Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-121; Amdt. 195-51]

RIN 2137-AB 46

Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide

Pipelines

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule provides that operators may not transport a

hazardous liquid in a steel interstate pipeline constructed before

January 8, 1971, a steel interstate offshore gathering line constructed

before August 1, 1977, or a steel intrastate pipeline constructed

before October 21, 1985, unless the pipeline has been pressure tested

hydrostatically according to current standards or operates at 80

percent or less of a qualified prior test or operating pressure. In

addition, this final rule creates a comparable requirement for carbon

dioxide pipelines constructed before July 12, 1991, except for

production field distribution lines in rural areas. The purpose of this

final rule is to ensure that the affected pipelines have an adequate

safety margin between their maximum operating pressure and test

pressure. This safety margin is essential to prevention of particular

kinds of pipeline accidents.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The changes to part 195, except Sec. 195.306(b), take

effect July 7, 1994. The final rule under Sec. 195.306(b) takes effect

August 8, 1994, unless RSPA receives, by July 7, 1994, comments that

illustrate that disallowing the use of petroleum as a test medium for

pressure testing required by this rulemaking is not in the public

interest. Upon receipt of such comments, RSPA will publish a document

in the Federal Register withdrawing the final rule under

Sec. 195.306(b).

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted in duplicate and mailed

or hand-delivered to the Dockets Unit, room 8421, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Identify the docket and amendment number stated in the heading of this

notice. Comments will become part of this docket and will be available

for inspection or copying in room 8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.

each business day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow, (202) 366-2392,

regarding the subject matter of this final rule document, or Dockets

Unit (202) 366-4453, for copies of this final rule document or other

material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Any steel pipeline may contain hidden physical defects that result

from the manufacture or transportation of pipe and from pipeline

construction. Over the operational life of the pipeline, new physical

defects can be created by external forces acting on the pipeline. When

a physical defect is large enough, it can cause the pipeline to fail

during operation. Also, during pipeline operation, internal or

environmental stresses can cause smaller defects to grow and become

large enough to cause the pipeline to fail.

Adequate pressure testing can disclose hidden physical defects in a

pipeline. Pressure testing involves raising a pipeline's internal

pressure above its maximum operating pressure (MOP) for a time

sufficient for leaks to develop from defects. A test that is adequate

in pressure level and duration will disclose physical defects that are

large enough to cause pipeline failure during operation. In addition,

an adequate pressure test will provide a proven margin of safety

against failure during operation from the growth of defects.

Line pipe research has demonstrated that 125 percent of MOP is the

minimum test level adequate to protect hazardous liquid pipelines

against failure in operation from physical defects. A pressure test at

this level for a sufficient duration provides a 25 percent proven

margin of safety against failures caused by the growth of physical

defects.

Under Sec. 195.302, new steel pipelines must be pressure tested to

provide at least a 25 percent proven margin of safety. Hazardous liquid

pipelines must be pressure tested hydrostatically, but carbon dioxide

pipelines may be tested pneumatically, using inert gas or carbon

dioxide as the test medium (see Sec. 195.306). Portions of existing

steel pipelines that are replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed are

also subject to this pressure testing requirement. The requirement

became effective as follows for pipelines subject to part 195: January

8, 1971, for interstate pipelines transporting hazardous liquid (35 FR

17183); August 1, 1977, for interstate offshore gathering lines

transporting hazardous liquid (41 FR 34039); October 21, 1985, for

intrastate pipelines transporting hazardous liquid (50 FR 15895); and

July 12, 1991, for pipelines transporting carbon dioxide in a

supercritical state (56 FR 26922).

Section 195.302 also requires that certain older pipelines

transporting highly volatile liquids (HVL) must have at least a 25

percent proven margin of safety. These pipelines are onshore steel

interstate pipelines constructed before January 8, 1971, and onshore

steel intrastate pipelines constructed before October 21, 1985. If an

older HVL pipeline has not been hydrostatically tested to part 195

standards, Sec. 195.302(b) permits operators to provide the proven

margin of safety either by hydrostatic testing or by establishing the

pipeline's MOP under Sec. 195.406(a)(5) at 80 percent or less of a

qualified prior test or operating pressure. Establishing MOP under

Sec. 195.406(a)(5) and hydrostatic testing to part 195 standards

provide equivalent proven margins of safety.

