{"operation":"document","citation":"83 FR 36861","title":"Pipeline Safety: Class Location Change Requirements","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"proposed","official":true,"published_on":"2018-07-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"PHMSA is seeking public comment on its existing class location requirements for natural gas transmission pipelines as they pertain to actions operators are required to take following class location changes due to population growth near the pipeline. Operators have suggested that performing integrity management measures on pipelines where class locations have changed due to population increases would be an equally safe but less costly alternative to the current requirements of either reducing pressure, pressure testing, or replacing pipe. This request for public comment continues a line of discussion from a Notice of Inquiry published in 2013 and a report to Congress in 2016 regarding whether expanding integrity management requirements would mitigate the need for class location requirements.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2018-16376.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2018-16376.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2018-16376","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/31/2018-16376/pipeline-safety-class-location-change-requirements","body":"Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018) [Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 36861-36871] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2018-16376] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 192 [Docket ID: PHMSA-2017-0151] RIN 2137-AF29 Pipeline Safety: Class Location Change Requirements AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: PHMSA is seeking public comment on its existing class location requirements for natural gas transmission pipelines as they pertain to actions operators are required to take following class location changes due to population growth near the pipeline. Operators have suggested that performing integrity management measures on pipelines where class locations have changed due to population increases would be an equally safe but less costly alternative to the current requirements of either reducing pressure, pressure testing, or replacing pipe. This request for public comment continues a line of discussion from a Notice of Inquiry published in 2013 and a report to Congress in 2016 regarding whether expanding integrity management requirements would mitigate the need for class location requirements. DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on this ANPRM must do so by October 1, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket: PHMSA- 2017-0151 by any of the following methods: E-Gov website: https://www.regulations.gov . This site allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any agency. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Fax: 1-202-493-2251. Mail: Hand Delivery: U.S. DOT Docket Management System, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 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 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 https://www.regulations.gov/ . Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to https://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided. There is a privacy statement published on https://www.regulations.gov . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical questions: Steve Nanney, Project Manager, by telephone at 713-272-2855 or by email at [email protected] . General information: Robert Jagger, Technical Writer, by telephone at 202-366-4361 or by email at [email protected] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline of This Document I. Class Location History and Purpose A. Class Location Determinations B. Class Location--``Cluster Rule'' Adjustments II. Changes in Class Location Due to Population Growth III. Class Location Change Special Permits A. Special Permit Conditions IV. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011--Section 5 A. 2013 Notice of Inquiry: Class Location Requirements B. 2014 Pipeline Advisory Committee Meeting, Class Location Workshop, and Subsequent Comments C. 2016 Class Location Report V. INGAA Submission on Regulatory Reform--Proposal To Perform IM Measures In-Lieu of Pipe Replacement When Class Locations Change VI. Questions for Consideration VII. Regulatory Notices Background I. Class Location History and Purpose The class location concept pre-dates Federal regulation of gas transmission pipelines \\1\\ and was an early method of differentiating areas and risks along natural gas pipelines based on the potential consequences of a hypothetical pipeline failure. Class location designations were previously included in the American Standards Association B31.8-1968 version of the ``Gas Transmission and Distribution Pipeline Systems'' standard, which eventually became the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) International Standard, ASME B31.8 ``Gas Transmission and Distribution Pipeline Systems.'' The class location definitions incorporated into title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sec. 192.5 were initially derived from the designations in this standard and were first codified on April 19, 1970.