{"operation":"document","citation":"PHMSA Hazardous Liquid Final Rule FAQs (2020)","title":"Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Final Rule FAQs","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2020-11-30","effective_on":"2020-11-30","summary":"Posted for Public Awareness by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Pipeline Safety Title: Frequently Asked Questions for the Final Rule titled, “Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines,” published on October 1, 2019 Date: 11/30/2020 Summary: This guidance is issued for owners and operators of hazardous liquid pipelines subject to the pipeline safety standards in 49 CFR P","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-hazardous-liquid-final-rule-faqs.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-hazardous-liquid-final-rule-faqs.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-hazardous-liquid-final-rule-faqs","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulatory-compliance/phmsa-guidance/frequently-asked-questions-faqs-pipeline-safety-safety","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPosted for Public Awareness by the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nTitle: Frequently Asked Questions for the Final Rule titled, “Pipeline Safety:\nSafety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines,” published on October 1, 2019\nDate: 11/30/2020\nSummary:\nThis guidance is issued for owners and operators of hazardous liquid pipelines subject to the pipeline\nsafety standards in 49 CFR Part 195. Those rules were amended on October 1, 2019, by the Final Rule\nentitled “Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines” (84 FR 52260). The guidance is not\nintended to replace or revise any previously issued guidance.\nThese FAQs are guidance provided to help the regulated community understand how to comply with\nregulations, but they are not substantive rules themselves and do not create legally enforceable rights,\nassign duties, or impose new obligations not otherwise contained in the existing regulations and\nstandards. However, an operator who is able to demonstrate compliance with the FAQs is likely to be\nable to demonstrate compliance with the relevant regulations. If a different course of action is taken by a\npipeline operator, the operator must be able to demonstrate that its conduct is in accordance with the\nregulations.\nFAQ-1.0 What is the effective date for the new § 195.65 safety data sheets section?\nThe requirement to provide safety data sheets following an accident where there is spilled hazardous\nliquid is a self-executing provision of the PIPES Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-183, § 14. Accordingly,\nthis requirement was effective on June 22, 2016, the date that the PIPES Act of 2016 was signed into law.\nPHMSA amended the Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR) by codifying the statutory language of this\nprovisions.\nFAQ-1.1 How can I provide a copy of the safety data sheets per § 195.65?\nThe operator must provide a copy of the safety data sheets to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator and\nappropriate emergency responders. The safety data sheets that are required are those that represent the\nmaterial that was spilled. Having all of an operator’s safety data sheets available on a website and\nreferring the on-scene coordinator and emergency responders to that site is not an acceptable means of\nproviding the safety data sheets. Federal On-Scene Coordinators may, at their discretion, allow the\noperator to provide an electronic copy of the appropriate safety data sheets. If the on-scene coordinator\nand emergency responders are not onsite with 6 hours of the notice, then the operator will not be in\nviolation of the regulations for not providing the safety data sheets within the specified timeframe, but the\noperator must provide the safety data sheets when the on-scene coordinator and responders arrive onsite.\nPage 1 of 5\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nFAQ-2. Must I perform inspections and assessments required by these new regulations on “idled”\npipelines?\nYes. As PHMSA explained in the Final Rule (85 FR 52260, 52282), Part 195 has no current operational\ndesignation for an ‘‘idle’’ pipeline, a term operators frequently use to refer to a pipeline that is not being\nactively used. Unless they are permanently abandoned in accordance with applicable procedures,\npipelines that are temporarily not in use must meet all the requirements of the Federal pipeline safety\nregulations. Because operators can restart ‘‘idle’’ pipelines and transport product later, it is important that\noperators maintain these lines to the same level of safety and standards as an active, in-service pipeline.