Apart from these older HVL pipelines, the 25 percent proven margin-

of-safety requirement does not apply to older pipelines constructed

before the dates (stated above) the pressure testing requirement went

into effect for new pipelines. Consequently, many older pipelines

subject to part 195 are not operated with a minimum 25 percent proven

margin of safety. It was not common industry practice to test to at

least 125 percent of MOP or to test to that pressure level for a

sufficient duration.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Older pipelines that do not have a minimum 25 percent proven margin

of safety are more susceptible to failures from defect growth in

service than pipelines that meet the part 195 pressure testing

requirements. They are also more susceptible to failure from defect

growth during instances of overpressure permitted by Sec. 195.406(b).

This increased potential for failure is prevalent in pipelines made of

pre-1970 electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe.

RSPA's pipeline accident statistics show the benefits of requiring

older pipelines to have a minimum 25 percent proven margin of safety.

September 15, 1985, was the date by which onshore interstate pipelines

constructed before January 8, 1971, that transport HVL had to have a

minimum 25 percent proven margin of safety. By that date these

pipelines had to have been pressure tested hydrostatically to part 195

requirements or operated at 80 percent or less of a qualified prior

test or operating pressure. To learn the effect of the 25-percent-

safety-margin requirement, RSPA compared the period for which accident

data were available before the requirement was adopted with the period

from September 15, 1985, through December 31, 1989. Onshore HVL

interstate pipelines had a 68 percent lower rate of failure from

material defects and corrosion during the latter period. RSPA

attributed this dramatic drop in failure rate to the 25-percent-safety-

margin requirement imposed on the older onshore HVL interstate

pipelines. In addition, RSPA concluded that operators could achieve a

comparable reduction in failure rate on all other older pipelines

subject to part 195 that lack an adequate proven margin of safety.

To bring about this reduction in failure rate, RSPA published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (Docket PS-121; 56 FR 23538, May

22, 1991) on testing older pipelines. The notice proposed to extend the

part 195 requirement for a proven margin of safety to all pipelines

that are covered by part 195 but excepted from the testing standards in

subpart E of part 195. These pipelines are (1) hazardous liquid steel

interstate pipelines constructed before January 8, 1971, other than

onshore HVL pipelines; (2) hazardous liquid steel interstate offshore

gathering lines constructed before August 1, 1977; (3) hazardous liquid

steel intrastate pipelines constructed before October 21, 1985, other

than onshore HVL pipelines; and (4) carbon dioxide steel pipelines

constructed before July 12, 1991.

In the NPRM, RSPA also discussed the unique safety problems with

longitudinal seams on ERW pipe manufactured before 1970. RSPA proposed

that operators give pipelines with a predominance of pre-1970 ERW pipe

priority in scheduling tests. Under this proposal, testing of pipelines

known to have more than 50 percent (by mileage) of pre-1970 ERW pipe

would have to be completed within 4.5 years after a final rule is

published.

Thirteen persons submitted written comments on the NPRM: 11

pipeline operators, the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). A discussion of the significant

comments and their disposition in development of the final rules

follows.

General Comments

Most commenters discussed specific problems they anticipated in

carrying out the rulemaking proposals, without objecting to them

outright. DOI favored adoption of the proposals, especially for

offshore pipelines. One commenter, a major operator of hazardous liquid

pipelines, clearly supported the proposed rules. A few other operators

hedged their apparent agreement with the proposals by suggesting RSPA

allow smart pigs as a substitute for pressure testing or MOP reduction,

an issue discussed separately below. Another operator asserted that

RSPA should require pressure testing or MOP reduction only where risk

is heightened by factors such as adverse leak or corrosion history,

environmental sensitivity, or high population. Only two operators

strongly objected to the proposals. But, they aimed their remarks at

carbon dioxide pipelines, and as discussed below, the final rule

addresses their concerns. By and large, RSPA believes the commenters

supported the objective of the notice concerning older untested or

inadequately tested hazardous liquid pipelines.