\\2\\ These definitions were like the original ASME B31.8 definitions for Class 1 through 3 locations but added an additional Class 4 definition and, with some modifications, still apply today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ The Department of Transportation first proposed class location regulations on March 24, 1970 (35 FR 5012). The proposal was part of a series of NPRMs published in response to the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-481). The NPRMs were directed at developing a comprehensive system of Federal safety standards for gas pipeline facilities and for the transportation of gas through such pipelines. The class location rulemaking was finalized on August 19, 1970, as part of a consolidated rulemaking establishing the first minimum Federal safety standards for the transportation of natural gas by pipelines (35 FR 13248). \\2\\ 35 FR 13248. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gas transmission pipelines are divided into classes from 1 (rural areas) to 4 (densely populated, high-rise areas) that are based on the number of buildings or dwellings for human occupancy in the area. This concept is to provide safety to people from the effects of a high- pressure natural gas pipeline leak or rupture that could explode or catch on fire. PHMSA uses class locations in 49 CFR part 192 to implement a graded approach in many areas that provides more conservative safety margins and more stringent safety standards commensurate with the potential consequences based on population density near the pipeline. When crafting the natural gas [[Page 36862]] regulations, DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) determined that these more stringent standards were necessary because a greater number of people in proximity to the pipeline substantially increases the probabilities of personal injury and property damage in the event of an accident. At the same time, the external stresses, the potential for damage from third-parties, and other factors that contribute to accidents increase along with the population; consequently, additional protective measures are often needed in areas with greater concentrations of population. The most basic and earliest use of the class location concept focused on the design (safety) margin for the pipeline. As pipelines are designed based, in part, on the population along their pipeline route and therefore the class location of the area, it is important to decrease pipe stresses in areas where there is the potential for higher consequences or where higher pipe stresses could affect the safe operation of a pipeline in larger-populated areas. Pipeline design factors are derating factors that ensure pipelines are operated below 100 percent of the maximum pipe yield strength. From an engineering standpoint, they were developed based on risk to the public \\3\\ and for piping that may face additional operational stresses.\\4\\ Pipeline design factors vary, ranging from 0.72 in a Class 1 location to 0.40 in a Class 4 location. They are used in the pipeline design formula (Sec. 192.105) to determine the design pressure for steel pipe, and are generally reflected in the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) based upon a percentage of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) at which the pipeline can be operated. 5 6 Design factors are used along with pipe characteristics in engineering calculations (Barlow's Formula) to calculate the design pressure and MAOP of a steel pipeline. More specifically, the formula at Sec. 192.105 is P = (2St/ D) x F x E x T, where P is the design pressure, S is the pipe's yield strength, t is the wall thickness of the pipe, D is the diameter of the pipe, F is the design factor per the class location, E is the longitudinal joint factor,\\7\\ and T is the temperature derating factor.\\8\\ The formula in Sec. 192.105 can be used to calculate the MAOP of a 1000 psig pipeline with the same operating parameters (diameter, wall thickness, yield strength, seam type, and temperature) but in different class locations (and therefore different design factors), and the MAOP of that pipeline in the different class locations would be as follows: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\3\\ For instance, the number of human dwellings near the pipeline or the type of dwelling (hospital, school, playground, nursing care facility, etc.). \\4\\ This can include piping at compressor stations, metering stations, fabrications, and road or railroad crossings. \\5\\ Design factors for steel pipe are listed in Sec. 192.111. Class 1 locations have a 0.72 design factor, Class 2 locations have a 0.60 factor, Class 3 locations have a 0.50 factor, and Class 4 locations have a 0.40 design factor. \\6\\ SMYS is an indication of the minimum stress a pipe may experience that will cause plastic, or permanent, deformation of the steel pipe. \\7\\ The seam type of a pipeline, per this formula, has a limiting effect on the MAOP of the pipeline. While it is typically ``1.00'' and does not affect the calculation, certain types of furnace butt-welded pipe or pipe not manufactured to certain industry standards will have factors of 0.60 or 0.80, which will necessitate a reduction in design pressure. \\8\\ The temperature derating factor ranges from 1.000 to 0.867 depending on the operating temperature of the pipeline. Pipelines designed to operate at 250 degrees Fahrenheit and lower have a factor of 1.000, which does not affect the design pressure calculation. Pipelines designed to operate at higher temperatures, including up to 450 degrees Fahrenheit, will have derating factors that will lower the design pressure of the pipeline. No class location--design factor = 1.0 (none); MAOP = 1000 psig Class 1--design factor = 0.72; MAOP = 720 psig Class 2--design factor = 0.60; MAOP = 600 psig Class 3--design factor = 0.50; MAOP = 500 psig Class 4--design factor = 0.40; MAOP = 400 psig As therefore evidenced, pipelines at higher class locations will have lower operating pressures and maximum allowable operating pressures due to more stringent design factors to protect people near the pipeline. As natural gas pipeline standards and regulations evolved, the class location concept was incorporated into many other regulatory requirements, including test pressures, mainline block valve spacing, pipeline design and construction, and operations and maintenance (O&M) requirements, to provide additional safety to populated areas. In total, class location concepts affect 12 of 16 subparts of part 192 and a total of 28 individual sections.