Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 1991 / Proposed Rules

of PCBs. Environmental Toxin Series,Vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,Heidelberg, 1987, pages 49-75.

9. Hansen, L.G. EnvironmentalToxicology of PolychlorinatedBiphenyls. Environmental Toxin Series,Vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,Heidelberg, 1987, pages 15-48.

10. Lilienthal, H., et al. BehavioralEffects of Pre- and Postnatal Exposureto a Mixture of Low Chlorinated PCBs inRats. Fundamental and AppliedToxicology. 15, 457-467 (1990).

Dated: May 13, 1991.Victor 1. Kimm,Acting Assistant Administrator for Pesticidesand Toxic Sbbstances[FR Doc. 91-12013 Filed 5-21-91; 8:45 am]BLUNG CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special ProgramsAdministration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-117, Notice 2]

Transportation of a Hazardous LiquidIn Pipelines Operating at 20 Percent orLess of Specified Minimum YieldStrength

AGENCY: Research and Special ProgramsAdministration (RSPA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: In Notice I of this proceeding,RSPA requested public comment on theneed to regulate the safety of hazardousliquid pipelines operated at 20 percentor less of specified minimum yieldstrength (SMYS). Now the AssociateAdministrator for Pipeline Safetyannounces that he will inviterepresentatives of industry andgovernment who have expressed astrong interest in this proceeding todiscuss relevant issues or questionsraised by Notice 1. The meeting will beopen to the public and a transcript of themeeting will be placed in the docket.DATES: The meeting will be held on June17, 1991, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held inthe Russell Senate Office Building,Room 253, Delaware Avenue andConstitution Avenue, NE., Washington,DC. The transcript of the meeting will beavailable for inspection and copying inRoom 8419, NASSIF Building, 400Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC20590. (Office hours are 8:30 to 5 p.m.,Monday through Friday, except publicholidays.)FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.G. Joseph Wolf, (202) 368-4560.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thefederal pipeline safety standards in part195 governing the transportation ofhazardous liquids by pipeline do notapply to pipelines operating at 20percent or less of specified minimumyield strength of the pipe (§ 195.1(b)(3)).Following a serious accident involvingone of these low-stress pipelines, RSPApublished an advance notice ofproposed rulemaking on the need toapply the part 195 regulations to theselines (Notice 1; 55 FR 45822; October 31,1990).

The comments we received on NoticeI show a divergence of opinion aboutthe extent to which pipelines operatedat 20 percent or less of SMYS should beregulated. To help clarify and narrowthe issues involved, the AssociateAdministrator for Pipeline Safety willinvite representatives of industry andgovernment who have expressed astrong interest in this proceeding to meetto discuss Notice 1. The meeting will beconducted as a roundtable forum.

Anticipated participants will berepresentatives of the petroleum andchemical Industries, including theAmerican Petroleum Institute, theAssociation of Oil Pipelines, theIndependent Liquid TerminalsAssociation, and the ChemicalManufacturers Association. Otherinvitees will include the NationalResources Defense Council andrepresentatives of state agencies,including the National Association ofPipeline Safety Representatives. Also,Congressional staff having an interest inthis rulemaking will be invited toparticipate in the meeting.

Anticipated items to be discussed atthis meeting include, but are not limitedto, the following:-Description of pipelines affected.-Operating characteristics of pipelines

operated at 20 percent or less ofSMYS.

-Description of the current oversight ofaffected pipelines unregulated byOPS.

-Other federal or state regulationsapplicable to affected pipelines.

-Accident history of affected pipelines.-- Cost to bring affected pipelines into

compliance with part 195.-Additional cost to operate pipelines in

compliance with part 195.-General comments.

Interested persons who do not receivean invitation to participate in themeeting may be seated or stand in theaudience to the extent space isavailable. Such persons will have anopportunity to participate in thediscussion only upon approval of thechair. Additional procedures for the

conduct of the meeting may beestablished at the meeting.

(49 App. U.S.C. 2002; 49 CFR 1.53 and App. Ato part 106)

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 1991.Richard L. Beam,Acting Associate Administratorfor PipelineSafety.[FR Doc. 91-12178 Filed 5-21-91; 8:45 am]13LUNO CODE 4910- M-

Research and Special Program-

Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-121; Notice 1]

