{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e84e4d","title":"U.S. DOT/RSPA - Draft Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment Standards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"DEPARTMENT 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... 5 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...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e84e4d.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e84e4d.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e84e4d","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-2004-16855-0003/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nDocket No. RSPA - 04-16855 - 3\nRIN 2137-AD97\nDraft Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment\nStandards for Direct Assessment of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines\n- 1\n-_\nIntroduction\nThis draft regulatory evaluation concerns regulations that the Research and Special Programs\nAdministration (RSPA) is proposing that would require pipeline operators to meet certain\nstandards when they use direct assessment, In the pipeline industry, “direct assessment’’ is a\nprocess of data gathering, inspection, examination, and evaluation that is used to determine if\nexternal corrosion, internal corrosion, or stress-corrosion cracking is adversely affecting the\nphysical integrity of ferrous pipelines. Although the standards being proposed are already in\neffect under 49 CFR Part 192 for gas transmission lines in high-consequence areas, Congress has\ndirected DOT to prescribe direct assessment standards for other gas and hazardous liquid\npipelines.\nNeed for the Action\nMany operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines do more to assure the integrity of their\nsystems than RSPA’s safety regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195 require. For exaniple,\n$9 192.465 and 195.573 require operators to use electrical tests to identify places where buried\npipe may not be protected adequately from external corrosion. But, in addition to electrical tests,\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nmany operators have historically used internal inspection devices or hydrostatic testing to find\nexternal corrosion. They have also used these methods to look for other pipeline defects.\nRSPA has long recognized the safety and environmental advantages of these additional\ninspection and test methods. In recent years, it became apparent that they are particularly\nbeneficial when used as part of a comprehensive risk-based program to assure system integrity.\nSo, in 2000, RSPA issued regulations requiring hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline\noperators to conduct integrity management programs using internal inspection, pressure testing,\nor othcr equally effective assessment means.\nCongress also saw the need for operators to do more to assure the integrity of their pipelines. In\nthe Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, Congress directed DOT to issue regulations on\nmanaging gas pipeline integrity in high-density population areas with a program involving\ninternal inspection, pressure testing, and direct assessment. In the same legislation, Congress\nalso directed DOT to issue regulations prescribing standards for inspecting pipeline facilities by\ndirect assessment.\nResponding to the first congressional directive, RSPA issued regulations that require operators to\nfollow detailed programs for managing the integrity of gas transmission lines in high-\nconsequence areas. The regulations include standards for using direct assessment to evaluate the\nthreat of corrosion on pipelines. Now RSPA is addressing the second directive by proposing to\nrequire that operators meet these same standards if they use direct assessment on onshore\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n3\nregulated pipelines besides gas transmission lines in high-consequence areas.\nAlternatives\nRSPA considered two alternatives to respond to Congress’ second directive. First is the status\nquo alternative. Under this alternative, no additional regulations are needed given that RSPA has\nalready issued regulations that prescribe standards for the use of direct assessment. This\nalternative was rejected, however, because the existing regulations are limited to gas transmission\nlines in high-consequence areas. They do not reach all pipelines that fall under the second\ndirective. Also because the regulations affect only a small fraction of regulated pipelines, it is\ndoubtful operators would voluntarily meet the standards if they use direct assessment on other\npipelines. Operators of hazardous liquid pipelines are particularly unlikely to voluntarily meet the\nstandards, because they normally follow only those regulations that apply to hazardous liquid\npipelines.\nThe second alternative is to apply the existing direct assessment standards to regulated pipelines\nbesides gas transmission lines in high-consequence areas. RSPA chose this alternative because\nthe existing standards are not inherently limited to gas transmission lines in high-consequence\nareas. Although the existing standard for direct assessment of internal corrosion does not apply to\nhazardous liquid pipelines, it is not being proposed for these pipelines. A further reason for\nchoosing the second alternative is that the existing standards have already undergone public notice\nand comment in the gas transmission integrity management proceeding, and they were generally\nwell received by the gas transmission industry. Finally, the existing standards rely heavily on\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n4\nconsensus standards published by NACE International and the American Society of Mechanical\nEngineers (ASME), two organizations whose standards are widely used and highly regarded in the\npipeline industry.\nBenefits\nThe primary benefit of the proposed regulations is to promote acceptable, uniform practices in\nusing direct assessment to evaluate the threat of corrosion on onshore gas and hazardous liquid\npipelines. With acceptable standards in effect under RSPA regulations, assessment results would\nbecome more trustworthy, making operators more likely to use the process to improve the\nintegrity of their pipelines. Also, more meaningful corrosion assessments have the potential to\nreduce accidents and increase the public’s confidence in operators’ safety programs.\nA further benefit involves the federal policy that encourages agencies to adopt consensus\nstandards that meet regulatory needs rather than develop new prescriptive federal regulations.\nTwo consensus standards are referenced repeatedly in the proposed regulations. Thus the\nproposed regulations would benefit the public by furthering the federal policy on use of consensus\nstandards.\ncosts\nIndustry’s costs of compliance with the proposed regulations should be minimal, since operators\nwould not be required to use direct assessment. Operators would incur costs of compliance only\nif they voluntarily use direct assessment on regulated onshore pipelines. Even then, costs should\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n5\nbe minimal because the regulations largely involve two consensus standards recently developed\nby respected US standards-setting organizations. Operators widely follow these organizations’\nstandards, and many operators helped develop the direct assessment consensus standards.\nConclusion\nRSPA believes the proposed regulations will have only a minimal impact on pipeline operators\nand the public. The rulemaking proposal - that operators meet existing RSPA standards when\nthey use direct assessment - should not have more than a minimal impact because the proposed\nregulations do not require that operators use direct assessment. If operators do choose to use\ndirect assessment, the standards they would have to meet consist largely of consensus standards\ndeveloped by two US standards-setting organizations. Standards of these organizations are widely\nfollowed in the pipeline industry, and industry representatives were major contributors to\ndevelopment of the direct assessment consensus standards. So even without the regulations, it is\nreasonable to assume the industry would incur some costs associated with meeting the consensus\nstandards when they use direct assessment.\nRegulatory Flexibility Certification\nThe proposed regulations do not require that small entities use direct assessment when they\nevaluate their pipelines for corrosion. In addition, if small entities do choose to use direct\nassessment, they would have to meet existing consensus standards that are already in use in the\npipeline industry. Based on the analysis above, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a\nsignificant impact on a substantial number of small entities.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>","truncated":false,"body_characters":8029}