\\9\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\9\\ Sec. Sec. 192.5, 192.8, 192.9, 192.65, 192.105, 192.111, 192.123, 192.150, 192.175, 192.179, 192.243, 192.327, 192.485, 192.503, 192.505, 192.609, 192.611, 192.613, 192.619, 192.620, 192.625, 192.705, 192.706, 192.707, 192.713, 192.903, 192.933, and 192.935. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Class Location Determinations Pipeline class locations for onshore gas pipelines are determined as specified in Sec. 192.5(a) by using a ``sliding mile.'' The ``sliding mile'' is a unit that is 1 mile in length, extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of a pipeline, and moves along the pipeline. The number of buildings \\10\\ within this sliding mile at any point during the mile's movement determines the class location for the entire mile of pipeline contained within the sliding mile. Class locations are not determined at any given point of a pipeline by counting the number of dwellings in static mile-long pipeline segments stacked end-to-end. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\10\\ Per the regulations, a ``building'' is a structure intended for human occupancy, whether it is used as a residence, for business, or for another purpose. For the purposes of this rulemaking, a ``building'' may be interchangeably referred to as a ``home,'' a ``house,'' or a ``dwelling.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- When higher dwelling concentrations are encountered during the continuous sliding of this mile-long unit, the class location of the pipeline rises commensurately. As it pertains to structure counts, a Class 1 location is a class location unit along a continuous mile containing 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy, a Class 2 location is a class location unit along a continuous mile containing 11 to 45 buildings intended for human occupancy, and a Class 3 location is a class location unit along a continuous mile containing 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy.\\11\\ Class 4 locations exist where buildings with four or more stories above ground are prevalent. Whenever there is a change in class location that will cause an apparent overlapping of class locations, the higher-numbered class location applies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\11\\ Under Sec. 192.5, Class 1 locations also include offshore areas, and Class 3 locations contain areas where the pipeline lies within 100 yards of a building or a small, well-defined outside area (including playgrounds, recreation areas, and outdoor theaters) that is occupied by 20 or more persons at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month period. The days and weeks need not be consecutive. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Class Location--``Cluster Rule'' Adjustments After proposing the initial natural gas safety regulations in 1970, OPS received several comments stating that the proposed class location definitions could create 2-mile stretches of higher class locations for the sole protection of small clusters of buildings at crossroads or road crossings. Because part 192 regulations become more stringent as class locations increase from Class 1 to 4 locations, pipelines in higher class location areas such as these can result in increased expenditures to the pipeline operator in areas where there is no population. When finalizing the class location definitions as a part of establishing part 192 on August 19, 1970 (35 FR 13248), OPS added a new paragraph to allow operators to adjust the boundaries of Class 2, 3, and 4 [[Page 36863]] locations. Under this provision, operators can choose to end Class 4 location boundaries 220 yards from the furthest edges of a group of 4- story buildings, and operators can choose to end Class 2 and 3 boundaries up to 220 yards upstream and downstream from the furthest edges of a group or ``cluster'' of buildings.\\12\\ ``Clustering,'' therefore, is a means of reducing the length of a Class 2, 3, or 4 location in a sliding mile unit that requires a Class 2, 3, or 4 location; in other words, it allows operators to cluster or reduce the amount of pipe that is subject to the requirements of a higher class location.\\13\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\12\\ See Sec. 192.5(c)(1) & (2). \\13\\ For example, if all buildings for human occupancy in a sliding mile containing enough buildings to require a Class 3 location were clustered in the middle of that sliding mile, the Class 3 area would end 220 yards from the nearest building (on either side of the cluster through which the pipeline passes) rather than at the end of the 1-mile class location unit that would otherwise be the basis for classification. Thus, if the cluster were 200 yards in length, the total length of the Class 3 area would be 640 yards (220 + 200 + 220). