U.S. DOT/RSPA - Environmental Assessment - Pipeline Safety: Recommendations to Change Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards

Page 1DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration Ci< C"T 1 6 9: 14 Environmental Assessment 49 CFR 195 [Docket No. RSPA-97-27171 - 3 Pipeline Safety: Recommendations to Change Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards I. Description of the Action This environmental assessment concems a proposed regulation that the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) is proposing to change some of its 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. 11. Need for the Action Annually NAPSR meets and discusses safety and administrative concems 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) RSPA 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#

Page 2recommendations. Eighteen recommendations have previously been adopted. This Notice of Proposed Rulemakii lg proposes to adopt 5 additional recommendations. 111. 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 Parl. 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 and with minimal additional burden to industry and the public. IV. The Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Action The affected environment is the entire United States. This section will describe the benefits of 1 he 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 s identical to American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B3 1.4. This 6 month provision is already required for welders on gas pipelines (49 CFR 192.229(b). This proposed requirement will bring the welding requirements of hazardous liquid operators to the same standard as welclers on gas pipelines. 2) 195.252 Backfillin% This recommendation suggests that the hazardous liquid requirements for backfilling 195.252 Ibe#

Page 3replaced 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 equipme it or material. RSPA believes that this proposed requirement is merely a clarification but may potentially 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 the 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 temperature 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 fir ,: 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 standa .d 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.#

Page 4This recommendation suggests a clarification that the emergency telephone number on signs at 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. There are no environmental consequences of these actions as they only amend current regulatioi 1s by clarifying their intent and making them more enforceable. V. List of Contacts RSPA will solicit public comment on this EA. No comments have been solicited from the pub: ic prior to this date. VI. Conclusion Based on the above considerations, RSPA has determined that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this action.#