Pipeline Safety: Adoption of Consensus Standards for Breakout Tanks
Federal RegisterApr 2, 1999
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket No. RSPA-97-2095; Amendment 195-66]
[RIN 2137-AC 11]
Pipeline Safety: Adoption of Consensus Standards for Breakout
Tanks
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule incorporates by reference consensus standards
for aboveground steel storage tanks into the hazardous liquid pipeline
safety regulations. These standards apply to the design, construction,
and testing of new tanks, and the repairs, alterations and replacement
of existing tanks. All new and existing breakout tanks are also subject
to the operating and maintenance requirements specified in this rule.
The incorporation by reference of these thirteen standards will
significantly improve the minimum level of safety applicable to the
transportation and storage of petroleum and petroleum products at
breakout tanks throughout the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule takes effect May 3, 1999. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register May 3, 1999.
Compliance date: Except under Sec. 195.432, compliance with
consensus
[[Page 15927]]
standards that are incorporated by reference is not required until
October 2, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni, Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), telephone: (202) 366-4571, FAX: (202) 366-4566, e-mail:
[email protected], regarding the subject matter of this rule; or
the Docket Facility, telephone (202) 366-9329, regarding copies of this
final rule or other material in the docket.
Comments may be accessed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov.
General information about the RSPA/Office of Pipeline Safety programs
can be obtained by accessing OPS's Internet home page at http://
ops.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The failure of a storage tank not associated with pipeline
transportation provided much of the incentive to improve consensus
standards for aboveground steel storage tanks. On January 2, 1988, at a
barge terminal in Floreffe, Pennsylvania, a newly recommissioned
storage tank suddenly collapsed and released 3.9 million gallons of
diesel oil. Although the earthen dike contained most of the diesel oil,
an estimated 750,000 gallons were spilled into the Monongahela River
and eventually flowed into the Ohio River.
The publicity and costly consequences of this failure caused
widespread concern about the safety of all aboveground storage tanks.
Responding to the aftermath of this event, petroleum industry engineers
and the American Petroleum Institute considerably updated existing
standards and developed several new standards.
In the 10-year period from 1987-1996, operators of breakout tanks
reported 152 accidents to RSPA. These accidents caused no deaths; three
injuries to pipeline personnel; $12,422,894 of property damage; and
153,972 spilled barrels. The causes were reported as: 25 leaks in the
tank floor; 30 incorrect operations; 8 outside forces; and 26
malfunctions of control or relief equipment. The remaining 63 were
related to problems with floating roof water drain lines, lightning,
and miscellaneous other causes.
The pipeline safety regulations have not been revised to reflect
the updating and development of new consensus standards for aboveground
steel storage tanks. Instead, they remain very limited in scope and too
general to address many safety-related aspects.
Consequently, RSPA recognizes the need to update the safety
regulations for breakout tanks. The most appropriate means of updating
is the incorporation by reference into Part 195 of selected consensus
standards. They are widely understood and have been extensively
implemented by the operators of breakout tanks.
RSPA provided operators of breakout tanks, the petroleum industry
and the general public the opportunity to provide early input on RSPA's
intent to incorporate consensus standards for storage tanks through
public meetings.
RSPA contracted with the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to
obtain professional assistance in the selection of consensus standards
to be incorporated into the breakout tank regulations. TTI is
associated with Texas A&M University at College station, Texas.
All consensus standards are being adopted on a prospective basis,
meaning design, construction and testing requirements apply to new tank
construction and future repairs, alterations or replacements of
existing tanks. Operating and maintenance requirements apply to future
operating and maintenance activities. The deadlines for compliance with
the new requirements are specified in the appropriate sections of this
rule.
For additional background information regarding this rule please
refer to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [63 FR 27903; May
21,1998].
Proposed Rule
RSPA published an NPRM (63 FR 27903; May 21, 1998), proposing to
incorporate 12 consensus standards for aboveground breakout storage
tanks into 49 CFR Part 195. In addition, a 13th consensus standard, API
510, has been added for inspection of high pressure vessels built to
API standard 2510. The NPRM requested interested persons to submit
comments by July 20, 1998. It was also stated that late filed comments
would be considered as far as practicable. We received comments from
nine sources including American Petroleum Institute (API) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to 7/20/98. After which,
API and EPA filed second set of comments on 10/19/98 and 12/3/98
respectively.
Final Rule
This final rule incorporates consensus standards for aboveground
breakout storage tanks into 49 CFR Part 195. Currently Sec. 195.3 lists
18 publications that have been incorporated by reference into Part 195.
This rule now incorporates all or parts of an additional six API
standards (510, 620, 650, 653, 2000 and 2510), one API Specification
(12F), four API Recommended Practices (651, 652, 2003 and 2350), one
API Publication (2026), and NFPA 30.
Subpart A--General.
Revised Sec. 195.1(c) explains the applicability of Part 195 to
breakout tanks. It further explains that anhydrous ammonia breakout
tanks need not comply with certain requirements in Part 195.
Listed below are 13 standards incorporated by reference wholly or
partially. For further information about these documents please refer
to the NPRM [63 FR 27903; May 21, 1998] or the individual standards.
1. API SPECIFICATION 12F--Specification for Shop Welded Tanks for
Storage of Production Liquids, Eleventh Edition, November 1, 1994.
2. API 510--Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration, Eighth Edition, June 1997.
API 510 has been added for purposes of inspection of high pressure
breakout tanks built to API standard 2510.
3. API STANDARD 620--Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-
Pressure Storage Tanks, Ninth Edition, February 1996 (Including Addenda
1 and 2).
4. API STANDARD 650--Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, Ninth
Edition, July 1993 (Including Addenda 1 through 4).
5. API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 651--Cathodic Protection of Aboveground
Petroleum Storage Tanks, Second Edition, Dec. 1997.
6. API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 652--Lining of Aboveground Petroleum
Storage Tank Bottoms, Second Edition, December 1997.
7. API STANDARD 653--Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Reconstruction, Second Edition, December 1995 (Including Addenda 1 and
2).
8. API STANDARD 2000--Venting Atmospheric and Low-Pressure Storage
Tanks, Fourth Edition, September 1992.
9. API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 2003--Protection Against Ignitions
Arising Out of Static, Lightning, and Stray Currents, Sixth Edition,
September 1998.
10. API PUBLICATION 2026--Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating
Roofs of Storage Tanks in Petroleum Service, Second Edition, April
1998.
11. API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 2350--Overfill Protection for Storage
Tanks In Petroleum Facilities, Second Edition, Jan. 1996.
12. API STANDARD 2510--Design and Construction of LPG
Installations, Seventh Edition, May 1995.