RIN 2137-AB 46

Hydrostatic Testing of CertainHazardous Liquid and Carbon DioxidePipelines

AGENCY: Research and Special ProgramsAdministration (RSPA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this notice RSPA proposesto extend hydrostatic testing or thealternative reduction in maximumoperating pressure to all hazardousliquid steel pipelines where maximumoperating pressure has not beenestablished in accordance with therequirements of 49 CFR part 195. Theproposal would establish an adequatemargin of safety for all untested and allinadequately tested interstatehazardous liquid pipelines constructedprior to January 8, 1971, and intrastatehazardous liquid pipelines constructedprior to October 21, 1985. Accidentshave occurred on these pipelines thatmight have been avoided had anadequate safety margin beenestablished between the maximum.operating pressure and a test pressure.Requiring an adequate margin of safetyby hydrostatic testing or reduction inmaximum operating pressure wouldminimize future failures on thesecurrently untested or inadequately

* tested pipelines. Additionally, thisnotice proposes to extend the samerequirements for an adequate margin ofsafety to carbon dioxide pipelines thatare required for hazardous liquidpipelines. This is consistent with section211 of the Pipeline SafetyReauthorization Act of 1988.DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit written comments in duplicateby July 22, 1991. Late filed commentswill be considered to the extentpracticable. Interested persons shouldsubmit as part of their written commentsall the material that is considered

23538

Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 99 1 Wednesday, May 22, 1991 / Proposed Rules

relevant to any statement of fact orargument made.AODRESSES' Send comments to theDockets Unit, room 8417, Office ofPipeline Safety (OPS), Research andSpecial Programs Administration, U.S.Department of Transportation, 400Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC20590. Identify the docket and noticenumbers stated in the heading of thisnotice. All comments and materialscited in this document will be availablein the docket for inspection and copyingin room 8419 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.each working day. Non-Federalemployee visitors are admitted to theDOT headquarters building through thesouthwest quadrant at Seventh and EStreets.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Albert C. Garnett, (202) 368-2036,regarding the subject matter of thisnotice, or Dockets Unit (202) 366-4453,for copies of this notice or other materialin the docket.SUPPIEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Hydrostatic testing is a generallyrecognized method of demonstrating theintegrity of newly constructed andexisting pipelines. The purpose of thehydrostatic test required by the pipelinesafety regulations is to ensure that thepipeline has the necessary strength tofunction as designed and is free ofcritical size imperfections (defects),which will cause the line to leak orrupture under service conditions. Thosedefects have their origin inmanufacturing, or in conditionssubsequently initiated duringtransportation of the pipe, or duringconstruction or operation of the pipeline.Notwithstanding, the pipeline safetyregulations do not permit hydrostatictesting to replace the nondestructivetesting requirements for welds insubpart D of part 195.

If no failure occurs during thehydrostatic test, it shows that thepipeline contains no defects that arecritical within the pressure range andduration of the test. Moreover, testing toa level above a pipeline's maximumoperating pressure (MOP) establishes aproven margin of safety against futurefailures resulting from the growth ofdefects. Part 195, subpart E requires thatthe minimum pressure for testing apipeline be 125 percent of the MOP. This125 percent relationship of test pressureto MOP was initially established in thepipeline safety regulations for interstatepipelines effective January 8,1971. The125 percent relationship of test pressureto maximum operating pressureoriginated in the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers Code B31.4 for"Liquid Petroleum Transportation PipingSystems" (1966 edition). Line piperesearch reported by the American GasAssociation/Battelle (Columbus)contained in "Study Of Feasibility OfBasing Natural Gas Pipeline OperatingPressure On Hydrostatic Test Pressure,"page 3 (February 1968); "5th SymposiumOn Line Pipe Research," page M-25(November 1974); and "7th Symposiumon Line Pipe Research," page 15-3(October 1988) demonstrated that aminimum relationship (margin of safety)of hydrostatic test pressure to MOP of125 percent is adequate to protectagainst future failures. The permanenceof the margin of safety depends on theproperties of the pipe, the operatingconditions, the maintenance procedures,the protective coatings, and theenvironmental conditions.

At the same time that the hydrostatictest verifies the integrity of the pipelineby causing critical defects to fail, it maycause subcritical size imperfections togrow. When such defect growth occurs,it may cause failures during subsequenthydrostatic testing cycles at lowerpressures than previously attained.However, such failures, termed pressurereversals, are infrequent. Therefore, itshould not be presumed that repeatedhydrostatic testing and subsequentdefect growth reduce the safety of thepipeline. Although defect growth leadingto failure can occur during hydrostatictesting, research reported by Battelle(Columbus) in the January 7, 1985,edition of "Oil & Gas Journal," page 94,states that the pressure reversalphenomenon is not of great concernprovided that the minimum margin ofsafety between test pressure and MOPrequired by the current regulations ismaintained.