Limiting the application of the proposed rules to older pipelines

that have an increased risk of failure or that are near environmentally

sensitive areas or a large number of people does not sufficiently

address safety concerns. The problem of the growth of defects is common

among all pipelines regulated by part 195. It is not limited to

pipelines that are in a worrisome condition or a high risk location.

For such problems, RSPA believes that all pipelines should provide a

basic level of protection. The proposals in the NPRM were consistent

with this view. They would assure that older pipelines provide at least

the same basic level of protection against the growth of defects as

newer pipelines must provide. Also, limiting the proposed rules to

pipelines that involve some added element of risk would leave many

miles of older pipelines without adequate protection against failures

caused by the growth of defects. RSPA strongly believes these potential

failures and preventable damages should not go unchecked.

Pump Stations and Tank Farms

API and two operators argued that the proposed rules should not

apply to pump stations, tank farms, or tank farm delivery facilities.

They said compliance would be an extremely time-consuming task because

of the many fittings, valves, tanks, and instrumentation. API also

suggested the benefits would be questionable since most accidents, as

described in the NPRM, occur on pipeline rights-of-way.

Part 195 has limited application at tank farms. In general, it

applies to only receiving and reinjection lines, to tanks used as

breakout tanks, and to facilities associated with breakout tanks.

Although the job of testing pump station and breakout tank

facilities may be time-consuming, it is crucial to ensure public safety

and protect the environment. Population has encroached on the older

pump stations and tank farms since their construction, increasing their

threat to public safety. Also, slow leaks at tank farms have polluted

ground water and endangered neighborhoods.

In considering the issue of pump stations and tank farms, RSPA

examined the existing rule in Sec. 195.302 regarding the testing of

older onshore HVL pipelines. Except for tank farm facilities to which

the rule does not apply, Sec. 195.302 does not exclude any of the

facilities the commenters suggested RSPA exclude from the present

rulemaking. RSPA believes non-HVL facilities should not be treated

differently. Leaks at non-HVL hazardous liquid facilities can have fire

and pollution consequences. Also, even minor accidents at breakout

tanks in tank farms have the potential to become uncontrollable

emergencies because of proximity to other large volume hazardous liquid

storage tanks. Therefore, RSPA has adopted the final rule as proposed

concerning pump stations and breakout tanks. The demands of testing

these facilities should be mitigated, however, by the compliance

deadlines, which are discussed next.

Compliance Deadlines

RSPA proposed a deadline of 1 year after publication of the final

rule for operators to plan and schedule testing or to reduce MOPs. RSPA

also proposed a deadline of 4.5 years after publication of the final

rule for testing all pipelines with more than 50 percent pre-1970 ERW

pipe, and for testing at least 50 percent of all other pipelines.

Finally, RSPA proposed that operators complete all testing within 7.5

years after publication of the final rule.

One operator argued that RSPA should allow operators to use the

entire test period to plan testing or to reduce MOPs. This commenter

said that planning for testing or reduction in MOP would involve

complicated analyses that would take longer than 1 year. The commenter

also said any plan may need to be changed because of unforeseen

operational problems that may arise during the test period.

RSPA proposed a 1-year deadline to assure that operators start

their testing program early in the test period. Early planning is

necessary to minimize unexpected delays and assure that operators

complete testing within the time allowed. Also, RSPA assumed that when

operators plan to reduce MOP, the reduction could be done without

lengthy preparations. Further, RSPA strongly believes any MOP reduction

should be done early in the program to lessen the continuing risk to

the public. If unforeseen testing or operational problems arise during

the test period, an operator could modify its initial testing plan and

schedule as needed to resolve those problems. Of course, any modified

plan or schedule would still have to provide for completion of testing

before the applicable deadline.

The proposed 1-year deadline for MOP reduction or planning and

scheduling testing was the same amount of time that Sec. 195.302

allowed for similar activities on the older onshore HVL pipelines.

However, the process will involve more mileage than it did for onshore

HVL pipelines. Also, RSPA expects operators will need further planning

to maintain the product-supply requirements of their customers.

