line.\\1\\ Typically such single-line installations serve two or more adjacent single-family residences through branch lines connected to the single line. They also serve apartment buildings and shopping centers through meter manifolds, or meter headers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ Section 192.3 defines ``service line'' as ``a distribution line that transports gas from a common source of supply to (1) a customer meter or the connection to a customer's piping, whichever is farther downstream, or (2) the connection to a customer's piping if there is no customer meter.'' In addition, ``main'' is defined as ``a distribution line that serves as a common source of supply for more than one service line.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because these single lines are more like service lines than mains-- their size is small, their pressure is low, and they are located on private property rather than under a public street or alley--many State pipeline safety agencies have granted waivers for the lines, permitting operators to treat them as service lines. Consequently, under most State waivers, the single lines may be designed, installed, operated, and maintained as service lines. They do not have to meet any part 192 standard that applies strictly to mains. For example, Sec. 192.327(b) requires a minimum burial depth for mains (24 in) that is greater than the depth Sec. 192.361 requires for service lines (12 or 18 in). Single-line installations serving adjacent customers may also increase safety by minimizing connections to mains. These connections are susceptible to leaks and damage accidentally caused by street excavation activities. Since SIRRC's suggested definition of ``service line'' is consistent with State waivers we considered appropriate, we are proposing to amend Sec. 192.3 by revising the definition of ``service line'' as SIRRC suggested. Note, however, that the proposed definition uses the general term ``meter manifold'' instead of ``meter header or manifold.'' If adopted as final, the proposed definition would eliminate the need for similar waivers in the future. We are also proposing to adopt SIRRC's suggested definition of ``service regulator.'' SIRRC's definition is [[Page 68817]] consistent with state waivers that distinguish regulators connected to customer meter manifolds from regulating stations that must be inspected under Sec. 192.739. We are particularly interested in receiving comments on how the term ``small commercial customers'' might be stated differently or defined to minimize potential confusion in identifying the customers involved. Would it be appropriate to consider a ``small commercial customer'' as a business that receives volumes of gas similar to the volumes that a residential customer receives? 3. Section 192.55(a)(2), Steel Pipe. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 8) Recommendation. Delete Sec. 192.55(a)(2)(ii), which provides requirements for the use of new steel pipe manufactured before November 12, 1970. SIRRC. The committee suggested that Sec. 192.55(a)(2)(ii) should not be deleted. Response. Although NAPSR initially thought Sec. 192.55(a)(2)(ii) was obsolete, several PS-124 commenters said the section should remain because operators have stockpiles of steel pipe manufactured before 1970. The SIRRC Summary Report indicates operators continue to stock such pipe. We concur with SIRRC that Sec. 192.55(a)(2)(ii) should not be removed. 4. Section 192.65, Transportation of Pipe. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 9) Recommendation. Delete Sec. 192.65(b), which provides requirements for the use of certain steel pipe transported by railroad before November 12, 1970. SIRRC. The committee agreed that Sec. 192.65(b) should not be deleted. Response. Although NAPSR initially thought Sec. 192.55(b) was obsolete, several PS-124 commenters said they had stockpiled pipe manufactured before 1970. In addition, the SIRRC Summary Report indicates that operators still have this pipe and that it may have been transported by railroad. We concur with the SIRRC's suggestion. 