{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e8f830","title":"U.S. DOT/RSPA - Draft Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"49 CFR Part 195 [Docket No. RSPA-97-27171 - 9 Draft Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment Pipeline Safety: Recommendations to Change Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Backmound The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) is proposing to change some of its regulations regarding hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. These... costs This section will discuss the costs of adopting these five changes. 1) 195.222 Welders: Oualification of Welders. RSPA believes there will be little additional cost of this amendment as this is already the general practice in the gas pipeline industry. Additionally, RSPA is adopting ASME B3 1.4 which is itself an...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8f830.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8f830.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8f830","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-1997-2717-0009/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n49 CFR Part 195\n[Docket No. RSPA-97-27171 - 9\nDraft Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment\nPipeline Safety: Recommendations to Change Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards\nBackmound\nThe Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) is proposing to change some of its\nregulations regarding hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. These changes are based on\nrecommendations from the National Association of State Pipeline Representatives (NAPSR).\nNAPSR is a non-profit association of officials from state agencies that participate with RSPA in\nthe Federal pipeline safety regulatory program.\nNeed for the repulation\nAnnually NAPSR meets and discusses safety and administrative concerns of state pipeline\nofficials. Following NAPSR’s comprehensive review of gas pipeline safety standards in 49 CFR\nPart 192, (4 recommendations were proposed and adopted, 65 FR 15290: March 22,2000) RSPA\nasked NAPSR to perform a similar review of hazard liquid pipeline regulations found in 49 CFR\nPart 195. The purpose of the review was to identify regulations that were unclear or hard to\nenforce. NAPSR’s report can be found in the docket. The report made 30 different\nrecommendations.\nEighteen recommendations have previously been adopted. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nproposes to adopt 5 additional recommendations.\nAlternatives\nRSPA considered 2 alternative scenarios. First, the status quo alternative or do not adopt any\nNAPSR recommendations. Second, adopt the NAPSR recommendations which will clarify Part\n195 making the regulations clearer and more easily enforceable. RSPA chose the second\naltemative as it felt that modifying 5 separate sections in Part 195 at virtually no cost would\nclarify the intent of these sections, make them more enforceable with minimal additional burden\nto industry and the public.\nBenefits\nThis section will describe the benefits of the 5 recommendations chosen for adoption.\n1) 195.222 Welders: Oualification of Welders.\nThis recommendation suggests a requirement that welders who do not engage in a particular\nwelding process for a period of 6 months or more, must be requalified. This recommendation is\nidentical to American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B3 1.4. This 6 month provision\nis already required for welders on gas pipelines (49 CFR 192.229(b). This proposed requirement\nwill bring the welding requirements of hazardous liquid operators to the same standard as\nwelders on gas pipelines.\n2) 195.252 Backfilling.\nThis recommendation suggests that the hazardous liquid requirements for backfilling 195.252 be\nreplaced by a regulation identical to the backfilling requirement found in 192.319(b) which\nspecifically states that pipe and coating are not to be damaged by either the backfilling equipment\nor material. RSPA believes that this proposed requirement is merely a clarification but may\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\npotentially increase safety as inspections have shown that poor quality backfill could lead to\ndents and gouges on the pipeline.\n3) 195.3 10 Hydrostatic Testing\nThis recommendation suggests that hydrostatic test reports must include the temperature of the\ntest medium or pipe. RSPA agrees that temperature data are an important consideration in\ndetermining the validity of a hydrostatic test. A pressure rise due to an increase in temperature\ncould hide the indication of a small leak. It is necessary to mathematically account for any\ntemperature-related pressure change to ensure the absence of leaks during the test.\n4) 195.403 Training.\nThis recommendation suggests a requirement to amend the training required for personnel to\nevaluate and respond to fire emergencies to clarify specifically what training is needed. This\nproposed requirement requires that emergency response training include basic evaluation of fire\nhazards and the appropriate use of portable fire extinguishers and other on-site fire control\nequipment. The regulation that this proposal updates required training in “the proper use of\nfirefighting procedures and equipment, fire suits and breathing apparatus.” This earlier standard\nis unclear regarding the level of training required. The terms “fire suit” and “breathing\napparatus’ are ambiguous. RSPA sees this proposal as a clarification.\n5 ) 195.434 Sims.\nThis recommendation suggests a clarification that the emergency telephone number on signs at\npump stations and breakout tank areas be a number where the operator is always available.\nNAPSR stated that some emergency numbers were not answered at all times.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\ncosts\nThis section will discuss the costs of adopting these five changes.\n1) 195.222 Welders: Oualification of Welders.\nRSPA believes there will be little additional cost of this amendment as this is already the general\npractice in the gas pipeline industry. Additionally, RSPA is adopting ASME B3 1.4 which is\nitself an industry standard that is well known and commonly followed in the hazardous liquid\npipeline industry. Therefore, RSPA believes that the practice concerning welders in the gas\npipeline industry is also followed by the hazardous liquid pipeline industry.\n2) 195.252 Backfilling.\nRSPA believes that this change will cause no additional costs to the public or industry as it is\nmerely a clarification that states that pipe and coating are not to be damaged by either the\nbackfilling equipment of material. This is already the general practice in the hazardous liquid\npipeline industry and adopts exactly the requirement of the gas pipeline industry.\n3) 195.310 Hydrostatic Test Records. RSPA believes that the cost of this requirement should be\nminimal as operators already routinely measure temperature during the hydrostatic test. This\nrequirement merely requires the operator to keep this temperature recording with its other test\nrecords.\n4) 195.403 Training;. RSPA believes that this requirement is also simply a clarification that\nfocuses emergency response training away from fire suits and breathing apparatus to focus on the\nbasics of fire hazard evaluation and the use of fire extinguishers and other on-site equipment.\nBecause this requirement clarifies the training needs of personnel there is no additional costs to\nthis change.\n5 ) 195.434 Sirms. RSPA believes that this requirement states that the emergency signs at\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nbreakout tanks and pump stations must have an operator available to answer the phone at all\ntimes. All operators have emergency operators available, this requirement just ensures that the\nappropriate telephone number is written on the emergency signs. Therefore, this change should\nhave no additional costs.\nConclusion\nOPS has analyzed this proposal and found that the none of the changes proposed will have an\nadverse consequence on costs to operators or safety to the general public. Rather, the updating of\nand the clarification of pipeline safety regulations has the potential for enhanced public safety.\nRePulatorv Flexibility Certification\nBased upon the above information showing that the economic impact of this rule will be\nminimal, as they merely clarify the regulations and adopt general industry practices, I certify\nunder Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this regulation will not have a significant\nimpact on a substantial number of small entities.","truncated":false,"body_characters":7322}