Therefore, RSPA has extended the proposed planning and scheduling

deadline to 1.5 years in the final rule.

Another operator thought the proposed test period for pre-1970 ERW

pipelines was unfair to operators who have many of these pipelines.

These operators would not be able to spread costs and impacts on

operations over as much time as other operators. This commenter

suggested that an equitable approach would be to require that operators

give pre-1970 ERW pipelines priority in testing over the full test

period.

RSPA proposed a shorter test period for the pre-1970 ERW pipelines

because these pipelines have unique safety problems. The unique

problems cause pre-1970 ERW pipelines to have a greater potential for

failure than other older pipelines. Since pre-1970 ERW pipelines pose a

greater risk, requiring operators to test them sooner than other older

pipelines is critical to safety.

API declared that the proposed testing periods would create an

undue hardship on consumers and the pipeline industry. It suggested

RSPA lengthen the period to 10 years for all older pipelines, with

testing priorities based on risk. Operators and shippers need the

additional time, API said, so the nation's pipeline network can adapt

to the impact of the testing program on the market. The operators and

shippers would use the time to arrange alternative transportation and

to prevent regional supply disruptions.

Using similar reasoning, two operators also urged us to allow more

time for testing. One operator thought a reasonable period would be 7

years for pre-1970 ERW pipelines, and 10 years for the others. The

other operator thought the periods should be 5 and 10 years,

respectively.

RSPA, too, is concerned about the potential adverse impact on the

nation's fuel supplies that could result from testing thousands of

miles of pipelines. Aside from the substantial planning that must be

done before testing, many operators will need time to obtain waste

water disposal permits from various jurisdictions. Operators will need

time to prepare pipeline systems for testing and to arrange for

personnel and equipment to conduct the tests.

System changes and actual testing must be coordinated with product-

supply operations to minimize the impact on refineries, distributors,

and users of the transported products. Also, operators need time to

assure that testing is done safely, with the least environmental risk,

and in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations.

However, RSPA weighed these time demands in deciding upon the

compliance deadlines proposed in the NPRM. None of the commenters who

addressed the compliance-time issue substantiated their opinions that

more time should be allowed. Although it is admittedly difficult to

predict how much time is appropriate, the comments do not convince us

that there are too many pre-1970 ERW pipelines to test in 4.5 years or

that a decade is needed to complete testing of all other pipelines.

Therefore, the final rule adopts the testing deadlines as proposed.

RSPA has not adopted API's suggestion to allow 10 years for all

older pipelines, with priorities based on risk, because the unique

problems of pre-1970 ERW pipelines demand correction sooner. Also,

considering the mileage involved, the potential savings from reusing

test water, and the need to minimize market impacts, API's suggestion

would further complicate the development of test schedules. Still, the

final rule does provide operators flexibility in planning and

scheduling tests. When feasible, operators could use this flexibility

to select pipelines for testing according to leak history or other risk

factors. RSPA encourages such testing priorities provided all required

testing is completed within the periods allowed.

Charts or Logs

Two operators commenting on proposed Sec. 195.406(a)(5) asked us

not to limit allowable documentation of prior tests or operating

pressures to recording charts or logs. They said the industry has never

had to keep these charts and logs for older pipelines, and many have

been lost. They suggested that the final rule allow alternative

documentation, such as construction specifications, pipeline completion

reports, and affidavits from responsible people.

Considering the importance of a minimum 25 percent proven margin of

safety to the integrity of pipelines, public safety cannot tolerate

doubts about whether a pipeline has been adequately tested. Only

recording charts or logs made at the time of prior testing or

operations show with certainty that the minimum margin exists for the

pipeline concerned. Alternative documentation, including

specifications, reports, or affidavits, is less probative. Such

evidence leaves some room for doubt because it does not result directly

from pipeline testing or operation. Although recording charts and logs

may no longer be available for some older pipelines, RSPA does not

believe a lack of proper records justifies allowing a lesser level of

proof for a matter so serious as pipeline integrity. Therefore, the

final rule allows only recording charts or logs to document a prior

test or operating pressure.