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is important to note that while clustering allows for the adjustment of the length of class locations in certain areas, it does not change the length of class location units themselves nor the method by which class location units are determined. Further, clustering does not exclude ``buildings for human occupancy'' in a class location unit/ sliding mile, so all buildings within a specified class location unit must be protected by the maximum class location level that was determined for the entire class location unit. This concept becomes especially important when other buildings for human occupancy are built within a class location unit/sliding mile where a cluster exists and an operator has adjusted the class location length to exclude certain lengths of pipe outside of the cluster area. For instance, assume there is a class location unit/sliding mile containing 47 homes close to one another. The class location unit would be a Class 3 location per the definition provided at Sec. 192.5(b). An operator can consider these homes a ``cluster'' and appropriately apply the adjustment at Sec. 192.5(c) so that the boundaries of the Class 3 location are 220 yards upstream and downstream from the furthest edges of the clustered homes (buildings for human occupancy). Therefore, while the entirety of the pipeline is in a Class 3 class location unit, the only pipe subject to Class 3 requirements is the length of the cluster plus 220 yards on both sides of the cluster. The remaining pipe in the class location unit/sliding mile, the pipe that is outside of this clustered area, could therefore be operated at Class 1 requirements rather than at the otherwise-required Class 3 requirements. However, what would happen if new buildings were built within that sliding mile but away from that single cluster? If, per the example above, there is a cluster of 47 homes at one end of a class location unit/sliding mile, and 3 homes are built at the other end of the class location unit, the operator must count and treat those 3 homes as a second cluster, with the length of the cluster plus 220 yards on both sides of the cluster subject to Class 3 requirements. The pipeline between these two clusters would still be in a Class 3 location per its class location unit, as there would be 50 homes within the sliding mile, but the pipeline between the clusters could be operated under Class 1 location requirements. If the 220-yard extensions of any two or more clusters intercept or overlap, the separate clusters must be considered a single cluster for purposes of applying the adjustment. An operator must use the clustering method consistently to ensure that all buildings for human occupancy within a class location unit are covered by the appropriately determined class location requirements. Any new buildings for human occupancy built in a class location unit where clustering has been used must also be clustered, whether they form a new, independent cluster or are added to the existing cluster. Note that even a single house could form the basis of a second cluster under this requirement, as all buildings within a specified class location unit must be protected by the maximum class location level that was determined for the entire class location unit. PHMSA's interpretation to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., issued on March 11, 2015,\\14\\ explains and diagrams this concept further. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\14\\ PHMSA Interpretation #PI-14-0017, available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2015/Air_Products_PI_14_0017_10_01_2014_Part_192.5.pdf . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Changes in Class Location Due to Population Growth Class locations can change as the population living or working near a pipeline grows and, as outlined earlier, are specifically determined based on the density of dwellings within the 440-yard-wide (quarter- mile-wide) sliding mile down the pipeline centerline. Class locations are used to determine a pipeline's design factor, which is a component of the design formula equation at Sec. 192.105 and ultimately factors into the pressure at which the pipeline is operated. As population around a pipeline increases and the pipeline's class location increases, the numeric value of the design factor decreases, which translates, via the formula at Sec. 192.105, into a lower MAOP for the pipeline. To illustrate this, a Class 4 location containing a prevalence of 4-or-more-story buildings has a safety factor of 0.4, whereas a Class 2 location containing 11 to 45 dwellings has a safety factor of 0.6. If a Class 2 location is very quickly developed to a point where there is a prevalence of 4-or-more story buildings, the corresponding difference in safety factor when the class location changes, from a 0.6 to a 0.4, equates to a 33% reduction in MAOP per the design formula equation. A change in class location requires operators to confirm safety factors and to recalculate the MAOP of a pipeline. If the MAOP per the newly determined class location is not commensurate with the present class location, current regulations require that pipeline operators (1) reduce the pipe's MAOP to reduce stress levels in the pipe; (2) replace the existing pipe with pipe that has thicker walls or higher yield strength to yield a lower operating stress at the same MAOP; or (3) pressure test at a higher test pressure if the pipeline segment has not previously been tested at the higher pressure and for a minimum of 8 hours.\\15\\ Depending on the pipeline's test pressure and whether it meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 192.609 and 192.611 (``Change in class location: Required study,'' and ``Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable operating pressure,'' respectively), an operator can base the pipeline's MAOP on a certain safety factor times the test pressure for the new class location as long as the corresponding hoop stress of the pipeline does not exceed certain percentages of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of the pipe.