{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e8d449","title":"U.S. DOT/RSPA - Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Certification - Periodic Underwater Inspections - TPSSC & THLPSSC June 30, 2004","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 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195 Docket No. RSPA-97-3001 RIN 2137-AC54 PIPELINE SAFETY: PERIODIC UNDERWATER INSPECTIONS FINAL REGULATORY EVALUATION AND REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION Background and Need for the Regulation The Research and Special Programs Administration’s (RSPA) Office of Pipeline Safety... developing the plans is $50,000 (500 hours X $100 per hour = $50,000). The total industry costs of developing the plans is $6.25 million ($50,000 X 125 companies = $6.25 million). The initial underwater surveys cited above indicated that 2% of all surveyed lines in the Gulf of Mexico were exposed. For purposes of...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8d449.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8d449.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8d449","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-1998-4470-0125/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\n49 CFR Parts 192 and 195\nDocket No. RSPA-97-3001\nRIN 2137-AC54\nPIPELINE SAFETY: PERIODIC UNDERWATER INSPECTIONS\nFINAL REGULATORY EVALUATION AND\nREGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION\nBackground and Need for the Regulation\nThe Research and Special Programs Administration’s (RSPA) Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS) is responsible for ensuring adequate safety and environmental protection for the risks\nposed by the nation’s approximately 2 million miles of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.\nTwice in the late 1980's in the Gulf of Mexico, fishing vessels struck offshore gas pipelines.\nThese incidents resulted in the deaths of 13 fishermen. The National Transportation Safety\nBoard (NTSB) investigation of these incidents cited among the causes the pipeline operators\nfailure to maintain the pipeline at its initial burial depth. Further, NTSB cited RSPA’s failure to\nrequire pipeline operators to inspect and maintain submerged pipelines in a protected condition.\nNTSB recommended that RSPA develop and implement requirements to ensure that pipeline\noperators inspect and maintain submerged pipelines in areas subject to damage by surface\nvessels.\nA joint task force of Federal Agencies was formed to study offshore pipeline issues. The\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nconclusions were similar to those of the NTSB. However, they concluded the problems of\nunderwater buried pipeline were not confined to the Gulf of Mexico.\nThe Congress in 1990, required that operators of offshore pipeline facilities in the Gulf of\nMexico conduct a one-time underwater depth of burial inspection of pipeline facilities and report\nto the Department of Transportation on any exposed portion of pipeline or any pipeline that\nwould pose a hazard to navigation (49 U.S.C. 2002 Sec 203 (1)(A)). On December 5, 1991,\nRSPA required that pipeline operators in the Gulf perform a one-time inspection of underwater\npipelines that could cause a threat to navigation (56 FR 63764). Over 1,560 miles of pipeline in\nthe Gulf of Mexico were inspected. Approximately 25 miles or less than 2% of the inspected\npipeline was reported to be exposed or to be a hazard to navigation.\nCongress also required the Department of Transportation to establish a mandatory,\nsystematic and where appropriate, periodic pipeline inspection and reburial program for all\nshallow water submerged pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1992 Congress expanded the\nrequirement to include all offshore pipelines, underwater abandoned pipeline facilities, and all\nfacilities which cross under, over, or through navigable waters, if the location could pose a\nhazard to navigation (Pub. L. 102-508 (49 U.S.C. 1692(h)(3).\nBenefits\nRSPA believes that the main benefit of this final regulation requiring operators to\ndevelop a procedure that would assess the probability of the pipeline being exposed or a hazard\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nto navigation by taking into account the particular dynamics of the water bottom, including the\nprobability of floatation, scour, erosion and the impacts of a major storm is that it will further\nreduce the amount of exposed pipeline that is underwater either offshore or in navigable\nwaterways and reduce the likelihood to these pipelines being struck by vessels.\nBy requiring the development of a procedure to identify which pipelines offshore or in\nnavigable waterways are subject to becoming exposed, operators will be able to identify problem\npipelines before they become a hazard. OPS acknowledges that indeed most pipeline are\nadequately buried and pose little to no danger to navigation. However, as evidenced by the two\naccidents in the 1980's, that exposed pipelines offshore and in navigable waterways have the\npotential for serious harm to the public. In the proposed rule RSPA chose to regulate pipeline in\nall offshore waterways of the United States and those crossing navigable waterways. Several\ncommenters suggested that RSPA did not demonstrate the need for this reuglation in waterways\noutside of the Gulf of Mexico. RSPA agrees with this argument and is limiting its final rule to\npipelines in the Gulf waterways and its inlets.