Another operator was concerned that the documentation available for

use under the proposed revision of Sec. 195.406(a)(5) may not meet

existing Sec. 195.310. For example, the operator said calibration data

may not be available. Section 195.310 specifies the records operators

must keep for each pressure test required by subpart E of part 195.

Section 195.310 does not affect the documentation required by existing

Sec. 195.406(a)(5), and would not affect documentation under the

proposed revision of Sec. 195.406(a)(5). Thus, operators need not have

documentation under final Sec. 195.406(a)(5) in the same detail as

Sec. 195.310 requires.

Permits for Disposal of Test Water

When existing petroleum pipelines are pressure tested

hydrostatically, the testing process introduces hydrocarbons into the

test water. If test water picks up unacceptable quantities of

hydrocarbons, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) governs its discharge into the environment. (See 40 CFR parts

122-124.) The NPDES is a regulatory program administered by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cooperation with qualified

State agencies under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as

amended by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

Several commenters were concerned that the procedure of obtaining

NPDES permits from State agencies and EPA for treatment and disposal of

test water could significantly delay testing. This potential for delay

probably would be limited to areas where operators do not transport

test water to refineries for treatment and discharge, or do not store

it for use in subsequent tests. Although none of the commenters

estimated the time that would be needed to secure the NPDES permits,

RSPA has considered this potential for delay in setting deadlines for

compliance.

Two operators and API suggested that RSPA somehow help the industry

in obtaining from EPA a general NPDES permit for the disposal of

treated test water. They also requested our assistance in obtaining a

general waiver of the EPA requirement to measure the toxicity of test

water. API said these actions would provide flexibility for efficient

scheduling and implementation of testing.

EPA has procedures for issuing permits and waivers under its NPDES

program. EPA's decisions on applications for permits and waivers depend

on facts known to the industry. Under these circumstances, RSPA

believes an operator is the appropriate party to apply for permits or

waivers.

To hasten the process, RSPA will notify EPA of this final rule.

RSPA will urge that agency to give prompt attention to requests for

NPDES permits involving disposal of test water used to comply with the

final rule. RSPA will also ask EPA to request its cooperating State

agencies to give prompt attention to requests for permits and waivers.

Smart Pig Alternative

Several operators and API recommended that the final rule allow the

use of smart pigs (internal inspection devices) as an alternative to

pressure testing for all pipelines, except the pre-1970 ERW pipelines.

Two of these operators said pigging is superior to pressure testing

because it shows where potential problems lie. Two operators thought

pigging is better at finding corrosion problems, particularly deep

isolated pits that may survive a pressure test. One operator and API

argued that smart pigs could alleviate potential disruptions of service

and many environmental and scheduling problems.

Despite the capabilities of smart pigs, RSPA knows of no evidence

that they can provide satisfactory long-term protection against the

growth of defects. Only a minimum 25 percent proven margin of safety

between MOP and a previous test or operating pressure is generally

recognized as able to provide this protection.

Various manufacturers have significantly improved the data

collection and recording capabilities of smart pigs. The ability of

trained personnel to interpret recorded pig data has also improved. Yet

smart pigs still cannot detect as many pipeline defects that could grow

to failure during operation as can an adequate pressure test.

Longitudinal defects, like cracks in a longitudinal weld seam, are

particularly resistant to detection by smart pigs. More important, an

adequate pressure test provides a basis for safe operation, with a

proven margin of safety against the growth of defects that survive the

test. Smart pigs cannot provide such a margin of safety. Thus, they are

not an adequate substitute for pressure testing in achieving the

objectives of this rulemaking proceeding.

Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

Two operators argued that RSPA should not adopt the proposed rules

for older carbon dioxide pipelines, particularly production field

distribution lines. They offered various reasons to exempt carbon

dioxide pipelines:

Carbon dioxide is non-polluting.

The pipelines are relatively new, having been constructed

in the 1980s.

The pipelines have been pressure tested hydrostatically,

but perhaps not to part 195 standards.

The failure data used as a basis for the proposed rules

did not include carbon dioxide pipelines.

After hydrostatic pressure testing, carbon dioxide

pipelines must be dehydrated, an expensive process that is not

applicable to hazardous liquid pipelines.