[[Page 15928]]
13. NFPA 30--Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 1996 Edition.
Subpart C--Design Requirements
The revised Sec. 195.132 now includes requirements for critical
engineering subjects, such as materials, design, fabrication, erection,
methods of inspecting joints, welding procedure and welder
qualifications, and marking. It also contains other important topics
including foundations, external floating roofs, seismic design,
aluminum dome roofs, internal floating roofs, inspection and testing,
and requirements for operating at elevated temperatures. These topics
are typical of the engineering subjects covered by incorporating by
reference the following standards:
(1) API Specification 12F for shop-fabricated tanks with vapor
space pressure that are approximately atmospheric with capacity of 90
to 750 barrels.
(2) API Standard 650 for atmospheric pressure tanks with pressures
not greater than 2.5 psig.
(3) API Standard 620 for low pressure tanks with vapor space
pressures not greater than 15 psig.
(4) API Standard 2510 for LPG tanks with capacity of 2000 gallons
or more and pressures greater than 15 psig.
Subpart D--Construction
A new Sec. 195.205 on Repair, alteration and reconstruction of
breakout tanks that have been in service requires that tanks built to
API 650 and API 12C are to be modified in accordance with API Standard
653. Also, tanks built to API 620 may be modified by the design,
welding examination and testing provisions of API standard 653 in
proper conformance with the stresses, joint efficiencies, material and
other provisions in API standard 620. For tanks built to API 2510
modifications are to be performed in accordance with the API 510.
In Sec. 195.242 requirements for cathodic protection have been
amended for the aboveground tanks by referencing API Recommended
Practices 651 for the bottoms of the tanks and API Recommended
Practices 652 for the internal lining of the tank bottom.
In Sec. 195.264, requirements for impoundment, protection against
entry, normal/emergency venting and pressure/vacuum relief for the
above ground breakout tanks have been revised. In addition some
requirements of NFPA 30 have been added for impoundment by diking.
Subpart E--Pressure Testing
A new Sec. 195.307 requires pressure testing of breakout tanks
newly placed in service or returned to service after 18 months. Testing
requirements reference specified tank standards.
Subpart F--Operation and Maintenance
A new Sec. 195.405 requires protection against ignitions and safe
access/egress involving floating roofs in accordance with API RP 2003.
Section 195.416 has been amended by adding a provision for the
inspection of cathodic protection systems for breakout tanks in
accordance with API RP 651.
Section 195.428 has been amended by adding provisions for the
installation of over pressure safety devices and overfill protection
systems in accordance with API RP 2350 and API Standard 2510.
Section 195.432 has been revised to provide maintenance inspection
of breakout tanks and diking in accordance with the provisions of API
Standard 653, and API Standard 2510.
Discussion of Comments
We received comments from the following sources in response to the
NPRM:
Trade associations: American Petroleum Institute (API); The Fertilizer
Institute (TFI); Steel Tank Institute (STI); and Independent Liquid
Terminals Association (ILTA)
Standards organization: National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Pipeline operators: Conoco Pipeline Company (CONOCO); TE Products
Pipeline Company (TEPPCO); and Amoco Pipeline Company (AMOCO)
Federal agency: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
In addition, as discussed under another heading below, the
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee
considered and submitted a report on the proposed rules.
Five of the nine commenters (API, AMOCO, CONOCO, TEPPCO, NFPA)
generally supported the NPRM, but expressed concerns or suggested
changes, CONOCO by endorsing API's views. EPA opposed our regulatory
approach of referencing consensus standards, but nevertheless submitted
comments on specific issues. Of the remaining three commenters, TFI and
ILTA raised particular points about the NPRM, and STI recommended
additional standards to incorporate by reference.
We did not consider the additional consensus standards STI
suggested because the suggestions were not tied to any particular
aspect of the NPRM. All other significant comments on the NPRM are
summarized in this section of the preamble, where we also explain our
response to those comments.
Organization of Breakout Tank Rules
API commented that all substantive regulations on breakout tanks
should be consolidated in a single subpart in Part 195, rather than
scattered among several subparts.
We did not adopt this suggestion because we consider it
impractical. Part 195 defines a ``pipeline system'' to include breakout
tanks. Breakout tanks also come within the meaning of ``pipeline
facility'' as defined in Part 195. Consequently, apart from the final
rules in this document, there are many substantive regulations in Part
195 governing pipeline facilities or pipeline systems that apply to
breakout tanks. For example, the accident reporting requirements in
Subpart B, the operations and maintenance manual requirements in
Sec. 195.402, and the training requirements in Sec. 195.403 apply to
breakout tanks because these regulations cover all parts of a pipeline
system. So to combine all the substantive requirements for breakout
tanks in a single subpart would require duplicating many regulations or
making many cross references, and neither approach is desirable.
Still we believe readers could benefit from more direction on how
to recognize which Part 195 regulations apply to breakout tanks. So we
have replaced Sec. 195.1(c) to explain the applicability of Part 195 to
breakout tanks. We also revised Sec. 195.1(c) by deleting certain
compliance deadlines that have expired.
Incorporation by Reference
Two commenters indicated there is possibly some confusion over the
exact composition of matter incorporated by reference. First, TEPPCO
asked whether a document or part of a document that is referenced by
material incorporated by reference is similarly incorporated by
reference. AMOCO declared that such internal references have no
regulatory force. On the contrary, we believe if a document part that
is incorporated by reference refers to a separate part of the same
document or another document, compliance with that separate part is
required if it is necessary for compliance with the original referenced
document part. If the internal reference is informational or advisory
and not necessary for compliance, then operators are not obliged to
comply with it.
[[Page 15929]]
TEPPCO and API suggested that we amend the section in Part 195 that
lists referenced documents (Sec. 195.3) to state which parts of the
documents are incorporated by reference if the whole document is not
incorporated. Section 195.3(a) now provides that an entire document is
not incorporated by reference in Part 195 when only a part of the
document is referenced. Whether an entire document or only part of a
document is referenced depends on the scope of the reference in the
Part 195 section that states the reference. For example, under proposed
Sec. 195.132, certain breakout tanks would have to be designed and
constructed in accordance with certain API documents. Thus, all
provisions of the API documents that apply to design and construction
of breakout tanks would be incorporated by reference. If those
provisions are found in only parts of the documents, then only those
parts would be incorporated by reference. But if an entire document
governs design and construction, the entire document would be
incorporated by reference. Although we do not think it would be
practical to duplicate in Sec. 195.3 the scope of the various
references included throughout Part 195, we are amending the lead-in to
Sec. 195.3(c) to clarify that the listed publications may be referenced
in whole or in part in Part 195.
Engineering Judgment
API commented that its consensus standards were developed as an aid
to engineering judgment, not as a replacement for it. It said that its
consensus standards may not fit every tank situation and were not
intended to be strictly met. Therefore, API suggested that in enforcing
the standards, we recognize the need for engineering judgment and look
for attainment of objectives (such as tank integrity and release
prevention) rather than strict adherence to the terms of the standards.
