Rulemakingcurrent
0900006480e84e4d
U.S. DOT/RSPA - Draft Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
Current as of source date
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline research0900006480e84e4d
Page 1DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION Docket No. RSPA - 04-16855 - 3 RIN 2137-AD97 Draft Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines - 1 -_ Introduction This draft regulatory evaluation concerns regulations that the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) is proposing that would require pipeline operators to meet certain standards when they use direct assessment, In the pipeline industry, “direct assessment’’ is a process of data gathering, inspection, examination, and evaluation that is used to determine if external corrosion, internal corrosion, or stress-corrosion cracking is adversely affecting the physical integrity of ferrous pipelines. Although the standards being proposed are already in effect under 49 CFR Part 192 for gas transmission lines in high-consequence areas, Congress has directed DOT to prescribe direct assessment standards for other gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. Need for the Action Many operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines do more to assure the integrity of their systems than RSPA’s safety regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195 require. For exaniple, $9 192.465 and 195.573 require operators to use electrical tests to identify places where buried pipe may not be protected adequately from external corrosion. But, in addition to electrical tests,#
Page 22 many operators have historically used internal inspection devices or hydrostatic testing to find external corrosion. They have also used these methods to look for other pipeline defects. RSPA has long recognized the safety and environmental advantages of these additional inspection and test methods. In recent years, it became apparent that they are particularly beneficial when used as part of a comprehensive risk-based program to assure system integrity. So, in 2000, RSPA issued regulations requiring hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline operators to conduct integrity management programs using internal inspection, pressure testing, or othcr equally effective assessment means. Congress also saw the need for operators to do more to assure the integrity of their pipelines. In the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, Congress directed DOT to issue regulations on managing gas pipeline integrity in high-density population areas with a program involving internal inspection, pressure testing, and direct assessment. In the same legislation, Congress also directed DOT to issue regulations prescribing standards for inspecting pipeline facilities by direct assessment. Responding to the first congressional directive, RSPA issued regulations that require operators to follow detailed programs for managing the integrity of gas transmission lines in high- consequence areas. The regulations include standards for using direct assessment to evaluate the threat of corrosion on pipelines. Now RSPA is addressing the second directive by proposing to require that operators meet these same standards if they use direct assessment on onshore#
Page 33 regulated pipelines besides gas transmission lines in high-consequence areas. Alternatives RSPA considered two alternatives to respond to Congress’ second directive. First is the status quo alternative. Under this alternative, no additional regulations are needed given that RSPA has already issued regulations that prescribe standards for the use of direct assessment. This alternative was rejected, however, because the existing regulations are limited to gas transmission lines in high-consequence areas. They do not reach all pipelines that fall under the second directive. Also because the regulations affect only a small fraction of regulated pipelines, it is doubtful operators would voluntarily meet the standards if they use direct assessment on other pipelines. Operators of hazardous liquid pipelines are particularly unlikely to voluntarily meet the standards, because they normally follow only those regulations that apply to hazardous liquid pipelines. The second alternative is to apply the existing direct assessment standards to regulated pipelines besides gas transmission lines in high-consequence areas. RSPA chose this alternative because the existing standards are not inherently limited to gas transmission lines in high-consequence areas. Although the existing standard for direct assessment of internal corrosion does not apply to hazardous liquid pipelines, it is not being proposed for these pipelines. A further reason for choosing the second alternative is that the existing standards have already undergone public notice and comment in the gas transmission integrity management proceeding, and they were generally well received by the gas transmission industry. Finally, the existing standards rely heavily on#
Page 44 consensus standards published by NACE International and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), two organizations whose standards are widely used and highly regarded in the pipeline industry. Benefits The primary benefit of the proposed regulations is to promote acceptable, uniform practices in using direct assessment to evaluate the threat of corrosion on onshore gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. With acceptable standards in effect under RSPA regulations, assessment results would become more trustworthy, making operators more likely to use the process to improve the integrity of their pipelines. Also, more meaningful corrosion assessments have the potential to reduce accidents and increase the public’s confidence in operators’ safety programs. A further benefit involves the federal policy that encourages agencies to adopt consensus standards that meet regulatory needs rather than develop new prescriptive federal regulations. Two consensus standards are referenced repeatedly in the proposed regulations. Thus the proposed regulations would benefit the public by furthering the federal policy on use of consensus standards. costs Industry’s costs of compliance with the proposed regulations should be minimal, since operators would not be required to use direct assessment. Operators would incur costs of compliance only if they voluntarily use direct assessment on regulated onshore pipelines. Even then, costs should#
Page 55 be minimal because the regulations largely involve two consensus standards recently developed by respected US standards-setting organizations. Operators widely follow these organizations’ standards, and many operators helped develop the direct assessment consensus standards. Conclusion RSPA believes the proposed regulations will have only a minimal impact on pipeline operators and the public. The rulemaking proposal - that operators meet existing RSPA standards when they use direct assessment - should not have more than a minimal impact because the proposed regulations do not require that operators use direct assessment. If operators do choose to use direct assessment, the standards they would have to meet consist largely of consensus standards developed by two US standards-setting organizations. Standards of these organizations are widely followed in the pipeline industry, and industry representatives were major contributors to development of the direct assessment consensus standards. So even without the regulations, it is reasonable to assume the industry would incur some costs associated with meeting the consensus standards when they use direct assessment. Regulatory Flexibility Certification The proposed regulations do not require that small entities use direct assessment when they evaluate their pipelines for corrosion. In addition, if small entities do choose to use direct assessment, they would have to meet existing consensus standards that are already in use in the pipeline industry. Based on the analysis above, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.