RegulusPipeline research0900006480e8f832
Page 1DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0' L PCT ? I f 6 l i i 5 j 9: 1 3 RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION 49 CFR Part 195 [Docket No. RSPA-97-27171 - Draft Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment Pipeline Safety: Recommendations to Change Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standai ds Backwound The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) is proposing to change some of it,; regulations regarding hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. These changes are based on recommendations from the National Association of State Pipeline Representatives (NAPSR). NAPSR is a non-profit association of officials from state agencies that participate with RSPA in the Federal pipeline safety regulatory program. Need for the regulation - Annually NAPSR meets and discusses safety and administrative concerns of state pipeline officials. Following NAPSR's comprehensive review of gas pipeline safety standards in 49 C FR Part 192, (4 recommendations were proposed and adopted, 65 FR 15290: March 22,2000) R$,PA asked NAPSR to perform a similar review of hazard liquid pipeline regulations found in 49 C FR Part 195. The purpose of the review was to identify regulations that were unclear or hard to enforce. NAPSR's report can be found in the docket. The report made 30 different recommendations. Eighteen recommendations have previously been adopted. This Notice of Proposed Rulemak ing#
Page 2proposes to adopt 5 additional recommendations. Alternatives RSPA considered 2 alternative scenarios. First, the status quo alternative or do not adopt any NAPSR recommendations. Second, adopt the NAPSR recommendations which will clarify Pa 2 195 making the regulations clearer and more easily enforceable. RSPA chose the second alternative as it felt that modifying 5 separate sections in Part 195 at virtually no cost would clarify the intent of these sections, make them more enforceable with minimal additional burdc :n to industry and the public. Benefits This section will describe the benefits of the 5 recommendations chosen for adoption. 1) 195.222 Welders: Qualification of Welders. This recommendation suggests a requirement that welders who do not engage in a particular welding process for a period of 6 months or more, must be requalified. This recommendation is identical to American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B3 1.4. This 6 month provis ion is already required for welders on gas pipelines (49 CFR 192.229(b). This proposed requirem ent will bring the welding requirements of hazardous liquid operators to the same standard as welders on gas pipelines. 2) 195.252 Backfilling. This recommendation suggests that the hazardous liquid requirements for backfilling 195.252 be replaced by a regulation identical to the backfilling requirement found in 192.3 19(b) which specifically states that pipe and coating are not to be damaged by either the backfilling equipment or material. RSPA believes that this proposed requirement is merely a clarification but may#
Page 3potentially increase safety as inspections have shown that poor quality backfill could lead to dents and gouges on the pipeline. 3) 195.3 10 Hydrostatic Testing This recommendation suggests that hydrostatic test reports must include the temperature of th ; test medium or pipe. RSPA agrees that temperature data are an important consideration in determining the validity of a hydrostatic test. A pressure rise due to an increase in temperaturt could hide the indication of a small leak. It is necessary to mathematically account for any temperature-related pressure change to ensure the absence of leaks during the test. 4) 195.403 Training. This recommendation suggests a requirement to amend the training required for personnel to evaluate and respond to fire emergencies to clarify specifically what training is needed, This proposed requirement requires that emergency response training include basic evaluation of fire hazards and the appropriate use of portable fire extinguishers and other on-site fire control equipment. The regulation that this proposal updates required training in “the proper use of firefighting procedures and equipment, fire suits and breathing apparatus.” This earlier standiird is unclear regarding the level of training required. The terms “fire suit” and “breathing apparatus’ are ambiguous. RSPA sees this proposal as a clarification. 5 ) 195.434 Signs. This recommendation suggests a clarification that the emergency telephone number on signs :it pump stations and breakout tank areas be a number where the operator is always available. NAPSR stated that some emergency numbers were not answered at all times.#
Page 4costs 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 gene] a1 practice in the gas pipeline industry. Additionally, RSPA is adopting ASME B3 1.4 which is itself an industry standard that is well known and commonly followed in the hazardous liquid pipeline industry. Therefore, RSPA believes that the practice concerning welders in the gas pipeline industry is also followed by the hazardous liquid pipeline industry. 2) 195.252 Backfilling. RSPA believes that this change will cause no additional costs to the public or industry as it is merely a clarification that states that pipe and coating are not to be damaged by either the backfilling equipment of material. This is already the general practice in the hazardous liquid pipeline industry and adopts exactly the requirement of the gas pipeline industry. 3) 195.310 Hvdrostatic Test Records. RSPA believes that the cost of this requirement should be minimal as operators already routinely measure temperature during the hydrostatic test. This requirement merely requires the operator to keep this temperature recording with its other test records. 4) 195.403 Training. RSPA believes that this requirement is also simply a clarification that focuses emergency response training away from fire suits and breathing apparatus to focus on the basics of fire hazard evaluation and the use of fire extinguishers and other on-site equipment. Because this requirement clarifies the training needs of personnel there is no additional costs to this change. 5) 195.434 Signs. RSPA believes that this requirement states that the emergency signs at#
Page 5breakout tanks and pump stations must have an operator available to answer the phone at all times. All operators have emergency operators available, this requirement just ensures that the appropriate telephone number is written on the emergency signs. Therefore, this change shoull 1 have no additional costs. Conclusion OPS has analyzed this proposal and found that the none of the changes proposed will have an adverse consequence on costs to operators or safety to the general public. Rather, the updatinil of and the clarification of pipeline safety regulations has the potential for enhanced public safety. Regulatorv Flexibilie Certification Based upon the above information showing that the economic impact of this rule will be minimal, as they merely clarify the regulations and adopt general industry practices, I certify under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this regulation will not have a signific ant 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.