Determining the Extent of Corrosion on Gas Pipelines

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PS-107; Amdt. 192-87]

RIN 2137-AB50

Determining the Extent of Corrosion on Gas Pipelines

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule requires that when gas pipeline operators find

harmful external corrosion on buried metallic pipelines that have been

exposed, they must investigate further to determine if additional

harmful corrosion exists in the vicinity of the original exposure.

Further investigation can help determine the significance of the

initial corrosion discovery. The new requirement may prevent accidents

due to corrosion that might otherwise go undetected near an exposed

portion of pipeline.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective November 22, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. Furrow at (202) 366-4559 or

[email protected]. General information about RSPA's pipeline safety

program can be obtained at http://ops.dot.gov.

[[Page 56979]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Whenever a gas pipeline operator learns that any portion of a

buried metallic pipeline is uncovered, the operator is required to

examine that portion for evidence of external corrosion, if the pipe is

bare or has a deteriorated coating (49 CFR 192.459). In a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (54 FR 27041; June 27, 1989), RSPA proposed

to amend this safety standard to require that when corrosion requiring

remedial action is found, the operator must investigate further to

determine the extent of the corrosion. The proposed rule did not

specify the method or scope of further investigation.

The proposed rule was in response to a rulemaking recommendation

the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) made after its

investigation of a major gas pipeline accident that occurred February

21, 1986, in Lancaster, Kentucky. As discussed in its report of the

investigation (NTSB/PAR-87-01), NTSB found that the accident could be

attributed to inadequate inspection of the pipeline when it was

excavated some time before the accident. Although the operator's visual

inspection showed corrosion potentially requiring remedial action, the

inspectors did not look for corrosion adjacent to and below the portion

of pipe that had been exposed. The location of the failure was only

about one foot from the location of the last corrosion pit measured

when the pipe was uncovered.

The proposed rule also would conform Sec. 192.459 with 49 CFR

195.416(e), the comparable hazardous liquid pipeline safety standard.

Under this latter standard, if harmful corrosion is discovered on

certain exposed hazardous liquid pipelines, the operator is required to

investigate further to determine the extent of the corrosion.

Discussion of Comments

RSPA received 31 written comments on the NPRM. Twenty-seven of the

comments were from gas pipeline operators; two were from trade

associations representing operators, the American Gas Association (AGA)

and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA); one was

from the Public Utility Commission of Oregon; and one was from NTSB.

Many operators thought the proposed rule was reasonable. They said

it was consistent with their standard operating practices.

At the same time, other operators felt existing Sec. 192.459

implies an obligation to investigate the extent of harmful corrosion,

making the proposed rule redundant. We disagree, however, because of

the difference between Sec. 192.459 and Sec. 195.416(e). The present

wording of Sec. 192.459 does not explicitly require further

investigation, while Sec. 195.416(e) does explicitly require further

investigation. This difference in regulatory terms definitely weakens

the argument that Sec. 192.459 implicitly requires further

investigation.

Only three commenters, all operators, opposed the proposed rule.

One of these commenters thought the proposal was unnecessary because

other part 192 standards adequately cover corrosion control. However,

we think the Lancaster accident shows the need for the proposed rule.

If the operator's inspectors had fully investigated the pipeline in the

vicinity of the excavation, they could have discovered the harmful

corrosion that led to the subsequent accident. Their failure to do so

was not contrary to any other part 192 corrosion control standard.

The second commenter said the proposal would discourage operators

from exposing and inspecting pipelines. But considering the overriding

need for excavations in maintaining or constructing buried pipelines,

we doubt the proposed rule is likely to have a significant impact on

excavation decisions. Moreover, we do not think excavation decisions

have been inhibited by the comparable requirement of Sec. 195.416(e) to

investigate the extent of harmful corrosion.

The third commenter who opposed the proposed rule considered it

ineffective because of the different approaches operators would take to

comply with the rule. Yet the proposed rule was intentionally designed

to permit varying approaches to compliance because of the different

conditions that are encountered at excavation sites. Assuming each

operator's approach is sufficient to determine the extent of harmful

corrosion found at an excavation, the rule should be effective overall.