On this issue, EPA noted that in many of API's consensus standards
the requirements are optional. A document's foreword may permit
operators not to meet sections they consider unnecessary to follow in
particular circumstances. As an example, EPA cited API 653 (referenced
in proposed Secs. 195.205, 195.307, and 195.432) in which the foreword
states ``If tanks are inspected, repaired, altered, or reconstructed in
accordance with this standard, the owner/operator may elect to modify,
delete, or amplify sections of this standard.''
In the NPRM, we proposed the following levels of compliance for the
different types of API and NFPA documents that would be incorporated by
reference:
Standard, Specification or Code--An operator would be
expected to comply with the provisions.
Recommended Practice--An operator would be expected to
follow the provisions unless the operator notes in the procedural
manual the reasons why compliance with all or certain provisions is not
necessary for the safety of a particular breakout tank or tanks.
Publication--These provisions provide guidelines, safety
practices and precautions for the operator's review and consideration
for inclusion in the procedural manual.
By this proposal we meant that operators would have to meet the
referenced parts of standards, specifications, and codes according to
the terms of those parts. Although operators could decide not to abide
by referenced parts of recommended practices or publications, we did
not intend for them to have this same discretion regarding compliance
with referenced parts of standards, specifications, or codes.
Therefore, in the final rules, none of the references to parts of
standards, specifications, or codes may be interpreted to include a
statement in the document's foreword or elsewhere outside the
referenced part that would absolve the operator of its responsibility
to comply with the referenced part. For example, the statement in
section 1-1.3 of NFPA 30 that the code does not apply to
``[t]ransportation of flammable and combustible liquids, as governed by
the U. S. Department of Transportation'' does not nullify the
references to particular sections of NFPA 30 in final Sec. 195.264.
Nonetheless, if the referenced part of a standard, specification,
or code allows or calls for the use of engineering judgment, in
determining compliance with the referenced part, we will not object to
the use of judgment. We will, however, compare the judgment used
against what is reasonable under the circumstances. If an operator
wishes to achieve a particular objective in a way that differs from the
referenced part of a standard, specification, or code or falls outside
the range of allowable judgment, it can request permission to do so by
applying to us or the appropriate state agency, as applicable, for a
waiver of the referenced part (see 49 U.S.C. 60118).
EPA also raised an enforcement issue with regard to the proposed
references to API recommended practices (Secs. 195.242 (c) and (d),
195.405, 195.416(j), and 195.428(c)). EPA said that although an
operator would have to include in its procedural manual its reason for
not applying a practice to a particular tank, the proposal did not
provide a way for us to order compliance with the practice if we do not
agree with the operator's reason.
This additional provision is not needed, however, because
operators' procedural manuals are subject to review and amendment by
our enforcement personnel. Under the enforcement procedures in 49 CFR
190.237, if our enforcement personnel have reason to believe an
operator's operations and maintenance procedures are inadequate for
safety, they conduct proceedings to determine the adequacy and can
order the operator to change any procedures found inadequate. In
addition, under 49 CFR 190.233, we can order immediate corrective
action for any pipeline facility that we believe poses a serious threat
to life or property.
Performance Standards v. Consensus Standards
EPA stated that requiring operators to apply consensus standards
would lock them into present-day technologies and practices, and
prevent them from using innovative techniques until we grant special
approvals or reference a later consensus standard that permits the new
techniques. As an alternative approach, EPA recommended that we adopt
tank rules that establish the level of performance to be achieved,
leaving operators free to use the latest technologies and practices to
achieve it.
In contrast, API pointed out that its standards are regularly
revised and reflect constant improvement by committees of experts, so
that use of new technologies is not discouraged. API also noted that we
have been amending our pipeline safety standards to stay apace with
changes to referenced consensus standards.
We recognize the advantage of performance standards, and Part 195
has many standards of this kind. But it also has standards that
incorporate consensus standards by reference. Consensus standards have
been referenced when performance standards were not available or could
not be developed soon enough to meet the need for safety regulation.
Still, in our experience, referencing consensus standards has not
stymied the use of new pipeline technologies. As API said about its own
standards, most of the referenced standards are updated regularly.
Moreover, our pipeline safety regulations allow operators to use new
technologies permitted under the latest editions of referenced
consensus standards as long as the new technology does not result in
less safety than
[[Page 15930]]
required by the referenced edition (see Sec. 195.101).
Environmental Protection
EPA said that regulations other than the proposed referenced
standards would be needed to protect the environment adequately against
potential tank spills. It said operators should be required to evaluate
breakout tank areas and provide facilities, equipment, or practices at
critical locations to prevent possible major oil discharges from
leaving the breakout tank area. EPA also recommended that we require
proper security measures to protect against releases from vandalism.
This comment did not acknowledge our many existing regulations for
breakout tanks that require evaluation and preventive practices to
guard against environmental damage. For instance, Sec. 195.402(c)(4)
requires operators, as part of their detailed operations and
maintenance plan, to determine which facilities would require an
immediate response to prevent hazards. Sec. 195.403(a)(3) requires
training to recognize conditions likely to cause emergencies in the
event of malfunctions or failures; and under Sec. 195.436, operators
must protect breakout tank areas against vandalism and unauthorized
entry. Further regulations in 49 CFR Part 194 require operators to
develop and follow contingency plans for responding to spills from
breakout tanks, and to provide adequate resources for oil spill
response. Even more environmental protection would be required by the
proposed rules that reference consensus standards, especially those
standards for corrosion control of tank bottoms and spill impoundment.
Therefore, we think the combination of existing breakout tank
regulations and those we are adopting in this final rule will result in
an adequate level of environmental protection. But we will continue to
monitor the safety and environmental record of breakout tanks and take
any further action that is warranted by new circumstances.
Overlapping Federal Regulation of Breakout Tanks
ILTA voiced concern about the dual federal regulation of storage
tanks at for-hire and marketing terminals. This commenter noted
correctly that a storage tank comes under the definition of ``breakout
tank'' in Part 195 if it receives a petroleum product by pipeline and
then reinjects it into a pipeline for continued transportation. It said
the tank would be subject to EPA's Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations if it can also transfer the product
to another mode of transit serving the terminal. ILTA also pointed out
that our present definition of ``breakout tank'' is not supported by
the 1971 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between DOT (U.S. Coast
Guard) and EPA on transportation-related facilities (40 CFR Part 112,
App. A), and urged us to continue to work with EPA to lessen the
problems of overlapping jurisdiction. In its comment on this subject,
EPA asked that we amend our definition of ``breakout tank'' to adhere
to the Congressional intent that we regulate only those storage tanks
that are ``incidental to pipeline transportation.'' The agency
suggested that doing so would require us to exclude tanks that serve
non-pipeline modes of transportation.