5. Section 192.123, Design Limitations for Plastic Pipe. (SIRRC Summary Report p. 10) Recommendation. Delete the second sentence of Sec. 192.123(b)(2)(i), which allows plastic pipe manufactured before May 18, 1978, and strength rated at 73 [deg]F to be used at temperatures up to 100 [deg]F. SIRRC. The committee agreed that the second sentence of Sec. 192.123(b)(2)(i) should be deleted. Response. NAPSR thought the second sentence of Sec. 192.123(b)(2)(i) was obsolete. However, the PS-124 comments indicated that several utilities had inventories of plastic pipe manufactured before May 18, 1978, that they intended to use as replacement pipe. In contrast, the SIRRC Summary Report states that the committee members were unaware of any pre-1978 plastic pipe in operators' stocks. Moreover, the committee members had reservations about using plastic pipe of that vintage. Assuming the SIRRC Summary Report generally reflects the present status of operators' stocks of plastic pipe, we are proposing to delete the second sentence of Sec. 192.123(b)(2)(i) as obsolete. If this proposal were adopted as final, any stockpiled pre-1978 thermoplastic pipe whose long-term hydrostatic strength was determined at 73 [deg]F could not be used above that temperature. We are particularly interested in hearing from industry commenters whether they still have any stockpiles of this pipe that they plan to use at temperatures above 73 [deg]F. 6. Section 192.197(a), Control of the Pressure of Gas Delivered From High-pressure Distribution Systems. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 11) Recommendation. In Sec. 192.197(a), change ``under 60 psig'' to ``60 psig or less.'' SIRRC. The committee agreed that Sec. 192.197(a) should be changed as NAPSR recommended. Response. Section 192.197(a) provides that in distribution systems operated ``under 60 psig (414 kPa) gage,'' if service regulators meet certain criteria, no other pressure limiting devices are required. However, Sec. 192.197(b) states that if those criteria are not met in systems operating at ``60 psig (414 kPa) gage, or less,'' additional pressure control is required. Thus there is a 1 psi discrepancy between these two sections. We agree with SIRRC that Sec. 192.197(a) should be in sync with Sec. 192.197(b), particularly since Sec. 192.197(c) applies to systems in which the operating pressure ``exceeds 60 psig (414 kPa) gage.'' Therefore, we are proposing to change Sec. 192.197(a) as NAPSR recommended. 7. Section 192.203(b)(2), Instrument, Control, and Sampling Pipe and Components. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 12) Recommendation. In Sec. 192.203(b)(2), change ``takeoff line'' to ``instrument, control, and sampling line'' to clarify the lines on which a shutoff valve must be installed. SIRRC. The committee agreed the recommended change to Sec. 192.203(b)(2) is not needed. Response. In Docket PS-124, we modified Sec. 192.203(b)(2) by excepting takeoff lines that can be isolated from sources of pressure by other valving. The SIRRC Summary Report indicates this exception resolved NAPSR's concern about Sec. 192.203(b)(2). Therefore, we are adopting the SIRRC consensus that the recommended rulemaking action is not needed. 8. Section 192.225(a), Welding: General. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 13) Recommendation. Change Sec. 192.225(a) to require qualification of welding procedures according to ``American Petroleum Institute (API), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), or other standards.'' SIRRC. The committee agreed the recommended change is needed. However, it suggested the term ``other standards'' should be changed to ``other accepted pipeline welding standards.'' Response. We proposed to adopt the core of NAPSR's recommendation in the proceeding called ``Periodic Updates to Pipeline Safety Regulations (1999)'' (56 FR 15290; Mar. 22, 2000). We proposed to amend Sec. 192.225(a)to require operators to qualify welding procedures under either Section 5 of API 1104, ``Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities,'' or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. However, our proposal did not include allowing the use of ``other accepted pipeline welding standards,'' as SIRRC suggested, because we are not aware of any other generally accepted pipeline welding standards. 9. Section 192.241(a), Inspection and Test of Welds. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 14) Recommendation. Change Sec. 192.241(a) to require that visual inspection of welding be conducted ``by an inspector qualified by appropriate training and experience.'' SIRRC. The committee agreed the recommended change is needed. However, it suggested the term ``inspector'' should be changed to ``person.'' Response. In the proceeding called ``Periodic Updates to Pipeline Safety Regulations (1999)'' (56 FR 15290; Mar. 22, 2000), we proposed to amend Sec. 192.241(a) as NAPSR recommended. Although we overlooked SIRRC's suggestion to use ``person'' instead of ``inspector,'' we will consider the suggestion in developing the final rule. [[Page 68818]] 10. Section 192.285(c) and (d), Plastic Pipe: Qualifying Persons to Make Joints. