Seismic Reassessment of California Outer Continental Shelf Platforms; Republication

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010-AC17

Seismic Reassessment of California Outer Continental Shelf

Platforms

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: MMS has developed proposed regulations for the seismic

reassessment of offshore platforms. This proposed rule would only apply

to platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore the State of

California. This proposed rule includes criteria for determining a

platform's fitness through a structural analysis. Each platform on the

California OCS would need to undergo a seismic assessment within 3

years of publication of the final rule. An analysis would also be

triggered by damage to primary structural members, proposals to

significantly increase loads, or other significant changes. Previously,

MMS has allowed for good engineering judgment to determine how

modifications or significant changes would affect a platform's

structural integrity. This proposed rule will provide for more

consistency in seismic reassessment analysis.

DATES: MMS will consider all comments received by August 11, 1997. We

will begin reviewing comments then and may not fully consider comments

we receive after August 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry written comments to the Department of the

Interior; Minerals Management Service; 381 Elden Street; Mail Stop

4700; Herndon, Virginia 22070-4817; Attention: Rules Processing Team.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Ake, Engineering and Research

Branch, at (703) 787-1567.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Platforms installed offshore Southern

California prior to the 1970's were designed and constructed according

to onshore codes used at the time of their installation. In 1969, the

American Petroleum Institute (API) published a document entitled

``Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed

Offshore Platforms,'' or API RP 2A, containing guidelines developed

specifically for offshore structures. The 7th edition of API RP 2A

(1976) was the first version to include guidelines for seismic loading.

The 19th edition of API RP 2A is currently incorporated into MMS

regulations, although the latest 20th edition was published in July

1993.

Following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, MMS and the

California State Lands Commission (CSLC) began investigating seismic

reassessment of structures located offshore Southern California. The

agencies began to evaluate seismic analyses that had been performed for

offshore platforms in their design phases. MMS decided to require

operators of the oldest platforms, constructed before the 1976 API RP

2A 7th edition guidelines were in place, to conduct preliminary seismic

analyses that are normally required for new platforms. The CSLC began a

program to reassess platforms that were undergoing significant changes

in operations, loads, or personnel. Experience with this process has

shown the need for the development of uniform seismic design criteria.

Aware of growing MMS and CSLC interest in reassessment and the lack

of credible reassessment criteria, the API funded an independent study

in 1991 by a panel of four distinguished experts in matters related to

seismic design. The results of the study were based on the underlying

recommendation that the seismic risk offshore should be similar to that

used for well-designed structures onshore. An API task group was formed

to develop reassessment procedures and criteria for storm and ice loads

as well as seismic loads. Its members were composed of technical

experts from the offshore industry, academia, and the MMS.

Using the panel's study on seismic reassessment as a guide, the API

task group developed a Supplement to the 20th edition of API RP 2A that

covers all environmental loading conditions. It provides technical

criteria to be used in reassessing existing structures. The criteria

embrace a fitness-for-purpose evaluation coupled with the risk of

structural failure and the consequences of that failure. The details of

the Supplement will not be discussed here since it has already been the

subject of several 1994 Offshore Technology Conference papers. The API

finalized and published this Supplement

[[Page 31539]]

document as Supplement 1 to API RP 2A in December 1996.

MMS held several workshops to involve industry, the public,

regulatory agencies, and academia in the development of reassessment

guidelines. MMS, CSLC, and others sponsored an international workshop

on seismic reassessment of offshore structures in December 1992. In

November 1993, MMS and CSLC co-sponsored a workshop on public policy

issues related to the seismic reassessment of platforms offshore

Southern California. In December 1993, MMS, API, and others sponsored

an international workshop on reassessment for structures located in all

areas for both earthquake and storm loadings. The workshops were well

attended by the interested parties. Discussions on public policy issues

at all three meetings resulted in consensus on the treatment of seismic

reassessment at the final workshop. The technical aspects of these

numerous public discussions have been incorporated into the API

Supplement, and MMS has made the proposed rule consistent with these

results. Proceedings are available for each of the workshops held.

MMS is moving forward with proposed seismic reassessment

regulations since seismic reassessments can provide critical

information about the offshore facilities in the seismically active

California OCS. Consideration is also being given to incorporating the

20th edition of API RP 2A, including the Supplement, into MMS

regulations instead of proceeding with this proposed rule. Commenters

are urged to provide comments on the relative merits of incorporating

the API documents into MMS regulations, as well as proceeding with this

rule.