First, it is important to point out that our current definition of
``breakout tank'' was adopted with full cognizance that our statutory
authority over hazardous liquid storage tanks is limited to tanks that
are incidental to pipeline transportation (46 FR 38358; July 27, 1981).
We continue to consider this limitation to bar the regulation of
storage tanks used exclusively in non-pipeline modes of transportation,
but not to bar the regulation of tanks used intermodally with
pipelines, such as breakout tanks that also serve cargo vessels, tank
cars, or tank trucks. The application of Part 195 to intermodal
breakout tanks was an issue in the case of Exxon Corporation v. United
States Secretary of Transportation (978 F.Supp. 946), and the court
concluded the tank in question was subject to Part 195.
Indeed, we believe that safety and environmental protection are
enhanced under our definition of ``breakout tank''. The regulations we
are issuing today incorporate up-to-date pipeline industry safety
practices that were recently developed by expert engineers to prevent
significant storage tank accidents. For this reason, we think these
regulations may be more appropriate than EPA's SPCC rules to prevent
pipeline breakout tank accidents. And excluding certain categories of
tanks from the regulations as a way of minimizing regulatory overlap
may not be in the public interest. The members of our Technical
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee who represent
environmental interests supported the NPRM's approach to environmental
protection when the committee discussed the merits of the NPRM.
Nevertheless, we are concerned that the industry faces overlapping
federal storage tank regulations at intermodal transportation
terminals. While the 1971 MOU applies to the Coast Guard's and EPA's
regulatory authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, we
cannot ignore its spillover effect on our own regulatory program.
Therefore, we will continue to talk to EPA officials hopefully to reach
agreement on the best way for each agency to exercise its regulatory
authority at intermodal transportation terminals without creating undue
burdens on industry. In this regard, we will work to (1) clarify each
agency's jurisdiction to issue pollution prevention and response
planning regulations, and define which facilities are jointly regulated
and which are exclusively subject to EPA or RSPA regulations; (2)
develop a way to resolve site-specific jurisdictional disputes; (3)
develop information that explains each agency's jurisdiction at
intermodal facilities; (4) jointly oversee operator compliance; (5)
address response preparedness issues at certain facilities; and (6)
commit additional resources to regional response activities.
Anhydrous Ammonia Tanks
TFI argued that many of the proposed rules were not appropriate for
anhydrous ammonia breakout tanks. It said that because of their unique
characteristics, anhydrous ammonia breakout tanks are not treated the
same as petroleum breakout tanks in matters of design, construction,
operation, and maintenance. TFI listed various problems it saw with the
proposed rules and, in some cases, recommended alternative consensus
standards. This commenter advised that we either exclude anhydrous
ammonia breakout tanks from the final rules or adopt appropriate
requirements for these tanks.
Because the existing Part 195 standards that apply to breakout
tanks apply equally to anhydrous ammonia and petroleum tanks, we did
not question whether the proposed references to API and NFPA standards
would be suitable for both types of tanks. Now, however, in view of
TFI's comment and having no information to the contrary, we are
hesitant to impose on operators of anhydrous ammonia breakout tanks any
of the proposed rules that we believe might not be wholly appropriate
for such tanks. Therefore, we are adding a sentence to the new
Sec. 195.1(c) to exclude anhydrous ammonia breakout tanks from final
Secs. 195.132(b), 195.205(b), 195.242(c) and (d), 195.264(b) and (e),
195.307, 195.428(c) and (d), and 195.432(b) and (c). At the same time,
we will continue to monitor the safety performance of anhydrous ammonia
breakout tanks and
[[Page 15931]]
take any further rulemaking action that is warranted, including
referencing appropriate consensus standards.
Riveted and Bolted Tanks
EPA said the proposed rules do not sufficiently address problems on
riveted and bolted tanks. These tanks, it said, are usually older and
more susceptible to leaks and their bottoms require different
inspection methods. API, however, pointed out that API Standard 653
covers the integrity maintenance of riveted tanks and specifically
addresses older tanks. API also said most transportation tanks are
welded and that bolted tanks are used in the exploration and production
sector of the oil industry.
Besides API Standard 653, we believe several other consensus
standards we proposed to reference apply to riveted tanks: API
Recommended Practice 651, API Recommended Practice 652, API Recommended
Practice 2003, API Recommended Practice 2350, API Standard 2000, API
Publication 2026, and NFPA 30. Moreover, our safety data do not
indicate that additional requirements are needed to combat leakage
problems in older riveted tanks. For example, in its breakout tank
report (discussed in the NPRM), the Texas Transportation Institute
found that the general condition and appearance of the older riveted
tanks it investigated were excellent. Although EPA correctly observed
that riveted tank inspection differs from welded tank inspection, the
NPRM did not propose rules for the methods of inspecting either welded
or riveted tanks.
As to bolted tanks, our experience shows that these tanks are used
primarily to store field production, and few, if any, of these tanks
are used as breakout tanks subject to Part 195. Any bolted breakout
tanks that do exist are covered by existing Part 195 requirements and
are subject to inspection by federal and state pipeline safety
enforcement personnel.
Operator Error
EPA stated that API standards do not address the problem of
operator error, which accounts for a large percentage of pipeline
spills. EPA suggested operator personnel should receive proper
training, and after a spill, operators should review their training
practices to see if changes are needed to prevent spills from
recurrence based on operator error.
The NPRM did not propose training requirements because existing
Sec. 195.403 requires breakout tank operators to have a detailed
training program for operating and maintenance personnel. Under this
program, operators periodically review personnel performances and
change the training as necessary to make it effective. In addition, in
a separate proceeding, we have proposed new rules on the qualification
of personnel to perform safety-related tasks (63 FR 57269; Oct. 27,
1998). We intend to issue a final rule on the qualification of
personnel in the near future.
Section 195.205(b)(2)
In this section, we proposed that the repair, alteration, and
reconstruction of breakout tanks built to API Specification 12F, API
Standard 620, or API Standard 2510 be done in accordance with those
respective standards. API commented that because API Standard 2510
applies to the design and construction of new tanks and has limited
application to existing tanks, the reference to API Standard 2510 may
be confusing. It suggested that the references in proposed
Sec. 195.205(b)(2) be stated more specifically to refer to the
``design, welding, examination, and material requirements of those
respective standards.'' API also suggested that we add a sentence to
proposed Sec. 195.205(b)(2) to refer to API 510, ``Pressure Vessel
Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, and
Alteration,'' for regulation on the repairs and alteration of tanks
built to API Standard 2510.
Based on this comment, final Sec. 195.205(b)(2) contains more
specific references. And we have added a new paragraph under
Sec. 195.205(b)(3) regarding use of API 510 for repairs, alteration and
reconstruction of high pressure tanks.