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 15) Recommendation. In Sec. 192.285, revise paragraph(c) to require that persons who join plastic pipe requalify annually to make joints. Also, revise paragraph (d) to require that operators maintain certain records for use in monitoring personnel qualifications. SIRRC. The committee did not agree that NAPSR's recommended rule changes were needed. However, the committee did agree that in Sec. 192.285(d) the term ``his'' should be replaced by a term that is not gender-specific. Response. NAPSR was concerned that while most newly installed distribution lines are made of plastic pipe, the qualification requirements for persons who join plastic pipe are less stringent than the qualification requirements for persons who weld steel pipe. NAPSR felt the plastic pipe joining and welder qualification requirements should be comparable because the consequences of failure of a plastic pipe joint may be just as severe as the consequences of failure of a welded joint. We do not believe NAPSR's reasoning is sufficient to justify stronger plastic pipe joining requirements. The skill needed for joining plastic pipe is so much simpler than the skill needed for welding steel pipe that the welding requirements cannot reasonably serve as a basis for establishing more stringent plastic pipe joining requirements. Therefore, we are not proposing to adopt NAPSR's recommended rule changes. It is worth noting, though, that after SIRRC completed it's report, we published new qualification of personnel rules in Subpart N of Part 192. The competency evaluations required by these rules should enhance the qualifications of persons who make plastic pipe joints. Section 192.285(d) now uses the term ``his.'' As SIRRC suggested, we are proposing to change this term to ``the operator's.'' 11. Section 192.311, Repair of Plastic Pipe. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 18) Recommendation. Remove the requirement from Sec. 192.311 that a ``patching saddle'' must be used to repair harmful damage to new plastic pipelines if the damaged pipe is not removed. SIRRC. The committee agreed the recommended change is needed. Response. We concur with NAPSR that the meaning of ``patching saddle'' is unclear, although we have stated the term implies a plastic saddle adhered to pipe. Still, there are various means available to effect safe repairs, and we do not think it's necessary to limit the method of repair. Section 192.703(b) would forbid the use of any method that would result in an unsafe condition. So we are proposing to amend Sec. 192.311 as NAPSR recommended. 12. Section 192.321(e), Installation of Plastic Pipe; Sec. 192.361(g), Service Lines: Installation. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 19) Recommendation. To prevent underground plastic pipe from being damaged by electrically charged tracer wire and to maintain wire integrity, require separation between pipe and wire, where practical, and require that tracer wire be protected against corrosion. SIRRC. The committee agreed to accept NAPSR's recommendation. It also agreed that Sec. 192.321, which applies to mains and transmission lines, and Sec. 192.361, which applies to service lines, should be changed as follows: [sbull] Revise Sec. 192.321(e) to read as follows: (e) Plastic pipe that is not encased must have an electrically conducting wire or other means of locating the pipe while it is underground. Tracer wire shall not be wrapped around the pipe and contact with the pipe shall be minimized. Tracer wire or other metallic elements installed for pipe locating purposes shall be resistant to corrosion damage, either by use of coated copper wire or by other means. [sbull] Establish Sec. 192.361(g) to match proposed Sec. 192.321(e). Response. Although there have been only a few instances where highly charged tracer wire damaged buried plastic pipe, we believe separating wire from pipe wherever practical is a reasonable safeguard. It is also reasonable that tracer wire or other metallic means of pipe locating be resistant to corrosion. Therefore, we are proposing to adopt SIRRC's consensus by revising Sec. 192.321(e) and adding Sec. 192.361(g) as set forth below in the proposed amendments section of this notice. We recognize that continuous separation may not be ensured when wire and pipe are installed together in the same hole made by trenchless technology. In fact, in such cases the wire is often randomly taped to the pipe to control separation during installation. The proposed requirement to minimize contact with the pipe should not deter this common installation practice. Note that part 192 does not now require that underground plastic service lines have a means for locating the lines. However, operators commonly use tracer wire for this purpose as they do under existing Sec. 192.321(e) for locating underground plastic mains and transmission lines. 13. Section 192.353(a), Customer Meters and Regulators: Location. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 21) Recommendation. Amend Sec. 192.353(a) to emphasize that vehicular damage is a type of damage from which meters and service regulators must be protected. SIRRC. Although the committee members agreed that the existing rule implicitly requires protection from vehicular damage, they did not agree on the need to emphasize this type of damage. Industry members thought emphasizing vehicular damage would cause more disputes with government inspectors over what level of protection is needed. Response. In enforcing Sec. 192.353(a), our position has been that the provision that meters and service regulators must be protected from ``corrosion and other damage'' requires reasonable protection from vehicular damage where warranted. SIRRC's Summary Report supports this position. Furthermore, AGA's ``Guide for Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems,'' which advises operators on compliance with Part 192, recognizes this requirement. It states with regard to Sec. 192.353(a) that if the potential for vehicular damage is evident, the meter or service regulator should be protected or an alternate location selected. NAPSR reported that its members had found meter sets that were damaged by vehicles or were at serious risk of such damage. When this information is considered in light of the industry's apparent understanding of the present rule, it indicates some operators may have been lax in providing needed protection. Emphasizing vehicular damage in the present rule should at least cause operators to pay more attention to the problem and perhaps reduce the risk of damage. So we are proposing to adopt NAPSR's recommendation by amending Sec. 192.353(a) to emphasize vehicular damage. Although Sec. 192.353(a) affects design and does not apply to pipelines constructed before it went into effect, protection from vehicular damage is also a safety concern on earlier constructed pipelines. These pipelines, however, are subject to the general maintenance standard of Sec. 192.703(b), which requires operators to correct any pipeline that becomes unsafe. If the safety of a meter set is jeopardized by [[Page 68819]] vehicular traffic, the operator would have to take action under Sec. 192.703(b) to correct the problem. 14. Section 192.457(b)(3), External Corrosion Control: Buried or Submerged Pipelines Installed Before August 1, 1971; 192.465(e), External Corrosion Control: Monitoring. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 23) Recommendation. Amend Sec. Sec. 192.457(b) and Sec. 192.465(e) to clarify the meaning of ``electrical survey'' and what circumstances make an electrical survey ``impractical.'' Also, require operators to consider all relevant information when using an alternative to an electrical survey. SIRRC. The committee concluded that electrical surveys are seldom used on distribution systems, so there is no advantage to requiring electrical surveys as a preferred corrosion inspection method on distribution systems. SIRRC further concluded that if electrical surveys are not used, all available information should be used to determine if active corrosion exists. The committee agreed that the second sentence of Sec. 192.457(b), as it relates to distribution lines, and Sec. 192.465(e) should be changed to read as follows: [sbull] Sec. 192.457(b): The operator shall determine the areas of active corrosion by electrical survey or by analysis and review of the pipeline condition. Analysis and review shall include, but is not limited to, leak repair history, exposed pipe condition reports, and the pipeline environment. For the purpose of this section, an electrical survey is a series of closely spaced pipe-to-soil readings over a pipeline which are subsequently analyzed to identify any locations where a corrosive current is leaving the pipe. [sbull] Sec. 192.465(e): (i) For transmission pipelines, after the initial evaluation required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec. 192.455 and paragraph (b) of Sec. 192.457, each operator shall, not less than every 3 years at intervals not exceeding 39 months, reevaluate its unprotected pipelines and cathodically protect them in accordance with this subpart in areas in which active corrosion is found. The operator shall determine the areas of active corrosion by electrical survey, or where an electrical survey is impractical, by analysis and review of the pipeline condition. Analysis and review shall include, but is not limited to, leak repair history, exposed pipe condition reports, and the pipeline environment. (ii) For distribution pipelines, after the initial evaluation required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec. 192.455 and paragraph (b) of Sec. 192.457, each operator shall, not less than every 3 years at intervals