Pneumatic testing with carbon dioxide or inert gas poses a

greater risk than hydrostatic testing because of the high pressures at

which supercritical carbon dioxide pipelines operate.

The alternative of MOP reduction would dramatically reduce

enhanced oil recovery rates.

As for carbon dioxide distribution lines, the two operators said

these pipelines generally are smaller than transmission lines, and only

affect isolated areas in oil production fields. The commenters said

pressure testing of carbon dioxide distribution systems would seriously

disrupt oil field operations. One of these operators said that over 50

separate tests may be needed to minimize disruption, depending on the

layout of the distribution system.

In view of these comments, RSPA has reviewed both the need to apply

the proposed rules to carbon dioxide pipelines and the burden of

compliance. Carbon dioxide pipelines have not been subject to part 195

long enough for us to develop an accident history for them. Still,

because of their similarity to hazardous liquid pipelines, untested or

inadequately tested carbon dioxide pipelines can fail in service from

the growth of physical defects, whatever the pipeline's age. Although

carbon dioxide is non-polluting and nonflammable, any failure that

releases large quantities of carbon dioxide would expose nearby persons

to the risk of suffocation.

This risk is less, however, for production field distribution lines

that transport carbon dioxide than for transmission lines that

transport carbon dioxide. Compared to transmission lines, which move

large volumes of carbon dioxide over long distances, individual

pipelines in a production field distribution system carry smaller

volumes over localized areas. Normally these areas are rural. In

addition, the burden of compliance would be greater for field

distribution systems than for transmission lines. Testing field

distribution systems could disrupt oil production and require a

multiplicity of tests to minimize that disruption. RSPA believes this

combination of decreased risk and increased burden of compliance

justifies excluding from the final rule production field distribution

lines that are in a rural area. As defined in Sec. 195.2, the term

``rural area'' means ``outside the limits of any incorporated or

unincorporated city, town, village, or any other designated residential

or commercial area such as a subdivision, a business or shopping

center, or community development.''

In the final rules, Sec. 195.302(b)(2)(ii) reflects our decision to

exclude older carbon dioxide field distribution lines in rural areas

from the 25-percent-safety-margin requirement. Consistent with the

present pressure testing requirement, any portion of these older lines

that is replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed on or after July 12,

1991, or any older line converted to carbon dioxide service under

Sec. 195.5 would have to be pressure tested to at least 1.25 times its

MOP.

Test Pressure

In the NPRM, RSPA proposed to redesignate existing Sec. 195.302(c),

concerning the level and duration of test pressure, as new

Sec. 195.303. RSPA received no comments on this proposal, and has

adopted it as final. However, the term ``hydrostatic test'' is replaced

by ``pressure test'' because under existing requirements, carbon

dioxide pipelines may be pressure tested either pneumatically or

hydrostatically.

Test Medium

In most cases, operators must use water as the hydrostatic test

medium for hazardous liquid pipelines (Sec. 195.306(a)). However, under

specified conditions, onshore pipelines may be tested with petroleum

that does not vaporize rapidly (Sec. 195.306(b)).

This exception allowing operators to use petroleum as the test

medium was established when only newly constructed pipelines were

subject to hydrostatic testing under part 195. Newly constructed

pipelines are less likely to rupture during a hydrostatic test than

pipelines that have been in operation for a number of years and never

tested or inadequately tested. Therefore, RSPA is concerned that if

existing pipelines subject to testing under the final rule were tested

with petroleum, operators would not be able to contain all the

petroleum that would spill from ruptures. To preclude this outcome,

RSPA has revised Sec. 195.306(b) to prohibit the use of petroleum as a

test medium in pressure testing pipelines to meet the final rule.

Although RSPA's NPRM did not propose to limit the use of petroleum,

the NPRM asked operators to estimate the pipeline mileage they would

test with petroleum to learn the extent to which operators might use

petroleum instead of water as the test medium. Only four operators

responded, and the answers ranged from none to practically none. Based

on this information and RSPA's experience in administering the

hydrostatic testing rules of part 195, disallowing the use of petroleum

as a test medium under the final rule should not significantly affect

the burden of compliance with the rule.