\\16\\ [[Page 36864]] This is often referred to as a ``one-class bump,'' as an operator can use this method when class locations change from a Class 1 to 2, a Class 2 to a 3, or a Class 3 to a 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\15\\ See Sec. 192.611 as appropriate to one-class changes (e.g., Class 1 to 2 or Class 2 to 3 or Class 3 to 4). As an example, for a Class 1 to Class 2 location change, the pipeline segment would require a pressure test to 1.25 times the MAOP for 8 hours. Following a successful pressure test, the pipeline segment would not need to be replaced with new pipe, but the existing design factor of 0.72 for a Class 1 location would be acceptable for a Class 2 location. \\16\\ See Sec. 192.611. Specifically, if the applicable segment has been hydrostatically tested for a period of longer than 8 hours, the MAOP is 0.8 times the test pressure in Class 2 locations, 0.667 times the test pressure in Class 3 locations, or 0.555 times the test pressure in Class 4 locations. The corresponding hoop stress may not exceed 72% of SMYS of the pipe in Class 2 locations, 60% of SMYS in Class 3 locations, or 50% of SMYS in Class 4 locations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Sec. Sec. 192.5 and 192.611 requirements to change-out pipe, re-pressure test, or de-rate pipe to a lower MAOP when population growth occurs and requires a class location change are the most significant reasons that operators request that class locations be revised or eliminated. Throughout the process of considering class location changes,\\17\\ comments PHMSA received from the trade associations state that reducing a pipeline's operating pressure below that at which the pipeline historically operated may unacceptably restrict deliveries to natural gas customers. These same commenters suggest that pressure testing pipelines may be practicable in select cases, but the test pressure required for higher class locations may exceed what a pipeline is designed to accommodate. Operators also contend that they should not have to change out pipe when a class location change occurs if the operator can prove that the pipe segment is fit for service through integrity assessments.\\18\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\17\\ See Section IV of this document. In the context of this rulemaking, PHMSA has been considering issues related to class location requirements since publishing an ANPRM on the gas transmission regulations in 2011. Following that, PHMSA published a notice of inquiry soliciting comments on expanding gas IM program requirements and mitigating class location requirements (78 FR 46560; August 1, 2013) and held a public meeting on the notice of inquiry topics on April 16, 2014 (both actions under Docket Number PHMSA-2013-0161). PHMSA also received comments on the issues discussed in this rulemaking in the docket titled ``Transportation Infrastructure: Notice of Review of Policy, Guidance, and Regulations Affecting Transportation Infrastructure Projects'' which was noticed in the Federal Register on June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26734; Docket Number OST-2017-0057). \\18\\ Operators did not outline the type of integrity assessments that would be appropriate from their perspective nor the factors that should be considered to determine whether a pipeline segment is fit for service (such as pipe, pipe seam, or coating conditions; O&M history; material properties; pipe depth of cover; non-destructive testing of girth welds; type pipe coatings used and if they shield cathodic protection; seam type; failure or leak history; and pressure testing or acceptance criteria and any re-evaluation intervals). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Class Location Change Special Permits As population growth occurs around pipelines that were formerly in rural areas, some operators have applied for special permits to prevent the need for pipe replacement or pressure reduction when the class location changes. A special permit is an order issued under Sec. 190.341 that waives or modifies compliance with regulatory requirements if the pipeline operator requesting it demonstrates a need and PHMSA determines that granting the special permit would be consistent with pipeline safety. PHMSA performs extensive technical analysis on special permit applications and typically grants special permits on the condition that operators will perform alternative measures to provide an equal or greater level of public safety. PHMSA publishes a notice and request for comment in the Federal Register for each special permit application received and tracks issued, denied, and expired special permits on its website. Since 2004, PHMSA has approved over 15 class location special permits based on operators adopting additional conditions, including certain operating safety criteria and periodic integrity evaluations. 19 20 Generally, the additional conditions PHMSA requires are designed to identify and mitigate integrity issues that could threaten the pipeline segment and cause failure, especially given the fact that the majority of class location special permits it receives and reviews are for older pipelines that may have manufacturing, construction, or ongoing maintenance issues, such as seam or pipe body cracking, poor external coating, insufficient soil cover, lack of material records, dents, or repairs not made to class location design safety factors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\19\\ Special permit conditions are implemented to mitigate the causes of gas transmission incidents and are based on the type of threats pertinent to the pipeline. The conditions are generally more heavily weighted on identifying: Material, coating and cathodic protection issues, pipe wall loss, pipe and weld cracking, depth of pipe cover, third party damage prevention, marking of the pipeline and pipeline right-of-way patrols, pressure tests and documentation, data integration of integrity issues, and reassessment intervals. \\20\\ Examples of PHMSA's class location special permit conditions can be found at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/classloc/docs/SpecialPermit_ExampleClassLocSP_Conditions_090112_draft1.pdf , and more information about PHMSA's special permit process for class location changes can be found at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/classloc/documents.