\nAccordingly, PHMSA expects operators of ‘‘idle’’ pipelines to perform assessments and adhere to all the\napplicable regulations based on the line’s location.\nAssessments in Non-HCAs\nFAQ-3. Can I proceed with using other technology without receiving a response from PHMSA\nwhen performing an assessment under § 195.416(d)?\nNo, pursuant to § 195.416(d)(3), an operator must receive a notice of “no objection” from PHMSA prior\nto implementing the “other technology” option under § 195.416(d).\nFAQ-4. Is “discovery” of a condition for non-HCAs (§ 195.416(f)) the same as for “could affect”\nHCAs (§ 195.452(h)(2))?\nYes, operators of both HCA lines and non-HCA lines will have equal requirements for the ‘‘discovery’’\nof conditions, which occurs when an operator has adequate information about a condition to determine\nthat it presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. Under both regulations, an operator must\npromptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about a\ncondition to make that determination, unless the operator can demonstrate that the 180-day period is\nimpracticable.\nFAQ-5. Must I use the same procedures for conducting assessments and making repairs on\nanomalies discovered by assessments performed under the new regulation § 195.416 as I use for §\n195.452?\nNo. When performing activities under § 195.416, an operator is not required to use the same procedures\nand repair criteria as they use for anomalies discovered on sections of pipe that could affect an HCA\nunder § 195.452. An operator may opt to utilize the same criteria but is not required to do so. Any\nanomaly discovered following an assessment performed under § 195.416 must be repaired pursuant to the\nrepair criteria developed for compliance with § 195.401(b)(1). Operators must comply with the other\nprovisions in Part 195 in implementing the requirements in § 195.416. That includes having appropriate\nprovisions for performing periodic assessments and any resulting repairs in an operator’s procedural\nmanual (see § 195.402); adhering to the recordkeeping provisions for inspections, tests, and repairs (see §\n195.404); and taking appropriate remedial action under § 195.401(b)(1).\nPage 2 of 5\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFAQ-6. For purposes of § 195.416(b), how often must assessments be performed for piggable, non-\ngathering, onshore line pipe not subject to IM requirements of § 195.452?\nSection 195.416(b) requires assessments to occur once every 10 calendar years from the year of the\nprevious assessment or a shorter interval where necessary to ensure public safety or the protection of the\nenvironment. For example, an operator completing an assessment in calendar year 2021 must complete\nthe next assessment no later than calendar year 2031.\nLeak Detection\nFAQ-7. Do I need to have a computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) leak detection system over\nall of my pipelines?\nNo. While all operators must have an effective system for detecting leaks as set forth in § 195.444,\noperators have the option to install a CPM leak detection system to comply with that requirement.\nPHMSA amended § 195.444 to require a means for detecting leaks on all portions of a hazardous liquid\npipeline system, including non-HCA lines, and to require that operators perform an evaluation to\ndetermine what kinds of systems must be installed to adequately protect the public, property, and the\nenvironment. The factors that must be considered during that evaluation include (but are not limited to)\nthe characteristics and leak history of the pipeline, the capabilities of available leak detection systems, and\nthe location of emergency response personnel. However, where an operator selects the use of a CPM leak\ndetection system, the system must comply with API RP 1130.\nFAQ 7.1 Is patrolling alone a sufficient leak detection system per § 195.444?\nNo, patrolling alone is generally not sufficient to meet the regulatory requirement to have an effective\nsystem for detecting leaks on a pipeline system. Patrolling can only detect leaks while the patrol is\nongoing, for the specific area that is being patrolled, and, notably, patrolling is only capable of detecting\nleaks that have observable signs on the surface of the ground. Patrolling can be used as part of an overall\nsystem to detect leaks, but it would not satisfy the requirements in § 195.444 by itself.\nIntegrity Management\nFAQ-8. Do I necessarily have to redo my segment analysis under § 195.452(j)(2)?