\nCosts\nAs the above discussion indicates, only a small percentage of pipeline in the Gulf appears\nto pose a threat to navigation. OPS spoke with several safety officials from pipeline operators\nwho had both hazardous liquid and gas pipelines that was offshore. All the operators who were\ncontacted confirmed that they periodically inspect their pipelines offshore waterways to ensure\nthat it does not pose a threat to navigation. One operator did suggest that they did not have a\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nformal procedure on underwater inspection. However, after further conversation he conceded\nthat the engineering department did have a procedure for inspection of these pipelines. All the\npipeline operators readily admitted that they knew which pipelines were more likely to be subject\nto scour. Scour is the erosion of the seabed that covers buried underwater pipeline. In light of\nthese conversations, OPS believes while operators likely have written procedures for performing\ninspections they may not have written procedures for determining the likelihood (risk\nassessment) for pipelines being exposed. They may rely more on an intuitive sense of which\npipelines are subject to problems. Furthermore, even if operators have written procedures it is\nvery likely they will need to review the adequacy of these procedures in light of a proposed\nRSPA regulation.\nOPS data suggests that there are approximately 50 hazardous liquid and 75 gas\ntransmission operators that may be subject to this proposed rule. However, some of the pipeline\nmileage may not be subject to this proposed rule as some pipeline may be in water of greater\nthan 15 feet. Some operators have less than 1 mile of pipeline that may be subject to this\nproposal while other operators may have hundreds of miles.\nFor those companies with considerable mileage that would be subject to regulation, the\nprocess of developing a formal written procedure could take a lot of time. However, as stated\nabove it is likely that these operators already have procedures for inspection of these pipelines.\nNonetheless, OPS estimates that this proposal will take an operator 1/4 person year (500 hours)\nto review the proposed regulation and ensure that its procedures meet those mandated by RSPA.\nIf the loaded wage for this employee is estimated at $100 per hour, the cost per company of\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\ndeveloping the plans is $50,000 (500 hours X $100 per hour = $50,000). The total industry\ncosts of developing the plans is $6.25 million ($50,000 X 125 companies = $6.25 million).\nThe initial underwater surveys cited above indicated that 2% of all surveyed lines in the Gulf of\nMexico were exposed. For purposes of analysis, OPS estimates that 5 times the 2% of pipelines\nthat were estimated to be exposed in the initial survey could be subject to scour and potentially\nbecome exposed. Therefore, periodic inspection would be conducted annually. If 10% of\ncompanies have pipelines subject to scour this is approximately 13 companies per year that\nwould perform annual underwater inspections.\nAccording to operators and companies that perform this type of inspection the costs\ngenerally range from $10,000 to $20,000 per inspection. If a mid point estimate of $15,000 is\nused the cost of inspection annually to the entire industry is $195,000 (13 X $15,000 =\n$195,000). Therefore, total initial cost is $6.25 million for plan development and $195,000\nannually for periodic inspection.\nSome commenters to the proposed rule suggested that RSPA underestimated the costs to he\nproposal by not counting reburial costs. RSPA disagrees with this conclusion because\nif an operator finds that the pipeline is uncovered they are already required to bury that pipeline.\nSome commenters were concerned with the potential impact on gas distribution operators. By\nlimiting the final rule to the Gulf waters and its inlets no gas distribution pipelines will come\nunder this regulation.\nConclusion\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nWhile exposed underwater pipelines do not appear to pose a daily threat to public safety,\nthe incidents that occurred in the 1980's show the devastating potential for harm and resulting\nloss of life should vessels strike and rupture them. The Office of Pipeline Safety believes that\nthe benefits of protecting the public from these potential catastrophic incidents outweighs the\ncosts of this final rule.\nRegulatory Flexibility Certification\nThe costs of this final rule are relatively minor to pipeline operators. As discussed above,\nthe costs are a one-time cost of $50,000 for developing a risk-management based plan to\nexamine the potential for buried underwater pipeline to become exposed and a cost of $15,000\nper inspection (for the 10% of operators who will be required to inspect their pipelines annually).\nMost if not all small pipeline operators that are regulation by RSPA are gas distribution\noperators. By limiting the final rule to pipelines in Gulf waters and its inlets all gas distribution\noperators are eliminated from coverage of this requirement. Therefore the Office of Pipeline\nSafety believes few if any small pipeline operators will be impacted by this rule. The Office of\nPipeline Safety does not believe that these costs will pose an undue burden to any pipeline\noperator. Based upon the above analysis I certify under Section 605 of the Regulatory\nFlexibility Act that this proposed rule will not have significant impact on a substantial number of\nsmall entities.","truncated":false,"body_characters":9617}