1 / 57

NPRM; Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety Regulations

NPRM; Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety Regulations. Background. November 29, 2011 published a Notice of Prosed Rulemaking entitled “Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety Regulations.

Télécharger la présentation

NPRM; Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety Regulations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. NPRM; Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety Regulations

  2. Background • November 29, 2011 published a Notice of Prosed Rulemaking entitled “Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety Regulations. • At the end of this presentation we will be asking for you to provide us your recommendation on this rulemaking. • NPRM proposed 17 separate amendments to the pipeline safety regulations.

  3. Why the Miscellaneous changes? • Proposals were as a result of petitions for rulemaking from Trade Associations, National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), internal recommendations and a Recommendations from the NTSB. • Proposals were also intended to correct errors, and address inconsistencies. • Amendments would impose minimal burden (if any) and were so minor to not merit a separate rule

  4. Topics covered in the Miscellaneous Rule 1. Responsibility to Conduct Construction Inspection 2. Leak Surveys for Type B Gas Gathering Lines 3. Qualifying Plastic Pipe Joiners 4. Mill Hydrostatic Tests for Pipe to Operate at Alternative MAOP 5. Regulating the Transportation of Ethanol by Pipeline 6. Limitation of Indirect Costs in State Grants 7. Transportation of Pipe 8. Threading Copper Pipe

  5. Topics covered in the Miscellaneous Rule 9. Offshore Pipe Condition Reports 10. Calculating Pressure Reductions for Hazardous Liquid Integrity Anomalies 11. Testing Components other than Pipe Installed in Low-Pressure Gas Pipelines 12. Alternative MAOP Notifications 13. National Pipeline Mapping System 14. Welders vs Welding Operators 15. Components Fabricated by Welding 16. Odorization of Gas 17. Editorial Amendments

  6. Comments Received • Received 43 of comments to the NPRM. • Most comments dealt with • Construction Inspection • Odorization • Qualifying Plastic Pipe Joiners

  7. Proceeding with A Vote • Rule - Less those items members have requested a separate vote • Brief • Members will be given an opportunity to comment after each topic • Public will be given an opportunity to comment after the completion of the brief • LPAC and GPAC will vote separately

  8. Proceeding with A Vote Those items members have requested a separate vote • Brief • Members will be given an opportunity to comment • Public will be given an opportunity to comment • LPAC and GPAC will vote separately (and as appropriate)

  9. Proceeding with A Vote • Those proposals members have requested a separate vote are : • Construction Inspection (GPAC and LPAC) • Odorization (LPAC) • Qualifying Plastic Pipe Joiners (GPAC) • Limitation of Indirect Costs to States (GPAC)(LPAC) • Pressure Reductions for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Integrity Anomalies (LPAC)

  10. Minor Proposals • Several items were either purely editorial or minor in scope and controversy: • These items included: • Editorial changes • Threaded copper pipe • Ethanol • Elimination of the off-shore condition reports • Testing components in LS pipelines • Welding vs. Welding Operators

  11. Leak Survey for Type B Gathering Lines • Proposed to require Type B Gas Gathering Lines to be subject to leak survey requirements in accordance with § 192.706 • Type B Gas Gathering lines are metallic lines with MAOP of less than 20% of SMYS, non-metallic lines with MAOP of 125 psig or less. • Subject to less stringent requirements than Type A gas gathering lines • Are located in Class 2, Class 3 or 4 location.

  12. Leak Survey for Type B Gathering Lines • Proposal based upon a recommendation from NAPSR • Gas leaks are a primary hazard from low-stress lines • Operators had to perform leak surveys in non-rural areas prior to March 2006 rule

  13. Leak Survey for Type B Gas Gathering Lines; Comments • PHMSA should not move forward with additional regulatory language when Congress (Section 21 of 2011 Reauthorization Act) had mandated a review of the sufficiency of existing regulations of gathering lines. • Have greater impact on operators and impose greater burden than PHMSA has considered. • No supporting data for proposed change • Economic impact may exceed the threshold for insignificant regulatory action. • Docket has no supporting evidence to show facts and not speculation.

