Increased Inspection Requirements

Passage 1[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 29, 1995)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 44821-44822] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 95-21425] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Research and Special Programs Administration [Docket No. PS-141, Notice 1] RIN 2137-AC38 AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice announces a public workshop to discuss issues relevant to development of regulations requiring increased inspection of certain gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The increased inspection would apply to all gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines under RSPA safety regulations in high-density population areas. In addition, hazardous liquid pipelines would have to be inspected in unusually sensitive environmental areas and at crossings of navigable waterways. Congress mandated the increased inspection regulations to reduce the risk of pipeline accidents due to structural defects. DATES: The workshop will be on October 18, 1995, from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm. Persons who want to participate in the workshop should call (703) 218-1449 or e-mail their name, affiliation and phone number to [email protected] before close of business October 2, 1995. The workshop is open to all interested persons, but RSPA may limit participation because of space considerations and the need to obtain a spectrum of views. Callers will be notified if participation is not open. Persons who are unable to attend may submit written comments in duplicate by November 27, 1995. Interested persons should submit as part of their written comments all material that is relevant to a statement of fact or argument. Late filed comments will be considered so far as practicable.#

Passage 2ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 9230-34, Washington, DC. Non-federal employee visitors are admitted into the DOT headquarters building through the southwest entrance at Seventh and E Streets, SW. Send written comments in duplicate to the Dockets Unit, Room 8421, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Identify the docket and notice numbers stated in the heading of this notice. All comments and docketed material will be available for inspection and copying in Room 8421 between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm each business day. A summary of the workshop will be available from the Dockets Unit about three weeks after the workshop. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. Furrow, (202) 366-4559, about this document or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046, for copies of this document or other material in the docket.#

Passage 3Pipelines can have various types of defects that threaten their structural integrity. These defects can originate during the manufacture of pipe (e.g., seam weld defects) or during construction of the pipeline (e.g., scratches, gouges, dents, and girth weld flaws). Later, during operation of the pipeline, more defects can occur that threaten pipeline integrity. These defects commonly include metal loss due to corrosion, environmental or fatigue cracking, and scratches, gouges, or dents caused by outside forces, usually excavation equipment. Defects that are not detected and removed can deteriorate or grow, causing pipeline accidents. For example, RSPA data show that in 1992, 17 percent of the accidents on gas transmission and gathering systems were due to corrosion, 40 percent were due to outside force damage, and 9 percent were due to material or construction defects. Similarly, on hazardous liquid pipelines, corrosion caused 20 percent of the accidents; outside forces, 22 percent; and material or construction defects, 17 percent. These data do not distinguish outside force accidents that occurred immediately on impact from accidents that occurred after impact because of a defect created by the impact. However, several major pipeline accidents have been attributed to undetected structural defects caused by an outside force. For example, on March 28, 1993, a 36-inch hazardous liquid pipeline failed near Reston, Virginia, spilling over 400,000 gallons of diesel fuel into Sugarland Run Creek, an ecologically-sensitive tributary of the Potomac River. An investigation showed that outside force damage had probably occurred. The 102d Congress was concerned about the risk of pipeline failures caused by undetected structural defects. So, it directed DOT to issue regulations that require the periodic inspection of certain pipeline facilities (49 U.S.C. Sec. 60102(f)(2)). Under this congressional mandate, gas and hazardous liquid pipelines (except gas distribution lines) must be inspected in high-density population areas. In addition, hazardous liquid pipelines must be inspected in areas that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage in the event of a pipeline accident, and at crossings of navigable waterways. The regulations are to prescribe any circumstances in which inspections must be conducted with an instrumented internal inspection device. Where the devic#

Passage 4e is not required, the regulations are to require the use of an inspection method that is at least as effective as using the device in providing for the safety of the pipeline. Consistent with the President's regulatory policy (E.O. 12866), RSPA wants to accomplish this congressional mandate at the least cost to society. Toward this end, RSPA is seeking early public participation in the rulemaking process by holding a public workshop at which participants, including RSPA staff, may exchange views on relevant issues. RSPA hopes the workshop will enable government and industry to reach a better understanding of the problem and the potential solutions before proposed rules are issued. Workshop participants are encouraged to focus their remarks on [[Page 44822]] the following issues, but may address other issues as time permits and in supplementary written comments: A. Apart from internal inspection, are current DOT safety regulations that require periodic inspection of pipelines for corrosion and leaks sufficient under the mandate? B. What are the circumstances in which the regulations should require operators to use instrumented internal inspection devices? C. What defects should the regulations require the use of instrumented internal inspection devices to detect? D. What other inspection methods are as effective as using an instrumented internal inspection device? E. How should the regulations define areas of high-density population, areas unusually sensitive to environmental damage in the event of a pipeline accident, and navigable waterways. F. What are the per mile costs of inspection with instrumented internal inspection devices and the factors that determine those costs? Issued in Washington, DC on August 24, 1995. Richard B. Felder, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. 95-21425 Filed 8-28-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P#