The origination of defects and theirgrowth in service are a much greaterconcern than defect growth duringhydrostatic testing. Because untested orinadequately tested pipelines maycontain defects that have not beendetected by hydrostatic testing, thesepipelines are more vulnerable to defectgrowth in service than properly testedpipelines. The origination or growth ofdefects while a pipeline is in operationmay be caused by corrosion, creep,fatigue and external damage and mayresult in a leak or rupture. Therefore,these untested or inadequately testedpipelines are also more vulnerable tofailures in service.

Untested pipelines and pipelinestested to lower pressures than required

'by the regulations have no provenmargin of safety or a lower margin ofsafety than pipelines tested incompliance with the current regulations.

Because the proven margin of safety isless for pipelines that have not beentested in compliance with § 195.302(c),there is a greater possibility, than forproperly tested pipelines, that pre-existing defects that have not grown willbe stressed to a level that will causefailure during certain permittedoverpressuring of the pipeline. Thispotential for failure is prevalent in olderpipelines made of electric resistancewelded (ERW) pipe. Hydrostatic testingin compliance with § 195.302(c) willeliminate such defects from causingfailure within the limits of the MOP(§ 195.406(a)) and of overpressure fromsurges or other variations (§ 195.406(b)).

Additionally, the regulations in part195, subpart E require that each newsteel pipeline system and each part ofan existing steel pipeline system that isreplaced or relocated (not includingcertain pipe movement under § 199.424)must be qualified for use by hydrostatictesting. Section 195.302(c) requirestesting to at least 1.25 times the intendedMOP for not less than 4 continuoushours, and if the pipeline is not visuallyinspected for leakage during test, furthertesting to at least 1.10 times MOP for atleast an additional 4 continuous hours.These regulations became effectiveJanuary 8, 1971 and September 8,1980,for new interstate pipelines, andOctober 21, 1985, for new intrastatepipelines.

Except for the onshore highly volatileliquid (HVL) pipelines discussed below,part 195 does not require that the MOPof hazardous liquid pipelinesconstructed before the above effectivedates (and not subsequently replaced orrelocated) be based on a priorhydrostatic test. For these pipelines,there may be little or no proven marginof safety to offset potential defectgrowth in service.

On September 8,1980, DOT publishedregulations requiring untested orinadequately tested onshore interstateHVL pipelines constructed beforeJanuary 8,1971, and in HVL servicebefore September 8,1980, to be eitherqualified by hydrostatic testing during a5-year period concluding September 14,1985, in.accordance with § 195.302(c), ornot operated at more than 80 percent ofany documented prior hydrostatic testor highest operating pressure held for 4or more continuous hours in accordancewith § 195.408(a)(5). Reducing MOP to 80percent or less of a prior documentedtest or operating pressure held for atleast 4 continuous hours provides aminimum 25 percent safety marginbetween MOP and test pressure whichis equivalent to the margin provided byhydrostatic testing under I 195.302(c)

23539

Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 1991 / Proposed Rules

(Amendment 195-17; 45 FR 59161,September 8, 1980) (§ 195.302(b)).

A similar requirement tohydrostatically test or reduce the MOPof existing onshore intrastate HVLpipelines has been implemented duringa 5-year period concluding April 22, 1990(Amdt. 195-33; 50 FR 15895, April 23,1985) (§ 195.302(b)).

Accident Record of HVL Pipelines

Of all the untested or inadequatelytested hazardous liquid pipelines, DOTinitially required testing or reduction inMOP of onshore HVL pipelines(§ 195.302(b)) because these pipelinesposed higher risks of severe accidentsthan other pipelines due primarily to thenature of the product they transport.Operators were required to eitherreduce the MOP within I year followingpublication of the final rule or completethe hydrostatic testing within 5 years.During the 52-month period followingthe completion of the hydrostatic testingprogram for onshore interstate HALpipelines, the reported accident datashow a marked improvement inoperational safety.

For the period from January 1, 1968(the earliest data available) until thestart of the test period on September 8,1980, the average accident rate foronshore interstate HVL pipelines(tested, untested and inadequatelytested) due to defective pipe, defectivewelds and corrosion was 10.9 a year.The mandatory test period concludedSeptember 14, 1985, and for thesubsequent period from September 15,1985, through December 31, 1989, theaverage failure rate for this category ofHVL interstate pipelines (now allassumed to be in compliance with§ 195302(b) by testing or reduction inMOP) due to the same causes was only3.5 failures per year. Thus the statisticsdeveloped after the 5-year testing periodshow a 68 percent drop in thecorresponding failure rate. OPS believesthat such a dramatic drop after therequired testing period represents thebenefits of the rule requiring eitherhydrostatic testing or reduction in MOPto current requirements.