  14. Leak Survey for Type B Gas Gathering Lines; Comments • Develop estimates of the cost of compliance for affected operators. • PHMSA must provide at least one year adequate time for operators to purchase equipment, develop recordkeeping system and hire new personnel following adoption. • Require compliance with the leak survey requirements in 192.723 (leak surveys for distribution lines) and not 192.706 (leak surveys for transmission lines)

  15. Transportation of Ethanol by Pipeline • Proposed to modify the definition of hazardous liquid (49 CFR 195.2) to include ethanol, and to subject such transport to regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 195. • Consistent with policy statement published on August 10, 2007 dealing the transportation of ethanol and other bio-fuels by pipeline • Comments were supportive

  16. Transportation of Pipe • Certain pipe must be transported by railroad in accordance with API 5L1. • However, an exception allows operators to use pipe stockpiled prior to November 12, 1970. • NTSB recommends that all pipe be transport in accordance with the API 5L1 standard. • During its investigation of a July 2002 incident, NTSB found that growth of a fatigue crack introduced during transport was a causal factor. • Proposed to eliminate the exception to use pipe stockpiled prior to November 12, 1970.

  17. Transportation of Pipe • Comments were supportive but asked for clarification, such as: • With proper documentation of API 5LI, allow operators to use pipe transported prior to November 2, 1970. • Proposed wording may result in nuances of misinterpretation that “use” applies to pipe currently installed rather than pipe in stock.

  18. Threading Copper Pipe • Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC) advised PHMSA that Table C1 was deleted in the most recent version of ASME/ANSI B16.5 (Incorporated by reference). • PHMSA proposed to incorporate the suggested reference to ASME B36.10M in §192.279. • No negative comments were received.

  19. Offshore Pipeline Condition Reports • In December 1991, established inspection and reporting requirements for pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and inlets. (191.27 and 195.57) • In August 2004, final rule amended the PSR to require operators to prepare and follow written procedures for the inspections and repair, and to promptly report and rebury any line found exposed or hazardous to navigation. (§192.612 and §195.413) • Did not repeal the reporting requirements in 191.27 and 195.57

  20. Offshore Pipeline Condition Reports • Reporting requirement in §192.612(c) and §195.413(c) is sufficient to meet PHMSA’s current information collection needs. • Accordingly, PHMSA is proposing to repeal §§192.27 and 195.57. • No comments received against proposed change to regulation.

  21. The PSR provide an exception from the strength test requirements for components installed in pipelines operating at or above 30% percent SMYS. The manufacturer has to certify that: The component was tested to at least the pressure required for the pipeline. The component we manufactured under a QC system The component carries a pressure rating. Testing Components other than Pipe Installed in Low-Pressure Gas Pipelines

  22. Testing Components other than Pipe Installed in Low-Pressure Gas Pipelines • GPTC petition to request that the exception be expanded to include pipelines operating below 30% SMYS. • Comments were in favor to the proposal and requested some editorial amendments.

  23. Alternative MAOP Notifications • Operators must notify PHMSA/State 180- days prior to commencement of operations if electing to establish and operate at a higher than Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure. • PHMSA proposes to require 180-days notice prior to pipe manufacturing and/or construction activities also. • This notice would allows for PHMSA/State review of applicable procedures, specifications, field reviews, operations and maintenance plans and other documentation.

  24. Alternative MAOP Notifications • Proposal should apply only prospectively, and the regulation should include an alternative notice period measured from the placement of the pipe purchasing order to the start of pipe manufacturing. • Language needs clarification with regard to new pipe. • If operator wishes to utilize existing pipe stock that satisfies the MAOP regulation requirement, 180 days notice to manufacturer would be impossible. • Such “gotcha” language should not be part of regulation. • Revise language or remove “and/or” and provide clear unambiguous standards.

  25. National Pipeline Mapping System • The National Pipeline Mapping System is a geospatial dataset containing information on all PHMSA-regulated pipelines, and data layers for all liquefied natural gas plants and a partial dataset of PHMSA regulated breakout tanks. • Proposed to add to the PSR the statutory requirements related to submission of NPMS data to PHMSA. • The NPMS data submissions became mandatory under the Pipeline Safety Act of 2002. • Submissions will be done concurrently with the appropriate annual report. • Comments were supportive of the proposal, some making editorial type recommendations

  26. Welders Vs Welding Operators • Proposal to add references to applicable sections of Parts 192 and 195 to clarify the qualification standards of welding operators. • PHMSA expects qualified welder/welding operator to operate consistent with federal regulations and applicable ASME and API standards. • Comments were supportive with some commenters requesting editorial changes or clarification.