not exceeding 39 months, reevaluate its unprotected pipelines and cathodically protect them in accordance with this subpart in areas in which active corrosion is found. The operator shall determine the areas of active corrosion by electrical survey or by analysis and review of the pipeline condition. Analysis and review shall include, but is not limited to, leak repair history, exposed pipe condition reports, and the pipeline environment. (iii) For the purpose of this section, an electrical survey is a series of closely spaced pipe-to-soil readings over a pipeline which are subsequently analyzed to identify any locations where a corrosive current is leaving the pipe. SIRRC also agreed that ``pipeline environment'' refers to whether soil resistivity is high or low, wet or dry, contains contaminants that may promote corrosion, or has any other known condition that might influence the probability of active corrosion. Response. We recently revised the corrosion control regulations for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines in 49 CFR part 195 (Docket RSPA-97-2762; 66 FR 66994; Dec. 27, 2001). In doing so, we relied on SIRRC's suggestion on monitoring unprotected gas transmission lines as a basis for revising the requirement to monitor unprotected pipe (see 49 CFR 195.573(b)). Because we believe SIRRC's approach is reasonable for both transmission and distribution lines, we are proposing to adopt the SIRRC suggestion on monitoring these lines by revising Sec. 192.465(e) as set forth below in the proposed amendments section of this notice. However, rather than change the second sentence of Sec. 192.457(b) as SIRRC suggested, we are proposing to delete the second sentence because we think it's unnecessary. This sentence, which is repeated in Sec. 192.465(e), is no longer needed in Sec. 192.457(b) because the time for completing the initial evaluation of the need for corrosion control required by Sec. 192.457(b) has expired. All subsequent evaluations are required by Sec. 192.465(e). Also, we are proposing to move the definition of ``active corrosion,'' now in Sec. 192.457(c), to Sec. 192.465(e). 15. Section 192.459, External Corrosion Control: Examination of Buried Pipeline When Exposed. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 27) Recommendation. Amend Sec. 192.459 to clarify that when an operator examines the exposed portion of a buried pipeline, the operator must determine the condition of the coating and keep a record of the condition under Sec. 192.491. SIRRC. The committee agreed that records of coating condition are important in evaluating the overall condition of a pipeline, and that this information helps meet the continuing surveillance and active corrosion rules. The committee suggested that Sec. 192.459 be revised to read as follows: Whenever an operator has knowledge that any portion of a buried pipeline is exposed, the exposed portion must be examined to determine the condition of the coating, or if the pipeline is bare or the coating is deteriorated, the exterior condition of the pipe. A record of the examination results shall be made in accordance with Sec. 192.491(c). If external corrosion is found, remedial action must be taken to the extent required by Sec. 192.483 and the applicable paragraphs of Sec. Sec. 192.485, 192.487, or 192.489. Response. In light of NAPSR's recommendation and an earlier recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board on inspecting exposed pipe, we revised Sec. 192.459 to require that operators determine the extent of any corrosion that is found on the exposed portion of a pipeline (64 FR 56981, Oct. 22, 1999). At a minimum, the present rule requires that operators inspect exposed pipelines to see if the coating on coated pipe has deteriorated. In addition, Sec. 192.491(c) requires a record of each inspection ``in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition does not exist.'' Thus we have essentially adopted the SIRRC consensus, because the combination of Sec. 192.459 and Sec. 192.491(c) adequately addresses the need to examine and record the condition of coating on exposed coated pipe. 16. Section 192.467(d), External Corrosion Control: Electrical Isolation (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 28) Recommendation. Amend Sec. 192.467(d) to require annual electrical tests on casings to determine if there is contact with the encased pipe. Also, require remedial action according to Recommendation No. 19 if contact is found. SIRRC. The committee did not reach agreement on the need to conduct annual tests for shorted casings, although consensus was reached on remedial action as discussed below regarding Recommendation No. 19. Industry's position on annual testing was that separate tests on casings are