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Typically, PHMSA requires operators to incorporate the affected segments into the company's O&M procedures and integrity management plan, perform additional assessments for threats to the pipeline segments identified during an operator's risk assessment, perform additional cathodic protection \\21\\ and corrosion control measures, and repair any discovered anomalies to a specified schedule. Therefore, the additional monitoring and maintenance requirements PHMSA prescribes through this process help to ensure the integrity of the pipe and protection of the population living near the pipeline segment at a comparable margin of safety and environmental protection throughout the life of the pipe compared to the regulations as written. The class location change special permits that PHMSA has granted have allowed operators to continue operating the pipeline segments identified under the special permits at the current MAOP based on the previous class locations. PHMSA notes that it developed its class location special permit process by adapting Integrity Management (IM) concepts and published the typical considerations for class location change special permit requests in the Federal Register in 2004.\\22\\ Based on its experiences when renewing some of the earliest class location change special permits, PHMSA has extended the expiration date of its class location change special permits from 5 years to 10 years. This extension should provide additional regulatory certainty to operators that apply for these permits. Further, throughout the renewal process of existing special permits, PHMSA has not significantly changed the original conditions imposed on individual operators. While PHMSA can make modifications to its special permit conditions when it is in the interest of safety and the public to do so, PHMSA has determined that the present special permit conditions and process are consistent with public safety. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\21\\ Cathodic protection is a technique used to control the corrosion of a metal surface by making it the cathode of an electrochemical cell. This can be achieved with a special coating on the external surface of the pipeline along with an electrical system and anodes buried in the ground or with a ``sacrificial'' or galvanic metal acting as an anode. In these systems, the anode will corrode before the protected metal will. \\22\\ Federal Register (69 FR 38948, June 29, 2004). Additional guidance is provided online at: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/classloc/index.htm . Public notices were published in Federal Register: 69 FR 22115 and 69 FR 38948, dated April 23, 2004 and June 29, 2004: Docket No. RSPA-2004-17401--Pipeline Safety: Development of Class Location Change Waiver (Special Permit). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Special Permit Conditions In the special permit conditions and criteria PHMSA published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2004, PHMSA outlines several ``threshold conditions'' pipelines must meet to be considered for a special permit when class locations change. For instance, PHMSA does not consider any pipeline segments for a special permit where the class location those segments are in changes to a Class 4 location. Typically, PHMSA receives special permit requests [[Page 36865]] for pipeline segments where the class location is changing from Class 1 to Class 3. PHMSA also does not consider for class location change special permits any segments that have bare pipe or wrinkle bends. Other manufacturing- and construction-related items PHMSA considers include whether the applicable segments have certain seam types that may be more prone to defects and failures, whether the pipe has certain coating types that provide an adequate level of cathodic protection, and the design strength of the pipe. There are also operation and maintenance factors that PHMSA considers when evaluating pipeline segments for class location change special permit feasibility. For example, PHMSA doesn't consider for a Class 1 to Class 3 location change special permit any pipe segments that operate above 72 percent SMYS. Operators also need to produce a hydrostatic test record showing the segment was tested to 1.25 times the MAOP. Also, operators are required to have pipe material records to document the pipelines diameter, wall thickness, strength, seam type and coating type. For operators who do not have these records, PHMSA requires they make these records per the special permit conditions. PHMSA often requires operators to operate each applicable segment at or below its existing MAOP as well. As part of the special permit conditions, operators are required by PHMSA to incorporate the applicable pipeline segments into their IM program and inspect them on a regular basis according to the operator's procedures. As an extension of this requirement, operators must perform in-line inspections on the applicable segments, and the segments must not have any