Need to Hydrostatically Test or Reducethe MOP of Other Hazardous LiquidPipelines

In view of the positive results of therule requiring hydrostatic testing orreduction of MOP of untested orinadequately tested onshore interstateHVL pipelines, OPS has examined theaccident data available for non-HVLhazardous liquid pipelines. Theseinclude both interstate and intrastate,.unshore and offshore pipelines carryingpetroleum and petroleum products that

are not HVL. Because the accidentreporting requirements for Intrastatehazardous liquid pipelines did not takeeffect until October 21, 1985, data forthese pipelines are not available prior tothat date.

OPS's statistics for the period October21, 1985, through December 31, 1989, forall untested non-HVL steel pipelinesshow that 149 accidents were reportedto have been caused by failed welds,failed pipe, and corrosion during this4.2-year period. For accident reportssubmitted with incomplete hydrostatictest data (part H of DOT Form 70d0-1),OPS assumes that a hydrostatic testmeeting part 195 requirements had notbeen performed. It should be noted thata report of an accident on a non-HVLpipeline is only required where there isan explosion or unintentional fire,injuries or deaths, where the propertydamage exceeds $5,000, or where thespillage is 50 or more barrels of liquid.Therefore, the above statistics do notrepresent all the non-HVL accidentscaused by defective pipe, defectivewelds and corrosion which occurredduring this period, just those that metthe minimum reporting requirements.

OPS has completed a technical reporttitled "Electric Resistance Weld PipeFailures on Hazardous Liquid and GasTransmission Pipelines" addressing thesafety and reliability of electricresistance weld (ERW) pipe. The reportindicates that there have been 172failures on hazardous liquid pipelinesduring 1968-1988 involving longitudinalseam splits. About 98 percent of thesefailures were on pre-1970 ERW pipe.These were caused by seam defects,such as lack of fusion, low toughness,hook cracks, stitching, excessivehardness, and selective seam corrosion.

Because of the unique problempresented by ERW seams on many olderpipelines, RSPA is proposing that ERWpipe manufactured prior to 1970 be givenpriority in scheduling hydrostatic teststhat are conducted as a result of thisrulemaking. Under this proposal, testingof pipelines known to have more than 50percent by mileage of pre-1970 ERWpipe would have to be completed within4.5 years after a final rule is published.

The following are accounts of a fewsignificant reported accidents involvingnon-HVL pipelines that were nothydrostatically tested or not tested inthe manner set forth in § 195.302(c):

On May 19, 1986, an 8-inch ERWinterstate fuel oil pipeline, which wasconstructed in 1957, failed in Minnesota.The operator reported that the pipeline'soperating pressure at the time of thefailure was about 89 percent of theMOP. It was also reported that 628barrels (26,376 gallons) of fuel oil were

spilled, with.596 barrels (25,032 gallons)lost into the environment. The operator.attributed the failure to a defect in an -ERW longitudinal seam, and reportedthat the pipeline had not been qualified-for service by a hydrostatic test.

On December 24, 1988, a 22-inch ERWinterstate crude oil pipeline, which wasconstructed in 1949, ruptured in Maries(Vienna County), Missouri, leaving a49'-5" opening in the longitudinal seam.The operator reported that the pressureat the location of the pipe failure at thetime of the rupture was about 88 percentof the MOP and 91 percent of themaximum test pressure. It was alsoreported that 20,554 barrels (863,268gallons) of crude oil were spilled fromthe rupture, with 9,054 barrels (380,268gallons) lost into the environment. Theoperator attributed the pipe rupture toan operational error in switching to aconnecting pipeline resulting in apressure surge of about 88 percent of theMOP, which initiated the ERW seamsplit at a manufacturing defect known asa hook crack. Most of the crude oilflowed into a tributary of the GasconadeRiver, and much of that oil eventuallyflowed into the Missouri and Mississippirivers. Although there were no deaths orinjuries reported, the operator estimatedproperty damage (including cost ofunrecovered crude oil, damage to otherparties, and cost of cleanup) to beapproximately $14,000,000. It is to benoted that during the subsequenthydrostatic testing to establish an MOPaccording to current requirements ofpart 195, there have been numerousfailures in the longitudinal seams of theERW pipe.

On January 24, 1989, a 20-inch ERWinterstate crude oil pipeline, which wasconstructed in 1948, ruptured in WinklerCounty, Texas, leaving a 13 -foot longopening in the longitudinal seam. Theoperator reported that the pipeline'soperating pressure at the time of therupture was about 96 percent of thereported MOP. It was also reported that23,534 barrels (988,428 gallons) of crudeoil were spilled from the rupture, with17,685 barrels (742,770 gallons) lost intothe environment. The operatorattributed the rupture to a hook crack inthe longitudinal seam, and reported thatthe pipeline had not beenhydrostatically tested in the mannerpart 195 requires. Although there wereno deaths or injuries reported, theoperator estimated property damage(including cost of unrecovered crude oil,damage to other parties, and cost ofcleanup) to be approximately $312,000.In this accident, the pipeline pumps* reportedly were shut down in about 8.minutes, but crude oil continued to drain

• I23540

Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 1991 / Proposed Rules

from the rupture because approximately19 miles of the pipeline were at a higherelevation. The pipeline will be operatedat a reduced MOP until it ishydrostatically tested, after which anew MOP will be established at 80percent of the hydrostatic test pressure.