unnecessary as long as the pipe potential is above -850Mv. NAPSR's position was that because a shorted [[Page 68820]] casing shields encased pipe from protective current, the encased pipe can corrode regardless of the potential of pipe outside the casing. Response. A large majority of PS-124 commenters opposed NAPSR's recommendation on the ground that no correlation had been found between shorted casings and corrosion of the encased pipe. One commenter alleged that the purpose of Sec. 192.467(c), which requires isolation of gas pipe from casings, is to maintain protective current levels. Also, several commenters addressed the shorted casing issue in response to our San Antonio meeting notice. Five persons said shorts should be cleared because using more protective current to offset the short could have adverse effects. Two other commenters said that clearing shorts can be costly if the line must be taken out of service or replaced, and that there is no consensus on the adequacy of other remedial measures. Another San Antonio commenter suggested the present electrical isolation requirement of Sec. 192.467(c) is not needed since cathodic protection has to meet the part 192 criteria for adequacy. In this regard, AGA's Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC) has submitted a rulemaking petition to rescind the requirement to isolate gas pipe from metallic casings, arguing there are no safety benefit from clearing shorted casings. Considering the conflicting opinions on the need to clear shorted casings to prevent pipe corrosion, we have decided not to propose to adopt NAPSR's recommendation for annual testing. Instead we will consider the recommendation in a separate rulemaking proceeding called ``Pipeline Safety: Controlling Corrosion on Gas Pipelines'' (RIN 2137- AD63). In that proceeding, we will examine the need to change part 192 to improve the industry's corrosion control practices in light of new technology and the new requirements for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines in 49 CFR part 195. Deferring the recommendation also will give us time to gather more information on the shorted casing issue. We are particularly interested in receiving comments from anyone who has empirical data on the relation of shorted casings to pipe corrosion. 17. Section 192.475(c), Internal Corrosion Control: General. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 29) Recommendation. Amend Sec. 192.475(c) to express the permissible level of hydrogen sulfide in parts-per-million as well as grains. SIRRC. The committee agreed no further rulemaking action is needed. Response. The PS-124 Final Rule included NAPSR's recommended change to Sec. 192.475(c). 18. Section 192.479, Atmospheric Corrosion Control: General. (SIRRC Summary Report, p. 30) Recommendation. Require all aboveground pipelines exposed to the atmosphere to meet the same atmospheric corrosion control and remedial requirements, no matter when the pipeline was installed. SIRRC. The resolution of the committee was that all exposed aboveground pipe should be subject to the same atmospheric protection standards. The committee agreed that Sec. 192.479 should be revised to read as follows, and explained that ``active corrosion'' does not include non-damaging corrosive films: (a) Each aboveground pipeline or portion of a pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere must be cleaned and either coated or jacketed with a material suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion. An operator need not comply with this paragraph, if the operator can demonstrate by test, investigation, or experience in the area of application that active corrosion does not exist. (b) If active corrosion is found on an aboveground pipeline or portion of pipeline, the operator shall-- (1) take prompt remedial action consistent with the severity of the corrosion to the extent required by the applicable paragraphs of Sec. Sec. 192.485, 192.487, or 192.489; and (2) clean and either coat or jacket the areas of atmospheric corrosion with a material suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion. Response. Section 192.479 prescribes atmospheric protection requirements according to the date of pipeline installation. Pipelines installed after July 31, 1971, must be entirely protected from atmospheric corrosion, except where the operator can demonstrate that a corrosive atmosphere does not exist. In contrast, pipelines installed before August 1, 1971, need only be protected where atmospheric corrosion has progressed to the point that remedial action is required under Sec. 192.485, Sec. 192.487, or Sec. 192.489. Periodic monitoring to determine the need for remedial action is required by Sec. 192.481. A","truncated":true,"body_characters":85775}