Section 195.264
We proposed to increase the present requirements of Sec. 195.264
related to spill containment and relief venting. In proposed
Sec. 195.264(b)(1)(i), we referenced section 2-3.4.3 of NFPA 30 for
secondary containment by impounding around a breakout tank. But we
proposed to apply the specific requirements in section 2-3.4.3
concerning ``Class I [flammable] liquids'' to all ``hazardous liquids''
subject to Part 195. API objected to this proposed expansion of the
Class I-specific requirements as inappropriate because these
requirements are long-standing, well understood, and technically sound.
NFPA pointed out that our Class I proposal created the false impression
that section 2-3.4.3 of NFPA 30 is limited to Class I liquids, when, in
fact, other hazardous liquids are covered as well. Upon
reconsideration, we believe the proposed expansion of specific Class I
liquid requirements was not consistent with the intent of the NPRM to
require the industry to follow consensus standards. Therefore, we have
not adopted our proposal replacing ``hazardous liquids'' in the final
rule.
API also objected to the term ``secondary containment'' in proposed
Sec. 195.264(b). It said section 2-3.4.3 of NFPA 30 applies to
impoundment, which better describes the function of diked areas around
tanks. We agree and have substituted ``impoundment'' for ``secondary
containment'' in the final rule.
NFPA suggested we reference additional sections of NFPA 30 in
Sec. 195.264: section 2-9.3 for security, and sections 2-3.5 and 2-3.6
for normal and emergency venting. The latter two sections, NFPA said,
would eliminate the need for references to API documents in proposed
Sec. 195.264(e)(1)-(3). Since the NPRM did not propose to substantively
change the existing breakout tank security requirement
(Sec. 195.264(b)), we did not consider referencing section 2-9.3 of
NFPA 30 in the final rule. Further, even though the suggested NFPA 30
sections may yield comparable results, in the absence of negative
comments about the proposed references to API documents for normal and
emergency venting, we are leaving these API references in the final
rule.
EPA described what it called ``inherent weaknesses'' in the spill
control provisions of NFPA 30. Specifically, EPA said NFPA 30 limits
dike height, does not require free board space for precipitation, and
allows alternatives that can compromise environmental protection. It
also noted the lack of requirements for certification by a professional
engineer, spill history records, predictions of spill rate and
direction, inspection of impoundment, and response plans with
commitment of personnel and equipment. EPA suggested we adopt its SPCC
regulations instead of the NFPA requirements. Doing so, EPA said, would
result in better environmental protection. But API contended the SPCC
regulation is inappropriate for pipeline breakout tanks because it
addresses entire plants and contains specific requirements for non-
transportation facilities.
The weaknesses EPA found with the spill control provisions of NFPA
30 either do not exist or are mitigated by other considerations.
Section 2-3.4.3(f) allows dikes of any height that provide normal
access to the enclosure. The need for free board must be considered as
required by appendix A-2-3.4.3(b). Although section 1-4 permits
equivalent alternatives, as we discussed above under the ``Engineering
[[Page 15932]]
Judgment'' heading, this provision is not included in the parts of NFPA
30 incorporated by reference in Sec. 195.264. None of the Part 195
rules require operators to obtain professional engineer certifications
to demonstrate compliance, and we do not consider the lack of such a
requirement in NFPA 30 to be a shortcoming in the regulation of spill
control. Breakout tank operators have to keep records of spills under
Sec. 195.404(b), and Sec. 195.402(c)(4) requires operators to consider
potential spill characteristics in determining which facilities may
require immediate response in the event of a failure or malfunction.
The construction of impoundment must be inspected as required by
Sec. 195.204, and spill response plans backed by committed resources
are required by Sec. 195.402(e) and 49 CFR Part 194. In conclusion, we
are including the proposed references to NFPA 30 in final Sec. 195.264.
As we said above in the discussion on overlapping federal regulation,
because the final rules are directed primarily at preventing breakout
tank accidents, we do not think the SPCC regulations would result in
better environmental protection.
Section 195.307
API suggested we take the word ``pressure'' out of the title of
proposed Sec. 195.307, ``Pressure testing breakout tanks.'' API said
not all testing under the section is pressure testing.
This comment probably arose because pressure testing is mentioned
only in paragraph (e), while paragraphs (a)-(d) deal with pneumatic or
hydrostatic testing. However, since pneumatic and hydrostatic testing
are forms of pressure testing, we have kept the proposed title in the
final rule.
Section 195.405
We proposed, under Sec. 195.405(b), to reduce the hazards
associated with maintenance of tank floating roofs by requiring
operators to consider adding the safety practices of API Publication
2026 to their operation and maintenance manuals. AMOCO contended this
proposal was unnecessary because it duplicates similar requirements in
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's confined space
regulation (29 CFR 1910.146).
We considered this comment and decided to adopt the proposed rule
as final. OSHA's regulation has general application to a variety of
confined spaces, but API Publication 2026 deals specifically with
entering and exiting floating roofs. Also, if AMOCO's assessment is
correct, operators's existing procedures should already satisfy the
guidelines in API Publication 2026. Moreover, as 29 CFR 1910.5(b)
indicates, OSHA's confined space requirements do not apply to employee
working conditions for which another federal agency prescribes
regulations affecting occupational safety or health. This provision
reduces the potential for problems to result from duplication of any
OSHA requirement in 29 CFR Part 1910.
Section 195.428 (c)-(e)
We proposed, under Sec. 195.428(c) and (d), that within 18 months
of the final rule certain tanks have overfill protection systems that
meet API Recommended Practice 2350, or meet API Standard 2510 if the
tank was built to that standard. API, AMOCO, and TEPPCO argued that we
should not require existing tanks to have these systems. It said
applying the proposed rule retroactively to tanks without such systems
would require significant expenditures for conduit, wiring, possibly
degassing, and temporary removal of the tank from service.
For these same reasons, we did not intend to apply proposed
Sec. 195.428(c) and (d) retroactively. Consistent with our statement
that the proposed rules would result in minimal or no cost for
operators (63 FR 27908), we intended that operators install overfill
protection systems as they customarily do: when constructing new tanks
or significantly altering existing tanks. Therefore, the final rule
clarifies this limited application, which begins 18 months from today.
In addition, for clarity and simplification, we have combined proposed
paragraphs (c) and (d) into final paragraph (c). Final paragraph (d)
restates proposed paragraph (e) concerning inspecting and testing
overfill protection systems.
Section 195.432
In this section we proposed that starting 18 months after the final
rule is published, the annual inspection now required by existing
Sec. 195.432 for all breakout tanks include, for carbon and low alloy
steel, welded or riveted, non-refrigerated tanks, an integrity
inspection under section 4 of API Standard 653.
API, AMOCO, and EPA noted a potential conflict between the annual
inspection deadline and the different intervals that section 4 of API
Standard 653 provides for various types of inspections. Of particular
concern were the inspection intervals based on corrosion rate, which in
some cases could be up to 20 years. API recommended that we drop the
annual inspection requirement and merely require operators to inspect
breakout tanks according to section 4 of API Standard 653. EPA also
questioned the annual inspection requirement because it does not define
the required inspections.