The Public Utility Commission of Oregon commented that exposed pipe

should be investigated further whenever any corrosion is observed, even

if the corrosion does not need remedial action. Although the aim of

this comment is increased safety, we do not think it would be sensible

to require operators to explore beyond the original excavation unless

harmful corrosion has been observed. Otherwise, there would be no

reasonable expectation that any further investigation might be

productive.

Many commenters addressed the method of investigation that would be

required for compliance. Most of these commenters, including AGA, liked

the performance-type wording of the proposed rule, which would permit

operators to use any appropriate method. A few operators, however, were

concerned that the proposed rule inadequately defined the method of

investigation. These commenters wanted the rule to specify particular

methods, such as enlarging the excavation, digging potholes, searching

corrosion and leak history records, or running an electrical survey,

special leak survey, or in-line inspection. They argued that specifying

methods would clarify the operator's discretion in choice of method and

avoid potential disputes with government inspectors over whether

continued excavation is mandatory.

We anticipated this concern about inspection methods and, in the

preamble of the NPRM, explained that additional excavation would not be

mandatory. We said the proposed rule would permit buried pipe at or

near an excavation to be examined either visually or by indirect

methods. Nevertheless, in the final rule, we have slightly modified the

wording of the proposed rule to avoid possible confusion on this point.

The final rule states that indirect methods may be used as well as

visual examination to carry out the further investigation. We have not

listed particular methods since the alternatives to excavation and

visual examination for determining the presence of corrosion are well

known. Also, mentioning acceptable methods could unnecessarily limit

the use of new technologies.

A majority of the commenters addressed the scope of ``further

investigation.'' About half of these commenters, including AGA, were

pleased that the performance-type wording of the proposed rule would

leave this decision to the operator's discretion. However, most of the

remaining commenters were worried that the performance-type wording

could be interpreted to require endless investigation of a buried

pipeline for corrosion. To limit the investigation, these commenters

suggested various changes to the proposed rule. One operator suggested

the rule require only a reasonable effort. Several commenters,

including INGAA, suggested restricting the investigations to corrosion

that is ``within and continuous beyond the bounds of the exposed

portion of the pipeline.'' Others suggested limiting the investigations

to corrosion that is ``contiguous'' with the original

[[Page 56980]]

excavation. In contrast, NTSB urged us to require that investigations

include the entire circumference of pipe irrespective of corrosion

continuity.

The issue of how far to carry an investigation of harmful corrosion

found at an excavation was discussed in the NPRM. Mindful of the

Lancaster accident, we were concerned that harmful corrosion located

near the exposed portion of pipe would go undetected if operators

investigated only for corrosion that adjoins corrosion observed on the

exposed portion. However, recognizing the complexity of specifying the

scope of investigation, we stated that the proposed rule would allow

operators to use their own judgment on where to stop investigating for

corrosion. Although many commenters, including AGA, supported this

approach, we are sensitive to the position that the proposed rule could

be interpreted to set in motion a seemingly endless search for harmful

corrosion on some pipelines.

We agree that only a reasonable effort should be required to find

corrosion in the vicinity of an exposed, corroded pipe. Nonetheless, we

believe the addition of language indicating that only a reasonable

effort be made is unnecessary because performance language always

requires a reasonable effort. This approach is consistent with common

practice. The final rule language indicates that the operator shall

investigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed

pipe to determine whether additional corrosion exists in the vicinity,

as NTSB recommended in its comment.

To further define the required scope of investigation, we have also

modified the wording of the proposed rule to make it clear that the

investigation is required only in the vicinity of the exposed area.

This change is consistent with the purpose of the proposed rule, which

was to prevent accidents due to the existence of harmful corrosion near

the area of pipe exposure.

A few commenters suggested that the final rule exclude distribution

lines on the ground that their lower operating pressures pose less risk

than transmission lines. Similarly, one commenter asked us to exclude

transmission lines that operate below certain stress levels. These

commenters apparently felt that further investigation of known areas of

harmful corrosion is not warranted on low-pressure pipelines. We

disagree. While corrosion may cause only a leak in a pipeline operating

at low pressure as opposed to a rupture in a high-pressure pipeline,

the damages resulting from a leak can be just as serious as from a

rupture. For this reason, we have not excluded distribution lines or

low-pressure transmission lines from the final rule.