The proposed rule would require lessees to conduct seismic

reassessments of OCS platforms located offshore the State of California

within three years of final rule publication. Reassessments would also

be triggered by changing circumstances at the platform such as an

increase of loads on the structure, or a change from an unmanned

platform to a manned platform. Most changes that trigger reassessments

would have to be judged ``significant'', which the proposed rule

defines as cumulative changes that cause a 10 percent decrease in the

platform's loading capacity or a 10 percent increase in the platform's

loads.

A manned platform would undergo an assessment to determine if it

could withstand a median 1000 year seismic event; an unmanned

platform's stability would be compared with the forces from a 500 year

seismic event. The more stringent requirement for a manned platform is

based on the higher standard needed to protect human life. Each seismic

reassessment must be verified by a Certified Verification Agent (CVA)

who has been approved by the MMS.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

This rule was reviewed under E.O. 12866. The Department of the

Interior (DOI) has determined that the rule is not a significant rule

under the criteria of E.O. 12866 and therefore, the rule was not

reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

DOI has determined that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.

Any direct effects of this rulemaking will primarily affect the OCS

lessees and operators--entities that are not small due to the technical

complexities and financial resources necessary to conduct OCS

activities. The indirect effects of this rulemaking on small entities

that provide support for offshore activities have also been determined

to be small.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains a collection of information which has

been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review

and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, MMS invites the public and other Federal agencies to

comment on any aspect of the reporting burden. Submit your comments to

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; OMB; Attention Desk

Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB control number 1010-

0058); 725 17th Street, NW.; Washington, D.C. 20503. Send a copy of

your comments to the Minerals Management Service; Attention: Rules

Processing Team; Mail Stop 4700; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia

20170-4817. You may obtain a copy of the proposed collection of

information by contacting the Bureau's Information Collection Clearance

Officer at (202) 208-7744.

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of

information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60

days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect

if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect

the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the

proposed regulations.

The title of this collection of information is ``30 CFR 250,

Subpart I, Platforms and Structures,'' OMB control number 1010-0058.

The proposed rule adds the following requirements to the currently

approved collection of information required in Subpart I:

Submit a plan for analyzing the platform structure;

Obtain Regional Supervisor approval for analysis criteria

if utilizing a probabilistic analysis;

Review of a site-specific study by an independent peer

review panel; and

Obtain and submit a CVA report.

MMS would use this information to ensure that offshore structures

located on the California OCS meet today's standards for seismic

loading.

Respondents are Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulphur lessees with

platforms located on the California OCS. The proposed rule requires

compliance once within 3 years after publication of the final rule and

thereafter as applicable. The current approved reporting burden for

Subpart I is 21,803 hours. MMS estimates eight new responses each year

for the first three years. Additional years would average fewer than

two responses. We estimate the additional annual reporting burden as a

result of this rule would be 1,256 hours (157 hours per response).

Based on $35 per hour, the burden hour cost to respondents is estimated

to be $43,960.

In addition to the hour burden discussed above, the proposed rule

would add one other cost burden associated with the collection of

information. Section 250.145(e) requires respondents to obtain a final

report prepared by a CVA and submit it to the Regional Supervisor. We

estimate the cost of preparing that report (including the costs of

conducting engineering analysis) is $100,000 per platform.

MMS will summarize written responses to this notice and address

them in the final rule. All comments will become a matter of public

record.

1. MMS specifically solicits comments on the following questions:

(a) Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the

proper performance of MMS's functions, and will it be useful?

(b) Are the burden hour and cost of the final CVA report estimates

reasonable for the proposed collection?

(c) Do you have any suggestions that would enhance the quality,

clarity, or usefulness of the information to be collected?

(d) Is there a way to minimize the information collection burden on

those who are to respond, including through

[[Page 31540]]

the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms

of information technology?

2. In addition, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires

agencies to estimate the total annual cost burden to respondents or

recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. MMS needs

your comments on this item. Your response should split the cost

estimate into two components:

(a) Total capital and startup cost; and

(b) Annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of services.

Your estimates should consider the costs to generate, maintain, and

disclose or provide the information. You should describe the methods

you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology

acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount

rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup

costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase

to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, drilling,

and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your

estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: before

October 1, 1995; to comply with requirements not associated with the

information collection; for reasons other than to provide information

or keep records for the Government; or as part of customary and usual

business or private practices.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provides that an agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number.

Takings Implication Assessment

DOI determined that this proposed rule does not represent a

governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally

protected property rights. Thus, DOI does not need to prepare a Takings

Implication Assessment pursuant to E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

E.O. 12988

DOI has certified that this proposed rule meets the applicable

civil justice reform standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

E.O. 12778.