Although RSPA believes this action is within the scope of the NPRM,

because we did not specifically propose it, Sec. 195.306(b) will be

effective August 8, 1994, unless by July 7, 1994, RSPA receives

comments that illustrate that this final rule is not in the public

interest. Upon receipt of such comments, RSPA will withdraw

Sec. 195.306(b) before the effective date by simultaneously publishing

two subsequent documents. One document will withdraw this section of

the final rule. The other will announce a proposal to disallow the use

of petroleum as a test medium for pressure testing required by this

rulemaking and establish a new comment period. If RSPA does not receive

comments that illustrate that Sec. 195.306(b) is not in the public

interest, RSPA will publish a notice advising that Sec. 195.306(b) will

be effective on August 8, 1994.

Advisory Committee Review

RSPA presented a draft of the NPRM to the Technical Hazardous

Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) for its

consideration at a meeting in Washington, DC on September 14, 1988.

THLPSSC is RSPA's statutory advisory committee for hazardous liquid

pipeline safety. It is comprised of 15 members, representing industry,

government, and the public, who are technically qualified to evaluate

liquid pipeline safety.

THLPSSC's discussion of the draft centered on cost of compliance;

problems of compliance, such as waste water disposal; and the smart-pig

alternative. THLPSSC voted not to support the draft NPRM primarily

because RSPA had not yet demonstrated that the proposed rules were cost

beneficial.

At a meeting on September 14, 1989, RSPA updated THLPSSC on the

status of the draft NPRM. Committee members discussed many issues,

including product supply to customers, disposal of test water, and the

time needed for compliance. Although no vote was taken, THLPSSC members

representing industry indicated agreement with the need to test the

older untested or inadequately tested pipelines.

RSPA has decided to adopt final rules in this proceeding despite

THLPSSC's negative vote in 1988. RSPA did so because THLPSSC's primary

concern was that the rules be cost beneficial, and the final regulatory

evaluation supports that conclusion. Also, RSPA has addressed THLPSSC's

other concerns elsewhere in this preamble in response to similar

concerns raised by commenters. The THLPSSC's reports of the 1988 and

1989 meetings are available in the docket of this proceeding.

Wording of Final Rules

The final rules are worded differently from the proposed rules.

However, other than the substantive changes discussed above, the

changes in wording are for editorial or clarification purposes. In

several existing rules, the word ``hydrostatic'' or ``hydrostatically''

is replaced by ``pressure,'' because under subpart E carbon dioxide

pipelines may be pressure tested either hydrostatically or

pneumatically. Also, the title of subpart E is changed from

``Hydrostatic Testing'' to ``Pressure Testing.'' In Secs. 195.304(b)

(1) and (2), the word ``hydrostatically'' is not changed to

``pressure,'' because these rules concern factory testing of

components, not post-construction pipeline testing.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule incrementally increases the current information

collection burden under Sec. 195.310. Section 195.310 requires

operators to keep certain records of each test required by subpart E of

part 195 for as long as the tested facility is in use. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this increased burden under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. chap. 35).

The OMB approval number is 2137-0047.

Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive

Order 12866. Therefore, it was reviewed by the Office of Management and

Budget. In addition, the final rule is significant under DOT's

regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979)

because it involves a substantial change in regulations affecting

certain existing pipelines.

Several operators and API suggested revisions to the draft

``Economic Evaluation'' RSPA prepared in support of the NPRM. Also,

some of these commenters and others responded to our specific requests

in the NPRM for information to aid us in assessing the impact of the

final rule. How RSPA dealt with these comments is discussed in the

final regulatory evaluation, a copy of which is in the docket. The

final regulatory evaluation shows net benefits resulting from the final

rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Based on the facts available about the anticipated impact of this

rulemaking action, I certify pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605) that the action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,

because few, if any, small entities operate pipelines subject to part

195.

