# Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas From Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low-Stress Lines

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 71 FR 52504
- **title:** Pipeline Safety: Protecting Unusually Sensitive Areas From Rural Onshore Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines and Low-Stress Lines
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** proposed
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2006-09-06
- **effective on:** Not available
- **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.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-06-7438.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-06-7438.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-06-7438
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/09/06/06-7438/pipeline-safety-protecting-unusually-sensitive-areas-from-rural-onshore-hazardous-liquid-gathering
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 71 Issue 172 (Wednesday, September 6, 2006) [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 6, 2006)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 52504-52519] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 06-7438] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected] . 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. Congr
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 110316