In addition to the estimated damagesreported by the operator, there may beother costs. The cost of environmentaldamage is not specifically required to bereported, and thus may not have beenincluded in the estimates of propertydamage.. Furthermore, there is the potential for

serious consequences to persons in theproximity of hazardous liquid pipelinefailures. For example, on October 7,1986, a failure occurred in a 14-inch non-HVL hazardous liquid interstate pipelinenear King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Aspill of approximately 5,250 barrels(220,500 gallons) of gasoline resulted inevacuation of a major shopping centerand closing a section of thePennsylvania Turnpike. This failure wasattributed to an improper weldingprocedure (probably exacerbated bybending stresses) on a repair sleeve thathad been installed less than a monthearlier. Fortunately, there were nodeaths or injuries. However, theresulting evacuation, the closing of amajor highway, and the reportedunrecovered loss of 1,942 barrels (81,564gallons) of gasoline into theenvironment, illustrate the potentialharm that can occur from a failure in anon-HVL hazardous liquid pipeline.

The four pipeline failures discussedabove that occurred within a 32-monthtime interval have resulted in the non-HVL spillage of 49,966 barrels (2,098,572gallons) of which 29,277 barrels(1,229,634 gallons), or about 59 percent,were never recovered. Those significantspills occurred in four widely separatedregions of the country and in thepipeline systems of four majoroperators. Thus, these failures were notconfined to conditions occurring only ina limited geographic area or restricted toa specific pipeline system. Hazardousliquid spills of such magnitude have thepotential to cause an accident ofcalamitous consequences to persons andproperty. Additionally, spillage of theselarge quantities of petroleum liquids cancreate major environmental problemsfor land surfaces and waterways.

Additional Benefits

Besides protecting against failuresover the long term due to latent materialand construction defects, hydrostatictesting of existing pipelines can havemore immediate safety benefits. Forexample, flaws that may have occurredfrom excavation damage ("dig-ins") to

in-service pipelines might be detected.In addition, some pipelines may havedeveloped wall thinning fromundetected corrosion during their yearsof service. For the 4.2-year period fromOctober 21, 1985, through December 31,1989, thern were 116 failures reported tohave been caused by corrosion in theseuntested or inadequately tested non-HVL pipelines. Similar corroded areaswould be likely to rupture duringhydrostatic testing, thus preventingpotential in-service accidents. Moreover,OPS anticipates that when sections ofpipeline are removed from service andprepared for hydrostatic testing,operators will use the opportunity toinspect the exposed pipe for evidence ofdeteriorated coating and externalcorrosion. Further, operators mayperform other work to update theirpipelines such as the replacement ofobstructions to the passage ofinstrumented inspection devices ("smartpigs"). These opportunities forinspecting and updating those olderpipelines will further contribute to theirsafe operations.

Extending the Existing Rule

For the foregoing reasons, RSPA isproposing to extend hydrostatic testingor reduction in MOP to all untested orInadequately tested steel pipelineswhere the MOP has not beenestablished by the requirements of§ 195.406(a). Operators electing toalternatively establish an MOP based ona previous hydrostatic test or a previous(not limited to the highest) operatingpressure would be required to documentthat pressureby recording charts or logsmade at the time the test or theoperations were conducted, as wassimilarly required for onshore HVLpipelines in § 195.406(a)(5). Thepipelines predominately affected by thisnotice are interstate non-HVL pipelinesconstructed before January 8, 1971, andintrastate non-HVL pipelinesconstructed before October 21, 1985,both onshore and offshore, that aresubject to part 195.

This notice proposes to apply theminimum 25 percent margin of safety tountested or inadequately tested offshoreHVL pipelines that were excluded fromthe hydrostatic test requirements of§ 195.302(b) or the alternative reductionin MOP requirements of § 195.406(a)(5).Information from industry and Federalregulatory sources indicates that thereare very few, if any, offshore pipelinescovered by part 195 that transport HVL.Nonetheless, RSPA sees the need toclose this regulatory gap by requiringthe same minimum 25 percent margin ofsafety for older offshore HVL pipelines

that is required for all other pipelinessubject to part 195.