Advisory Committee Review

We presented the NPRM for consideration by the Technical Pipeline

Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) at a meeting in Washington, DC on

September 12, 1989. The TPSSC is RSPA's statutory advisory committee

for gas pipeline safety. It has 15 members, representing industry,

government, and the public, who are qualified to evaluate gas pipeline

safety standards. The TPSSC voted unanimously to find the proposed rule

technically feasible, reasonable, and practicable. The TPSSC's report

of its consideration of the NPRM is available in the docket.

In addition, in March of this year we invited the current members

of the TPSSC to review and comment on the risk assessment information

related to the proposed rule, including the estimated costs and

benefits included in the Regulatory Evaluation. Of the 15 committee

members, only three submitted substantive comments, and these are

discussed in the Final Regulatory Evaluation.

One member suggested that we publish another notice of proposed

rulemaking in view of the long period since the initial notice.

However, as stated above, we recently gave the TPSSC an opportunity to

review and comment on the Regulatory Evaluation. We also offered the

public an opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment of the

NPRM (see further discussion below under the National Environmental

Policy Act subheading). Considering these recent opportunities for

additional comment and that the final rule essentially codifies

standard industry practice, we feel there would be little or no new

information to be gained from publishing another notice of proposed

rulemaking.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

DOT does not consider this action to be a significant regulatory

action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not

reviewed this rulemaking document. Also, DOT does not consider this

action significant under its regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR

11034, February 26, 1979).

We prepared a Final Regulatory Evaluation of the costs and benefits

of this action, a copy of which is available in the docket. This

Evaluation shows that because the final rule is in keeping with current

practices of prudent operators, applies only in limited circumstances,

and permits operators to decide both the method and extent of

compliance effort, the impact of the final rule should be minimal.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), RSPA

must consider whether a rulemaking would have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this action

is in keeping with current practices of prudent operators, applies only

in limited circumstances, and permits operators to decide both the

method and extent of their compliance effort, I certify that this

rulemaking action will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 12612

This action would 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 Executive Order 12612 (52

FR 41685; October 30,1987), RSPA has determined that the final rule

does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

D. Executive Order 13084

We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles

and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084, ``Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Because the final rule

will not significantly or uniquely affect the Indian tribal

governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive

Order 13084 do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The final rule has no effect on the paperwork burden of operators

subject to part 192. The action expands the scope of some inspections

for which records are required by 49 CFR 192.491(c), without expanding

the burden of that recordkeeping requirement.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or

[[Page 56981]]

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is

the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the

rule.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

We have analyzed the final rule for purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Only in limited

circumstances will operators enlarge an area of exposed pipe to

investigate the extent of corrosion. And non-invasive investigative

techniques may be used where necessary to safeguard people and the

environment.

The public was given 30 days to comment on the Draft Environmental

Assessment (64 FR 28136, May 25, 1999), and one comment was received.

This comment requested that operators be allowed to use corrosion pigs

to locate metal loss due to corrosion in lieu of expanding the

excavation. This option is allowed under the final rule.

We have determined that the final rule will not significantly

affect the quality of the human environment.

H. Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems

Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates will, on

January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900.

This glitch, the Year 2000 Problem, could cause computers to stop

running or to start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 Problem

poses a threat to the global economy in which Americans live and work.

With the help of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion,

federal agencies are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem

and to offer support. We do not want to impose new requirements that

would mandate business process changes when the resources necessary to

implement those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year

2000 Problem.

This final rule does not require business process changes or

require modifications to computer systems. Because the final rule

apparently does not affect the ability of organizations to respond to

the Year 2000 Problem, we do not intend to delay the effectiveness of

the rule changes.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA amends 49 CFR part 192 as

follows:

1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,

60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

2. Section 192.459 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 192.459 External corrosion control: Examination of buried

pipeline when exposed.

Whenever an operator has knowledge that any portion of a buried

pipeline is exposed, the exposed portion must be examined for evidence

of external corrosion if the pipe is bare, or if the coating is

deteriorated. If external corrosion requiring remedial action under

Secs. 192.483 through 192.489 is found, the operator shall investigate

circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed portion (by

visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine whether

additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity

of the exposed portion.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 18, 1999.

Kelley S. Coyner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 99-27668 Filed 10-21-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P