National Environmental Policy Act

MMS has examined this proposed rulemaking and has determined that

this rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human environment pursuant to section

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

DOI has determined and certifies according to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rule will not impose a

cost of $100 million or more in any given year on State, local, and

tribal government, or the private sector.

List of Subjects in CFR Part 250

Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental

protection, Government contracts, Incorporation by reference,

Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas development and

production, Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas reserves, Penalties,

Pipelines, Public lands--mineral resources, Public lands--rights-of-

way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

Dated: May 28, 1997.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Minerals Management Service

(MMS) proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as follows:

PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER

CONTINENTAL SHELF

1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1334.

2. Section 250.145 is added to Subpart I to read as follows:

Sec. 250.145 Seismic Reassessment of California OCS Platforms.

(a) Applicability. These requirements apply to all platforms

located on the California OCS.

(b) Definitions. When used in this section, the terms have the

following meanings:

Loss of Global Structural Stability means the point at which a

structure is unable to establish equilibrium under the applied gravity

loadings and induced earthquake forces.

Manned Platform means a platform that always has someone living on

it.

Platform Capacity means the platform's ability to resist loading or

to withstand a given maximum load.

Significant means cumulative damage or cumulative changes from the

original design premise that lead to a decrease in capacity or an

increase in loading greater than 10 percent.

Unmanned Platform means any platform other than a manned platform.

You means the lessee.

(c) When must I conduct a seismic reassessment? You must conduct a

seismic reassessment of each of your California OCS platforms in its

current condition by [Insert date that is 3 years after the date the

final rule is published in the Federal Register]. You must also conduct

a seismic reassessment when a reassessment initiator occurs.

Reassessment initiators are changes in the platform status which result

in a significant change in demand, capacity, or consequence of the

platform's failure, such as, but not limited to:

(1) Functional or operational changes which result in significantly

higher loads than in the original design (e.g., new waterflood

operations, additional tanks, or crew quarters, etc.).

(2) Significant damage to primary structural members or joints

found during an inspection.

(3) The availability of credible new seismic data that would

indicate significantly higher loads than those used in the original

design criteria.

(4) Significant changes in the original design criteria or

methodologies that would negatively affect the platform. An example of

this type of significant change is the evolution of the tubular joint

equation.

(5) A change from an unmanned platform to a manned platform.

(d) What are the criteria for a seismic reassessment? Before you

conduct the seismic reassessment, you must submit your plan for

analyzing the structure to the Regional Supervisor for approval. In

addition:

(1) For manned platforms, you must demonstrate that the platform in

its current condition can withstand a median 1000-year seismic event

without loss of global structural stability. The ultimate strength of

all undamaged members, joints and piles must be considered and, if

necessary, safety factors may be reduced to 1.0.

(2) For unmanned platforms, you must demonstrate that the platform

in its current condition can withstand a median 500-year seismic event

without loss of global structural stability. The ultimate strength of

all undamaged members, joints, and piles must be considered, and if

necessary, safety factors may be reduced to 1.0.

(3) The Regional Supervisor may accept a probabilistic analysis as

an alternative to the analyses required in paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2)

of this section. The probabilistic analysis must address the effects of

uncertainty and

[[Page 31541]]

bias in loading and resistance. Before using this method, you must

obtain approval for your analysis criteria from the Regional

Supervisor.

(4) Topsides and appurtenances must withstand the seismic loads

from paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section and be in conformance

with the seismic provision of API RP 2A-WSD.

(5) You must conduct a site-specific study under 30 CFR 250.139

based on soil borings and geophysical data taken on or near the

platform vicinity, using the best available technology. You may use a

study previously conducted. An MMS approved independent peer review

panel must review the study.

(e) Does a third party need to verify the seismic reassessment? You

must use a Certified Verification Agent (CVA) approved by the MMS using

the qualification standards in Sec. 250.132(b)(1)(ii) to verify the

analyses required in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section.

You must submit the CVA's final report to the Regional Supervisor. It

must describe the analysis process and material reviewed, summarize the

findings, and include a recommendation to the Regional Supervisor. The

recommendation must advise the Regional Supervisor to either accept,

request modifications, or reject the reassessment.

(f) What if my platform does not pass the seismic reassessment? If

your structure does not meet the reassessment criteria, you must

contact the Regional Supervisor for approval to initiate one or more

mitigation actions. Mitigation actions are modifications to the

structure or to operational procedures that reduce loads, increase

capacities, or reduce consequences.

[FR Doc. 97-15088 Filed 6-9-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P