In response to section 211 of thePipeline Safety Reauthorization Act of1988 (Pub. L 100-561; October 31, 1988)which requires the-Secretary ofTransportation to extend part 195regulations to cover pipelines used inthe transportation of carbon dioxide(CO2), OPS issued a notice of proposedrulemaking entitled "Transportation ofCarbon Dioxide by Pipeline" (DocketNo. PS-112, Notice 1; 54 FR 41912;October 12, 1989). The period for publiccomment on that notice endedDecember 11, 1989. This notice proposesnew or amended part 195 regulations forhydrostatic testing or alternativereduction in MOP to the CO2 pipelinesin Docket PS-112. The proposals in thisnotice are in addition to, and do notalter, the proposals made in Docket PS-112.

The regulations of part 195 currentlyapply to the pipeline transportation ofhazardous liquids. A hazardous liquiddefined by § 195.2 "means petroleum.petroleum products, or anhydrousammonia" which are often categorizedas HVL or non-HVL. Docket PS-11zdraft final rule, amends the definitionsin § 195.2 by the addition of "Carbondioxide means a fluid consisting of morethan 90 percent carbon dioxidemolecules compressed to a supercriticalstate." Now, the regulations in thisnotice propose to revise part 195 toestablish an adequate margin of safetyfor CO 2 pipelines in addition to certainhazardous liquid pipelines. At normaltemperatures and atmospheric pressure,CO2 is an odorless and colorless gas, notflammable, with a density 1.5 times thedensity of air. It will not supportcombustion nor will it sustain life ifinhaled. As a gas, CO2 is considered tobe inert and does not easily react withother gases in the atmosphere. But, CO2chemically reacts with water to formcarbonic acid which is corrosive tometals including steel pipe, valves andother pipeline components. Because ofthis chemical reaction, it is essentialthat a CO2 pipeline be dried outcompletely after hydrostatic testing withwater as a test medium. Although§ 195.306 requires water as the testmedium (with an exception for offshorepipelines under certain circumstances),Docket No. 112, (above), would revise§ 195.306 to permit the alternative use ofinert gas or CO2 as a test medium underspecified conditions.

Proposal

RSPA proposes to extend the currentrule because hydrostatic testing is theonly practicable means to protect the

I23541

Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 1991 / Proposed Rules

public and the environment from theeffects of preventable accidents, basedon proven technology and accident dataas discussed above OPS has beenfollowing with increased interest, thedevelopment and use of in-lineinspection tools to obtain diverseinformation on hazardous liquidpipelines. Advances in the state-of-the-art by various manufacturers have madesignificant Improvements in the datagathering and recording capacities of"smart pigs" and the subsequentinterpretation of that information. But, atthis time, no "smart pigs" are availablethat will reliably detect longitudinallyoriented defects, especially those in andnear line pipe welds. OPS encouragesthe use of these inspection deviceswhere the technology is able to providecontinuously reliable information onspecific conditions and properties of theunderground pipe. However, OPSrecognizes that hydrostatic testing to therequirement of part 195 is the currentlyproven method for demonstrating theintegrity of newly constructed andexisting pipelines

If these proposed rules are adopted,operators will have to completeextensive planning, scheduling.budgeting, and engineering work beforebeginning actual hydrostatic testing. Inaddition,. field construction will benecessary to prepare pipeline sectionsfor hydrostatic testing. At the conclusionof hydrostatic testing, a substantialamount of work may be necessary toreturn the tested pipeline sections toservice. Also, test water will have to bedisposed of in an environmentallyacceptable manner, although thisproblem can be minimized by planningto reuse water in consecutive testsections, In recognition of the timeneeded to complete hydrostatic testing,the proposed rule provides a 7.5-yearperiod for compliance. But, the testing ofpipelines known to have more than 50percent by mileage of pre-1970 ERWpipe Would have to be completed within4.5 years after a final rule is published.Moreover, to assure completion within7.5 years, operators would be requiredto meet certain interim milestones forplanning, scheduling, and completion ofhydrostatic testing or reduction of MOP

This proposal would amend thehydrostatic test requirements of§§ 195.300 and 195.302 as set forthhereafter. Section 195.302(c), dealingwith test pressure, would be separatelyset forth as a new § 195.303. Section195.406(a)(5), dealing with maximumoperating pressure, would be modifiedto include certain pipelines under theamended § 195.302.