Executive Order 12612

This rulemaking action will not have substantial direct effects on

states, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the

states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 12612

(52 FR 41685), RSPA has determined that this final rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

RSPA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined

that this action would not significantly affect the quality of the

human environment. An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No

Significant Impact are in the docket.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

Anhydrous ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA amends part 195 of title 49

of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 195--[AMENDED]

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

follows:

Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 2001 et seq.; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Subpart E--[Amended]

2. The title of subpart E is revised to read as follows: ``Subpart

E--Pressure Testing''.

3. Section 195.300 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 195.300 Scope.

This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for the pressure

testing of steel pipelines. However, this subpart does not apply to the

movement of pipe under Sec. 195.424.

4. Section 195.302 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 195.302 General requirements.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in

Sec. 195.304(b), no operator may operate a pipeline unless it has been

pressure tested under this subpart without leakage. In addition, no

operator may return to service a segment of pipeline that has been

replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed until it has been pressure

tested under this subpart without leakage.

(b) Except for pipelines converted under Sec. 195.5, the following

pipelines may be operated without pressure testing under this subpart:

(1) Any hazardous liquid pipeline whose maximum operating pressure

is established under Sec. 195.406(a)(5) that is--

(i) An interstate pipeline constructed before January 8, 1971;

(ii) An interstate offshore gathering line constructed before

August 1, 1977; or

(iii) An intrastate pipeline constructed before October 21, 1985.

(2) Any carbon dioxide pipeline constructed before July 12, 1991,

that--

(i) Has its maximum operating pressure established under

Sec. 195.406(a)(5); or

(ii) Is located in a rural area as part of a production field

distribution system.

(c) Except for onshore pipelines that transport HVL, the following

compliance deadlines apply to pipelines under paragraphs (b)(1) and

(b)(2)(i) of this section that have not been pressure tested under this

subpart:

(1) Before December 7, 1995, for each pipeline each operator

shall--

(i) Plan and schedule testing according to this paragraph; or

(ii) Establish the pipeline's maximum operating pressure under

Sec. 195.406(a)(5).

(2) For pipelines scheduled for testing, each operator shall--

(i) Before December 7, 1998, pressure test--

(A) Each pipeline identified by name, symbol, or otherwise that

existing records show contains more than 50 percent by mileage of

electric resistance welded pipe manufactured before 1970; and

(B) At least 50 percent of the mileage of all other pipelines; and

(ii) Before December 7, 2001, pressure test the remainder of the

pipeline mileage.

5. Section 195.303 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 195.303 Test pressure.

The test pressure for each pressure test conducted under this

subpart must be maintained throughout the part of the system being

tested for at least 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to 125

percent, or more, of the maximum operating pressure and, in the case of

a pipeline that is not visually inspected for leakage during the test,

for at least an additional 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to

110 percent, or more, of the maximum operating pressure.

Sec. 195.304 [Amended]

6. In Sec. 195.304, in paragraph (a), the word ``hydrostatic'' is

removed and the word ``pressure'' is added in its place; and in the

introductory text of paragraph (b), the word ``hydrostatically'' is

removed and the word ``pressure'' is added in its place.

7. The introductory text of Sec. 195.306(b) is revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 195.306 Test medium.

* * * * *

(b) Except for offshore pipelines and pipelines to be tested under

Sec. 195.302(c), liquid petroleum that does not vaporize rapidly may be

used as the test medium if--

* * * * *

Sec. 195.308 [Amended]

8. In Sec. 195.308, the word ``hydrostatically'' is removed and the

word ``pressure'' is added in its place.

Sec. 195.310 [Amended]

9. In Sec. 195.310(a), the word ``hydrostatic'' is removed and the

word ``pressure'' is added in its place.

10. In Sec. 195.406, in paragraph (a)(3), the word

``hydrostatically'' is removed and the word ``pressure'' is added in

its place; and paragraph (a)(5) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.

(a) * * *

(5) For pipelines under Secs. 195.302(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) that have

not been pressure tested under subpart E of this part, 80 percent of

the test pressure or highest operating pressure to which the pipeline

was subjected for 4 or more continuous hours that can be demonstrated

by recording charts or logs made at the time the test or operations

were conducted.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 1994.

Ana Sol Gutierrez,

Acting Administrator, RSPA.

[FR Doc. 94-13806 Filed 6-6-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P