significant anomalies that would indicate any systemic problems. Additionally, PHMSA's published special permit criteria defines a ``waiver inspection area,'' also known as a ``special permit inspection area,'' as up to 25 miles of pipe on either side of the applicable segment. Operators must incorporate these areas into their IM programs as well and inspect and repair them per the operator's IM program procedures. Some of the factors PHMSA uses when deciding the length of special permit inspection areas are based on factors including what class location the surrounding pipe is in and whether class location ``clustering'' has been used. For both the special permit segments and the special permit inspection areas, PHMSA also typically requires operators to perform assessments and surveys to identify pipe that may be susceptible to certain issues, especially seam or cracking issues in the pipe seam or pipe body, based on the coating type, vintage, or manufacturing of the pipe. Pipelines in the special permit segments or in the special permit inspection areas that have had a leak or failure history are also taken into consideration when PHMSA develops an individual special permit's conditions so as to prevent similar issues in the future. Further, PHMSA looks at the enforcement history of an operator applying for a special permit as a benchmark for how the operator has followed the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations when developing the conditions following a special permit request. In class location change special permit requests, PHMSA also ensures that integrity threats to pipelines in special permit segments and special permit inspection areas are addressed in operator operations and management plans, including a systematic, ongoing program to review and remediate pipeline safety concerns. Some of the typical integrity and safety threats PHMSA would expect operators to address include pipe coating quality, cathodic protection effectiveness, stress corrosion and seam cracking, and any long-term pipeline system flow reversals. To this end, PHMSA often requires coating condition surveys, the remediation of coating, and cathodic protection systems for pipelines where the operator has requested a class location change special permit. Any data gathered on the special permit area and special permit inspection area would have to be incorporated into the operator's greater IM program. PHMSA incorporates these conditions into class location change special permit requests to ensure that operators meet or exceed the threshold requirements with equivalent safety to the provisions in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations that are being waived and ensure that granting the special permit will not be inconsistent with safety. IV. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011--Section 5 On January 3, 2012, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90) was enacted. Among the many provisions of the Act, Section 5 required PHMSA to evaluate whether IM system requirements, or elements thereof, should be expanded beyond high-consequence areas (HCA) and, with respect to gas transmission pipeline facilities, whether applying IM program requirements, or elements thereof, to additional areas would mitigate the need for class location requirements. PHMSA was required to report the findings of this evaluation to Congress and was authorized to issue regulations pursuant to the findings of the report following a prescribed review period. A. 2013 Notice of Inquiry: Class Location Requirements In August 2013, through a Notice of Inquiry, PHMSA solicited comments on whether expanding IM requirements would mitigate the need for class locations in line with the Section 5 mandate of the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act.\\23\\ Several topics were discussed, including whether class locations should be eliminated and a single design factor used, whether design factors should be increased for higher class locations, and whether pipelines without complete material records should be allowed to use a single design factor if class locations were to be eliminated.\\24\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\23\\ Federal Register (78 FR 46560, August 1, 2013). \\24\\ Regarding these questions, PHMSA received 30 comment letters, available at www.regulations.gov at docket PHMSA-2013-0161. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- There was broad consensus among PHMSA's stakeholders that eliminating class locations entirely would not lead to improvement to pipeline safety. Further, commenters noted that establishing a single design factor in lieu of class location designations might be too complicated to implement. Many commenters noted that any changes in class location requirements would impact not only the classifications of many pipelines but would also possibly create several unintended consequences within part 192, as the class location requirements are referenced or built upon throughout the natural gas regulations. Several industry trade groups had suggestions for changing the class location regulations, and these suggestions were developed further through subsequent discussions at advisory committee meetings and at public workshops. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) noted that IM should be extended beyond HCAs with the caveat that PHMSA should examine the effects of such a change on other areas of the pipeline safety regulations. Along with this, it suggested that PHMSA revise certain operations and maintenance requirements that may no longer be necessary given technological advances and IM activities. [[Page 36866]] B. 2014 Pipe","truncated":true,"body_characters":81126}