In commenting on these proposals,operators are requested to (1) estimatetheir mileage of non-HVL pipelines,offshore HVL pipelines and CO 2pipelines (categorized as non-HVL,offshore HVL or CO 2) that are subjectto or proposed to be subject to part 195but have not been hydrostatically testedin the manner set forth in subpart E ofpart 195; (2) estimate the percentage ofthe mileage given in response to item (1)that would be brought into complianceby reduction of MOP instead ofhydrostatic testing (3) estimate thepercentage drop of MOP and effect onannual throughput; and (4) estimatepercentage of mileage given in responseto item (1) that would be tested inaccordance with § 195.306, whichdiscusses the test medium.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rulemaking would extend thecollection of information under thecurrent § 195.310 which describes therecords of each hydrostatic test whichmust be retained as long as the facilityis in use. This proposal will besubmitted to the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) for approval underthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44U.S.C. chap. 35). Persons desiring tocomment on these information collectionrequirements should submit theircomments to the office of RegulatoryPolicy, Office of Management andBudget, 726 Jackson Place NW.,Washington, DC 20503, Attention: DeskOfficer. Research and Special ProgramAdministration (RSPA). Personssubmitting comments to OMB are alsorequested to submit a copy of theircomments to OPS as indicated aboveunder AWRESSES,

Impact Assessment

The proposed rules are major underExecutive order 12291. That orderdefines a major rule as one which hasan annual effect on the economy of $100million, a major increase in costs, or asignificant adverse effect on theeconomy. The draft EconomicEvaluation, a copy of which is in thedocket, is based on available data andprojected relevant costs andquantifiable benefits, shows net benefitsresulting from the proposed rule. Theagency's draft Economic Evaluationsuggests that the benefits of hydrostatictesting exceed the associated costs.Comments are requested explaining whyoperators have not voluntarily testedpipelines never tested in accordancewith current standards. Comments arealso requested on the draft EconomicEvaluation, in particular. (a) on theassumption of a 25 percent increase inbenefits for non-reportable accidents;

(b) on the cost of disposing testwater, (c)on the cost of environmental cleanup(i.e., cost per barrel); (d) on the cost ofrepairing blowouts; and (e) on whetherthose pipelines already tested havefocused on pipelines with the mostpotential for leaking. These commentswill be taken into consideration whenpreparing the final RegulatoryEvaluation.

The proposal is "significant" asdefined by the Department ofTransportation Policies and procedures(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) becauseit involves a substantial change inregulations affecting existing hazardousliquid pipelines. Also, based on the factsavailable about the anticipated impactof this rulemaking action, I certifypursuant to section 605 of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act that the action will not, ifadopted as final, have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities, because few, ifany. small entities operate pipelinessubject to part 195.

Federalism

OPS has analyzed this action Inaccordance with the principles andcriteria contained in E.O. 12612 (52 FR41685 and has determined that it doesnot have sufficient federalismimplications to warrant preparation of aFederalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

Hydrostatic testing, Maximumoperating pressure, Carbon dioxide.,

In consideration of the foregoing,RSPA proposes to amend title 49 of the.Code of Federal Regulations part 195 toread as follows:

PART 195-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 195.continues to read as follows:

Authority. 49 App. U.S.C. 200; and 49 CFR1.53.

2. Section 195.300 would be revised toread as follows:

§ 195.300 Scope.This subpart prescribes minimum

requirements for hydrostatically testingsteel pipelines. It does not apply to themovement of pipe under § 195.424.

3. Section 195.302 would be revised toread as follows:

§ 195.302 General requirements.I (a) Except for the alternative provided

under paragraph (a)(6] of this section.each of the following pipelines must behydrostatically tested without leakageunder this subpart before beingoperated:

23542

Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 1991 / Proposed Rules

(1) An interstate hazardous liquidpipeline constructed on or after January8, 1971.

(2) An intrastate hazardous liquidpipeline constructed on or after October21, 1985.

(3) A carbon dioxide pipelineconstructed on or after (insert date ofpublication of final rule).

(4) A pipeline system or component ofa pipeline system that is relocated,replaced or otherwise changed.

(5) A pipeline previously used inservice not subject to this part andqualified for use under 9 195.5.

(6) An HVL pipeline where theoperator reduced the maximumoperating pressure under therequirements of § 195.406(a)(5) as ineffect (insert one day prior to effectivedate of this final rule):

(i) An interstate onshore pipelineconstructed before January 8,1971, andin HVL service before September 8,1980.

(ii) An intrastate onshore pipelineconstructed before October 21, 1985, andin HVL service before April 23, 1985.

(b) The following non-HVL pipelinesthat were not hydrostatically testedunder this subpart must behydrostatically tested without leakageunder this subpart or the operator mayreduce maximum operating pressureunder § 195.406(a)(5) in accordance withthe compliance dates of paragraph (e) ofthis section:

(1) An interstate pipeline constructedbefore January 8, 1971.