We agree that the existing and proposed requirements could create a
conflict of inspection intervals. So final Sec. 195.432(a) includes an
exception for tanks that are subject to the other inspection
requirements of Sec. 195.432. We did not eliminate the existing annual
inspection requirement as API suggested, because it provides for
maintenance inspection of breakout tanks that are not subject to the
new integrity inspection requirements, such as anhydrous ammonia tanks
and non-steel tanks.
API also pointed out that some tank bottoms cannot be inspected
under API Standard 653 because the steel bottom has been repaired by a
concrete cover. API recommended that in cases like this we allow
operators to use an alternative method, such as a risk-based analysis,
to assess bottom integrity. Under final Sec. 195.432(b), operators must
inspect the integrity of atmospheric and low-pressure tanks according
to section 4 of API Standard 653. However, in view of API's comment,
the final rule allows an operator to use an assessment technique
included in its operations and maintenance manual for tank bottoms to
which access is prevented by structural conditions.
In another comment on proposed Sec. 195.432, API suggested that we
incorporate by reference API 510, ``Pressure Vessel Inspection Code:
Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration,'' as the
inspection standard for high-pressure tanks built to API Standard 2510.
API said API 510 is the appropriate inspection standard for such tanks.
We agree that this standard is more appropriate than API Standard 653
for such tanks and it is incorporated by reference in final
Sec. 195.432(c).
The references to consensus standards do not include parts of those
standards that are not directly related to carrying out inspections.
For example, parts of section 4 of API Standard 653 concerning records,
reports, and inspector qualifications (Sections 4.8-4.10) are not
incorporated by reference because these parts do not govern the process
of inspection. In addition, Sec. 195.404(c)(3) requires inspection
records. And, as previously mentioned, personnel qualification is
covered by Sec. 195.403 and is the subject of rules proposed in Docket
No. RSPA-98-3783 (63 FR 57269; Oct. 27, 1998).
AMOCO was concerned about the application of inspection intervals
to
[[Page 15933]]
tanks already in compliance with the new integrity inspection
requirements and tanks not in compliance. To clarify this matter, final
Sec. 195.432(d) provides that a particular interval begins on the date
this final rule document takes effect, May 3, 1999, or the operator's
last recorded date of the inspection, whichever is earlier. We dropped
the proposed 18-month compliance time from the final Sec. 195.432
because we considered it unnecessary in view of the inspection
intervals specified by the referenced standards.
Advisory Committee
On May 6, 1998, in Washington, DC, we briefed the
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee
(THLPSSC) about this rule. This committee voted to accept the NPRM
provided that we consider adopting API Publication 340.
On November 6, 1998, in Washington, DC, we briefed THLPSSC
about comments received and changes to expect in the final rule. Also
at this time, we reviewed a five page report on API publication 340
prepared by SPEC Consulting Services for API's Health and Environment
Affairs Department. This report was sent to the THLPSSC committee on
May 14, 1998. This report concluded that API publication 340 need not
be adopted in this rulemaking. We agreed because, (1) the scope of API
publication 340 is too broad for this rulemaking; (2) four API
standards referenced in API 340 are already adopted in this rulemaking;
(3) this rulemaking goes beyond API Publication 340, and adopts six
other API consensus standards. The THLPSSC agreed with our conclusion.
A copy of this report is in the docket.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The Department of Transportation (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 this rule was
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. DOT does not
consider this action significant under DOT's regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
This rule would amend the regulations for breakout tanks to include
the incorporation by reference of certain of the latest consensus
standards for above ground storage tanks. The adoption of consensus
standards is consistent with the President's goal of regulatory
reinvention and improvement of customer service to the American people.
There is minimal or no cost for operators of breakout tanks to comply
with this rule because these consensus standards have been developed
and implemented by industry organizations to ensure the safety of above
ground petroleum storage tanks.
The standards for steel storage tanks were specifically developed
by the API. API is the major petroleum industry trade organization and
many of its members are operators of petroleum pipelines with tank
farms. Additionally, the standard for secondary containment is taken
from an NFPA code that is a widely used consensus standard for the
design of diking (containment by impounding) for above ground storage
tanks. The NFPA is an association with a membership of more than 67,000
individuals and over 100 national trade and professional organizations.
Its mission is to reduce the burden of fire on the quality of life by
advocating scientifically based consensus codes and standards,
research, and education for fire and safety issues.
The operators of breakout tanks storing hazardous liquids are very
familiar with these API storage tank and NFPA diking standards because
they have been extensively implemented at pipeline terminals throughout
the United States. Conversations with an industry storage tank
organization representing medium and smaller operators of breakout
tanks confirm that most of their members are already complying with the
tank standards. Because the economic impact of this rule is minimal,
the incorporation by reference of these industry standards does not
warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation.
For several years, OMB Circular A-119, ``Federal Participation in
the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards'', encouraged, but did
not require, agencies to participate in consensus standards bodies and
to adopt voluntary consensus standards whenever possible. The National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA, Pub. L. 104-
113) codified and expanded the participation and reporting requirement
of OMB Circular A-119. Federal agencies and departments are now
required to use technical standards that are developed and adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies, where practicable. RSPA prescribed API and
NFPA standards for petroleum storage tanks meets the goals and
requirements set forth in both OMB Circular A-119 and NTTAA.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
As discussed above, RSPA is incorporating consensus standards that
were developed and published by authoritative organizations associated
with the petroleum industry. Consequently, these safety standards are
well known and have been implemented by operators of aboveground
storage tanks at hazardous liquid pipeline terminals throughout the
United States. RSPA has had conversations with an operators'
association representing these tank farms and with other persons and
those parties do not expect this rule to have a significant economic
impact on the smaller operators of breakout tanks. Moreover, in the
event that some operators of breakout tanks have not yet implemented
all the safety-related items in these consensus standards, the
regulations prescribed in this final rule would allow operators 18
months for compliance after the date of publication of the final rule.
Therefore, based on the facts available which indicate the
anticipated minimal impact of this rulemaking action, I certify,
pursuant to Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605), that this rulemaking action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
RSPA, in the proposed rule, had requested comments from small
entities which might be impacted by this rule. We received one comment
from an association which includes small operators. This association
stated that most, if not all, members already adhere to the consensus
tank standards adopted by this rulemaking. This supports our earlier
conclusion that this rule will have no significant impact on
substantial number of small entities.
C. Executive Order 126120
This rule 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 the Executive Order 12612
(52 FR 41685; Oct. 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that the action does
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
D. Executive Order 13084
This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination
[[Page 15934]]
with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this rule would not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal
governments, the funding and consultation requirements of this
Executive Order do not apply.