\nNo. The change to § 195.452(j)(2) requires operators to verify their pipeline segment identification\nannually. As PHMSA explained in the Final Rule (85 FR 52260, 52272), however, the change that\nPHMSA adopted does not automatically require operators to re-perform their segment analyses. Rather, it\nrequires an operator to first identify the factors considered in their original analyses, determine whether\nthose factors have changed, and consider whether any change would likely affect the results of the\noriginal segment identification. If so, the operator is required to perform a new segment analysis to\nvalidate or change the endpoints of the segments affected by the change.\nFAQ-9. If the endpoints of covered segments are revised during the annual verification of covered\nsegments required by § 195.452(j)(2), does that mean a baseline assessment is now required for pipe\npreviously not identified as covered by IM?\nPage 3 of 5\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nNo. Baseline assessments are required for new or conversion-to-service pipelines, or within five years of\nidentifying areas around a pipeline that have changed and meet the definition of an HCA under § 195.450\n(see § 195.452(d)(1) and (d)(2)). When an operator reviews the factors used in the original segment\nidentification and makes changes in the covered segment endpoints based on the new verification\nrequirements of § 195.452(j)(2), this does not mean that a new HCA has been identified around the\npipeline requiring baseline assessment within five years pursuant to the updated § 195.452(c)\nrequirements for baseline assessment plans.\nUnderwater Assessments\nFAQ-10. What is the effective date for the new § 195.454 Underwater Assessment section?\nThe requirement to assess certain underwater hazardous liquid pipelines is a self-executing provision of\nthe PIPES Act of 2016, § 25. Accordingly, this requirement was effective on June 22, 2016, the date that\nthe PIPES Act of 2016 was signed into law. PHMSA amended the PSR by codifying the statutory\nlanguage of this provisions.\nFAQ 10.1. If my onshore pipeline meets the requirement of § 195.454 do I need to assess the entire\npipeline?\nNo, § 195.454 would require you to assess the portions of the pipeline that meet the criteria in the\nregulation. The pipeline portion that is in the HCA, is onshore, and is located at a depth greater than 150\nfeet under the surface of the water must be assessed. Most operators do not have an in-line inspection\ntool launcher near water crossings, so it is likely you will be assessing more than is required by § 195.454.\nThe operator does have the option to establish temporary launchers and receivers. The other assessment\nmethods that you may have determined can further the understanding of the pipeline (e.g., route surveys,\npressure tests, external direct assessment) similarly do not need to be conducted over the entire pipeline.\nExtreme Weather and Natural Disasters\nFAQ-11. Is the operator required to inspect its facilities under § 195.414 following a heavy rain?\nNo. As PHMSA explained in the Final Rule (85 FR 52260, 52269), extreme weather events do not\ninclude rain events that do not exceed the high-water banks of the rivers, streams or beaches in proximity\nto the pipeline; rain events that do not result in a landslide in the area of the pipeline; storms that do not\nproduce winds at tropical storm or hurricane level velocities; or earthquakes that do not cause soil\nmovement in the area of the pipeline.\nFAQ-12. Is the operator required to perform inspections under § 195.414 following every extreme\nweather event or natural disaster?\nNo. Under this requirement, an operator must inspect all potentially affected pipeline facilities following\nan extreme weather event or natural disaster, such as a hurricane, flood, landslide, earthquake, that “has\nthe likelihood to damage infrastructure by the scouring or movement of the soil surrounding the pipeline.”\nPage 4 of 5\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nAn operator must inspect potentially affected pipelines to detect conditions that could adversely affect the\nsafe operation of the pipeline. The regulation also states the operator must consider the nature of the event\nand the physical characteristics, operating conditions, location, and prior history of the affected pipeline in\ndetermining whether the event necessitates an inspection as well as the appropriate method for performing\nthe inspection. If the event creates a likelihood that there is damage to pipeline infrastructure, the operator\nmust commence an inspection within 72 hours after the cessation of the event or when the operator has\ndetermined that it is safe to access the area.\nPage 5 of 5","truncated":false,"body_characters":12698}