(2) An intrastate pipeline constructedbefore October 21, 1985.

(c) The following HVL pipelines thatwere not hydrostatically tested underthis subpart must be hydrostaticallytested without leakage under thissubpart or the operator may reducemaximum operating pressure under§ 195.406(a)(5) in accordance with thecompliance dates of paragraph (e) ofthis section:

(1) An interstate offshore pipelineconstructed before January 8, 1971.

(2) An intrastate offshore pipelineconstructed before October 21, 1985.

(d) A carbon dioxide pipelineconstructed before the (insertpublication date of final rule) that wasnot hydrostatically tested under thissubpart must be hydrostatically testedwithout leakage under this subpart orthe operator may reduce maximumoperating pressure under § 195.406(a)(5)in accordance with the compliancedates of paragraph (e) of this section.

( (e) The following compliance datesapply to pipelines under paragraphs (b),(c), and (d) of this section:

(1) Planning and scheduling ofhydrostatic testing, or actual reduction

in maximum operating pressure under§ 195.406(a)(5), must be completedbefore (1 year after date of publicationof final rule);

(2) Hydrostatic testing of eachdiscrete (as identified by name, symbolor otherwise by the operator) pipelinefor which it can be determined fromexisting records that electric resistancewelded pipe manufactured prior to 1970exceeds 50 percent by mileage of thepipeline must be completed before (4.5years after date of publication of finalrule); and

(3) Hydrostatic testing of pipelinesother.than those identified insubparagraph (2) of this paragraph mustbe completed before (7.5 years after dateof publication of final rule) with at least.50 percent by mileage of the testingcompleted before (4.5 years after date ofpublication of final rule).

4. Section 195.302(c) would beredesignated as § 195.303 to read asfollows:

§ 195.303 Teal Pressure.The test pressure for each hydrostatic

test conducted under this subpart mustbe maintained throughout the part of thesystem being tested for at least 4continuous hours at a pressure equal to125 percent, or more, of the maximumoperating pressure, and in the case of apipeline that is not visually inspected forleakage during test, for at least anadditional 4 continuous hours at apressure equal to 110 percent, or more,of the maximum operating pressure.

5. Section 195.304(a) would be revisedto read as follows:

§ 195.304 Testing of components.(a) Each hydrostatic test under this

subpart must test all pipe and attachedfittings, including components, unlessotherwise permitted by paragraph (b) ofthis section.

6. In § 195.406, the introductory text ofparagraph (a) is republished withoutchange, and paragraph (a)(5) would berevised to read as follows:

§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.(a) Except for surge pressures and

other variations from normal operations,no operator may operate a pipeline at apressure that exceeds any of thefollowing:* * * * *

(5) For pipelines under § 195.302 (b),( (c), and (d), 80 percent of a hydrostatictest pressure or alternatively 80 percentof an operating pressure to which thepipeline was subjected for 4 or morecontinuous hours that can bedemonstrated by recording charts orlogs made at the time the hydrostatic

test or the alternative operations wereconducted.

Issued in Washington. DC, on May 14, 1991.George W. Tenley, Jr.,Associate Administrotor for Pipeline Safety,Research and Special ProgramsAdministration.[FR Doc. 91-12168 Filed 5--21-91; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910.-60-

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

49 CFR Parts 1246 and 1248

[Docket No. 404361

Revision to Railroads' ReportingRequirements

AGENCY: Interstate CommerceCommission.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This proposed rulemakingsets forth proposed changes to railroads'periodic report forms. The objective is tostreamline and update the report formsto reduce reporting burden and requireonly frequently used disclosures.DATES: Comments are due by June 21,1991.ADDRESSES: An original and fifteencopies, if possible, of comments shouldbe sent to: Office of the Secretary, CaseControl Branch, Interstate CommerceCommission, Washington, DC 20423.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:William F. Moss, III, (202) 275-7510,(TDD for hearing impaired (202) 275-1721).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheCommission is proposing to revise thereporting regulations and report formsfor railroads in order to effect costsavings and to reduce reporting burdenby an estimated 20,000 hours. Generally,Form R-1 will be reduced by eliminatingcertain schedules and combining others.Form C will no longer be required. FormQCS will be required annually insteadof quarterly. We propose no specificchanges to the report forms RE&I, CBS,or to FORMS A AND B. The followingreport forms are under review:-Railroad Annual Report Form R-1

(Form R-1) (OMB 3120-0029)-Quarterly Report Form RE&I (Form

RE&I) (OMB 3120-0027)-Quarterly Condensed Balance Sheet-

Railroads (Form CBS) (OMB 3120-0063)

-Monthly Report of Number ofRailroad Employees (Form C) (OMB3120-0133)

23543