E. Unfunded Mandates
This rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of over $100
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
The API Standard 653 includes sample checklists, provided for the
operators' periodic inspection of welded or riveted, non-refrigerated,
atmospheric pressure, aboveground steel storage tanks. The checklists
identify the tank components and auxiliary items that should be
considered for inspection and provide blank spaces for insertion of the
inspection date and notation of the inspector's comments (if any). The
use of the checklists improves the effectiveness and minimizes the
paperwork burden associated with the existing inspection requirements
in 49 CFR 195.432. This API standard has been published for several
years and during that time it has been available to all operators of
petroleum storage tanks (i.e. refinery, marketing, production and
pipeline).
For the API Recommended Practices referred to in this rulemaking,
it is stated that the operator would be expected to follow the
provisions unless the operator notes in the procedural manual the
reasons why compliance with all or certain provisions is not necessary
for the safety of a particular breakout tank or tanks. Each operator's
procedural manual already requires the inclusion and updating of
similar safety-related procedures and practices, so that such
annotation is consistent with the long standing function of the
procedural manual. Moreover, most operators already follow the API
Recommended Practices that are prescribed for adoption and would not
need to make such an annotation in the procedural manual.
Therefore, there is little or no additional burden and no paperwork
analysis is required for this rule.
G. 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.
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 rule does not specify business process changes or require
modifications to computer systems. Because this rule apparently does
not affect organizations' ability to respond to the Year 2000 problem,
we do not intend to delay the effectiveness of the requirements in this
rule.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
Incorporation by reference, Breakout tanks, Hazardous liquids,
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--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE
1. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;
and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 195.1(c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) Breakout tanks subject to this part must comply with
requirements that apply specifically to breakout tanks and, to the
extent applicable, with requirements that apply to pipeline systems and
pipeline facilities. If a conflict exists between a requirement that
applies specifically to breakout tanks and a requirement that applies
to pipeline systems or pipeline facilities, the requirement that
applies specifically to breakout tanks prevails. Anhydrous ammonia
breakout tanks need not comply with Secs. 195.132(b), 195.205(b),
195.242 (c) and (d), 195.264 (b) and (e), 195.307, 195.428 (c) and (d),
and 195.432 (b) and (c).
3. Section 195.3 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(7), by revising
the introductory text of paragraph (c), by revising paragraphs (c)(2)
and (c)(3)(v), and by adding paragraph (c)(6), to read as follows:
Sec. 195.3 Matter incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 11 Tracy Drive,
Avon, MA 02322.
(c) The full titles of publications incorporated by reference
wholly or partially in this part are as follows. Numbers in parentheses
indicate applicable editions:
* * * * *
(2) American Petroleum Institute (API):
(i) API 510 ``Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration'' (8th edition, June 1997).
(ii) API Publication 2026 ``Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating
Roofs of Storage Tanks in Petroleum Service'' (2nd edition, April
1998).
(iii) API Recommended Practice 651 ``Cathodic Protection of
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks'' (2nd edition, December 1997).
(iv) API Recommended Practice 652 ``Lining of Aboveground Petroleum
Storage Tank Bottoms'' (2nd edition, December 1997).
(v) API Recommended Practice 2003 ``Protection Against Ignitions
Arising out of Static, Lightning, and Stray Currents'' (6th edition,
December 1998).
(vi) API Recommended Practice 2350 ``Overfill Protection for
Storage Tanks In Petroleum Facilities'' (2nd edition, January 1996).
(vii) API Specification 5L ``Specification for Line Pipe'' (41st
edition, 1995).
(viii) API Specification 6D ``Specification for Pipeline Valves
(Gate, Plug, Ball, and Check Valves)'' (21st edition, 1994).
(ix) API Specification 12F ``Specification for Shop Welded Tanks
for Storage of Production Liquids'' (11th edition, November 1994).
(x) API Standard 1104 ``Welding Pipelines and Related Facilities''
(18th edition, 1994).
(xi) API Standard 620 ``Design and Construction of Large, Welded,
Low-Pressure Storage Tanks'' (9th edition, February 1996, Including
Addenda 1 and 2).
[[Page 15935]]
(xii) API Standard 650 ``Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage'' (9th
edition, July 1993 (Including Addenda 1 through 4).
(xiii) API Standard 653 ``Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Reconstruction'' (2nd edition, December 1995, including Addenda 1,
December 1996).
(xiv) API Standard 2000 ``Venting Atmospheric and Low-Pressure
Storage Tanks'' (4th edition, September 1992).
(xv) API Standard 2510 ``Design and Construction of LPG
Installations'' (7th edition, May 1995).
(3) * * *
(v) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII ``Pressure
Vessels,'' Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 edition with 1995 Addenda).
* * * * *
(6) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA):
(i) ANSI/NFPA 30 ``Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code,''
(1996).
(ii) [Reserved]
4. Section 195.132 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.132 Design and construction of aboveground breakout tanks.
(a) Each aboveground breakout tank must be designed and constructed
to withstand the internal pressure produced by the hazardous liquid to
be stored therein and any anticipated external loads.
(b) For aboveground breakout tanks first placed in service after
October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section requires
one of the following:
(1) Shop-fabricated, vertical, cylindrical, closed top, welded
steel tanks with nominal capacities of 90 to 750 barrels (14.3 to 119.2
m \3\) and with internal vapor space pressures that are approximately
atmospheric must be designed and constructed in accordance with API
Specification 12F.
(2) Welded, low-pressure (i.e., internal vapor space pressure not
greater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)), carbon steel tanks that have wall
shapes that can be generated by a single vertical axis of revolution
must be designed and constructed in accordance with API Standard 620.
(3) Vertical, cylindrical, welded steel tanks with internal
pressures at the tank top approximating atmospheric pressures (i.e.,
internal vapor space pressures not greater than 2.5 psig (17.2 kPa), or
not greater than the pressure developed by the weight of the tank roof)
must be designed and constructed in accordance with API Standard 650.
(4) High pressure steel tanks (i.e., internal gas or vapor space
pressures greater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)) with a nominal capacity of
2000 gallons (7571 liters) or more of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
must be designed and constructed in accordance with API Standard 2510.
5. Section 195.205 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 195.205 Repair, alteration and reconstruction of aboveground
breakout tanks that have been in service.
(a) Aboveground breakout tanks that have been repaired, altered, or
reconstructed and returned to service must be capable of withstanding
the internal pressure produced by the hazardous liquid to be stored
therein and any anticipated external loads.
(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this
section requires the following for the tanks specified:
(1) For tanks designed for approximately atmospheric pressure
constructed of carbon and low alloy steel, welded or riveted, and non-
refrigerated and tanks built to API Standard 650 or its predecessor
Standard 12C, repair, alteration, and reconstruction must be in
accordance with API Standard 653.
(2) For tanks built to API Specification 12F or API Standard 620,
the repair, alteration, and reconstruction must be in accordance with
the design, welding, examination, and material requirements of those
respective standards.
(3) For high pressure tanks built to API Standard 2510, repairs,
alterations, and reconstruction must be in accordance with API 510.
6. Section 195.242 is amended by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 195.242 Cathodic protection system.
* * * * *
(c) For the bottoms of aboveground breakout tanks with greater than
500 barrels (79.5 m \3\) capacity built to API Specification 12F, API
Standard 620, or API Standard 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C),
the installation of a cathodic protection system under paragraph (a) of
this section after October 2, 2000, must be in accordance with API
Recommended Practice 651, unless the operator notes in the procedural
manual (Sec. 195.402(c)) why compliance with all or certain provisions
of API Recommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of a
particular breakout tank.
(d) For the internal bottom of aboveground breakout tanks built to
API Specification 12F, API Standard 620, or API Standard 650 (or its
predecessor Standard 12C), the installation of a tank bottom lining
after October 2, 2000, must be in accordance with API Recommended
Practice 652, unless the operator notes in the procedural manual
(Sec. 195.402(c)) why compliance with all or certain provisions of API
Recommended Practice 652 is not necessary for the safety of a
particular breakout tank.
7. Section 195.264 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.264 Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/emergency
venting or pressure/vacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks.
(a) A means must be provided for containing hazardous liquids in
the event of spillage or failure of an aboveground breakout tank.
(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this
section requires the following for the aboveground breakout tanks
specified:
(1) For tanks built to API Specification 12F, API Standard 620, and
others (such as API Standard 650 or its predecessor Standard 12C), the
installation of impoundment must be in accordance with the following
sections of NFPA 30:
(i) Impoundment around a breakout tank must be installed in
accordance with Section 2-3.4.3; and
(ii) Impoundment by drainage to a remote impounding area must be
installed in accordance with Section 2-3.4.2.
(2) For tanks built to API Standard 2510, the installation of
impoundment must be in accordance with Section 3 or 9 of API Standard
2510.
(c) Aboveground breakout tank areas must be adequately protected
against unauthorized entry.
(d) Normal/emergency relief venting must be provided for each
atmospheric pressure breakout tank. Pressure/vacuum-relieving devices
must be provided for each low-pressure and high-pressure breakout tank.
(e) For normal/emergency relief venting and pressure/vacuum-
relieving devices installed on aboveground breakout tanks after October
2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (d) of this section requires the
following for the tanks specified:
(1) Normal/emergency relief venting installed on atmospheric
pressure tanks built to API Specification 12F must be in accordance
with Section 4, and Appendices B and C, of API Specification 12F.
(2) Normal/emergency relief venting installed on atmospheric
pressure tanks (such as those built to API Standard 650 or its
predecessor Standard 12C) must be in accordance with API Standard 2000.
[[Page 15936]]
(3) Pressure-relieving and emergency vacuum-relieving devices
installed on low pressure tanks built to API Standard 620 must be in
accordance with Section 7 of API Standard 620 and its references to the
normal and emergency venting requirements in API Standard 2000.
(4) Pressure and vacuum-relieving devices installed on high
pressure tanks built to API Standard 2510 must be in accordance with
Sections 5 or 9 of API Standard 2510.
8. Section 195.307 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 195.307 Pressure testing aboveground breakout tanks.
(a) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Specification 12F
and first placed in service after October 2, 2000, pneumatic testing
must be in accordance with section 5.3 of API Specification 12F.
(b) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 620 and
first placed in service after October 2, 2000, hydrostatic and
pneumatic testing must be in accordance with section 5.18 of API
Standard 620.
(c) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 650 and
first placed in service after October 2, 2000, hydrostatic and
pneumatic testing must be in accordance with section 5.3 of API
Standard 650.
(d) For aboveground atmospheric pressure breakout tanks constructed
of carbon and low alloy steel, welded or riveted, and non-refrigerated
and tanks built to API Standard 650 or its predecessor Standard 12C
that are returned to service after October 2, 2000, the necessity for
the hydrostatic testing of repair, alteration, and reconstruction is
covered in section 10.3 of API Standard 653.
(e) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 2510 and
first placed in service after October 2, 2000, pressure testing must be
in accordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 1 or 2.
9. Section 195.405 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 195.405 Protection against ignitions and safe access/egress
involving floating roofs.
(a) After October 2, 2000, protection provided against ignitions
arising out of static electricity, lightning, and stray currents during
operation and maintenance activities involving aboveground breakout
tanks must be in accordance with API Recommended Practice 2003, unless
the operator notes in the procedural manual (Sec. 195.402(c)) why
compliance with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice
2003 is not necessary for the safety of a particular breakout tank.
(b) The hazards associated with access/egress onto floating roofs
of in-service aboveground breakout tanks to perform inspection,
service, maintenance or repair activities (other than specified general
considerations, specified routine tasks or entering tanks removed from
service for cleaning) are addressed in API Publication 2026. After
October 2, 2000, the operator must review and consider the potentially
hazardous conditions, safety practices and procedures in API
Publication 2026 for inclusion in the procedure manual
(Sec. 195.402(c)).
10. Section 195.416 (j) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 195.416 External corrosion control.
* * * * *
(j) For aboveground breakout tanks where corrosion of the tank
bottom is controlled by a cathodic protection system, the cathodic
protection system must be inspected to ensure it is operated and
maintained in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651, unless the
operator notes in the procedure manual (Sec. 195.402(c)) why compliance
with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice 651 is not
necessary for the safety of a particular breakout tank.
11. Section 195.428 is amended by revising the title and by adding
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection
systems.
* * * * *
(c) Aboveground breakout tanks that are constructed or
significantly altered according to API Standard 2510 after October 2,
2000, must have an overfill protection system installed according to
section 5.1.2 of API Standard 2510. Other aboveground breakout tanks
with 600 gallons (2271 liters) or more of storage capacity that are
constructed or significantly altered after October 2, 2000, must have
an overfill protection system installed according to API Recommended
Practice 2350. However, operators need not comply with any part of API
Recommended Practice 2350 for a particular breakout tank if the
operator notes in the manual required by Sec. 195.402 why compliance
with that part is not necessary for safety of the tank.
(d) After October 2, 2000, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section for inspection and testing of pressure control
equipment apply to the inspection and testing of overfill protection
systems.
12. Section 195.432 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(a) Except for breakout tanks inspected under paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, inspect each in-service
breakout tank.
(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-
service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks
according to section 4 of API Standard 653. However, if structural
conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may
be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and
maintenance manual under Sec. 195.402(c)(3).
(c) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-
service steel aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 2510
according to section 6 of API 510.
(d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on
the operator's last recorded date of the inspection, whichever is
earlier.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 22, 1999.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-7442 Filed 4-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.