  27. Mill Hydrostatic Tests for Pipe to Operate at Alternative MAOP • Proposal to revise §192.112(e)(1) by eliminating allowance for combining loading stresses imposed by pipe mill hydrostatic testing equipment for the mill test. • Section 192.112 applies to pipe that will operate at the higher stresses allowed under the alternate MAOP. • Combined with pipe mill dimensional checks for expansion, will help assure that all new pipes for this service receive an adequate mill test and have adequate strength.

  28. Mill Hydrostatic Tests for Pipe to Operate at Alternative MAOP; Comments • Consult with pipe manufacturers regarding potential impacts of consideration of end loading in the calculation of mill hydrostatic test before adopting changes to procedure. • Increased safety factor already added in final rule amendment of Part 192(PHMSA-2005-23447) in October 2008. • System operating pressures vary based on season, system configurations and maintenance. Line may rarely see MAOP.

  29. Vote • Both committees must motion and vote separately. • Sample language: • The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register (except for proposals Number 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, and 16) is technically, feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes are made (members insert language of proposed change). • Use bold language only as appropriate) • The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register is not (or cannot be made) made technically, feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.

  30. Components Fabricated by Welding • The pressure test requirements in the recent ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) Section VIII were lowered from a test factor of 1.5 to 1.3. • This revision created a difference in the pressure testing requirements in ASME BPVC and the test requirements in 192.505(b) which requires a test factor of 1.5 times MAOP for meter and compressor stations as well any other Class 3 location. • PHMSA proposed to add a clarification to §192.153 to clearly specify the design and test (factor of 1.5) requirements for pressure vessels in meter stations, compressor stations, and other locations that are tested to Class 3 requirements.

  31. Components Fabricated by Welding • Commenters did not agree that this was clarification and believed that this was a significant change in the Code. • Clarify that the amendment applies only to components placed into service after the amendment’s effective date. • Without grandfathering, many facilities constructed after change in ASME BPVC will result in costly replacements. • Change to regulations has far-reaching impact. • Retesting or replacing these in-service components would be unnecessary, very expensive and take several years to complete.

  32. Vote • Both committees must motion and vote separately. • Sample language: • The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register related to components fabricated by welding is technically, feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes are made (members insert language of proposed change). • Use bold language only as appropriate) • The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register is not (or cannot be made) made technically, feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.

  33. Odorization of Gas • 49 CFR 192.625 requires operators to odorize combustible gas in a transmission line in Class 3 or Class 4 locations. • Certain exceptions are provided including for a “lateral line “which transports gas to a distribution center {if} at least 50 percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location. • Proposed to revise the exception to state that the length of a lateral line for purposes of calculating whether at least 50 percent of the lateral line is in Class 1 or Class 2 is measured between the distribution center and the first upstream connection to the transmission line.

  34. Odorization of Gas; Comments • Distinction between lateral and transmission line appear to lack logic as it allows parts of a line originally considered to be a “lateral” line to change classification due to introduction of a branch. • Cost not justified. Statistical evidence not presented to show that this understanding of lateral line has caused safety issues resulting from operators applying this definition to exempt certain lines from odorization under §192.625(b)(3). • Pending further study, and impact assessment, do not adopt the proposal

  35. Odorization of Gas; Comments • Sulfur dioxide emissions will unfavorably impact ambient air quality in areas that are nonattainment for particulate matter or SO2. Would impose great burden on operators • Residual odor on end products making the product unsuitable for use, or negatively affecting the commercial value as well as residual odorant in air emissions resulting in false reports. • Should not adopt the proposal but convene a public hearing or workshop where various configurations can be evaluated

  36. Vote • § 192.625 Odorization of Gas • * * * * * • (b) * * * • (3) In the case of a lateral line which transports gas to a distribution center, at least 50 percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location as measured between the distribution center and the first upstream connection to the transmission line; • * * * * *

  37. Vote • GPAC only • Sample language: • The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register related to odorization of gas transmission lines is technically, feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes are made (members insert language of proposed change). • Use bold language only as appropriate) • The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register is not (or cannot be made) made technically, feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.

  38. Responsibility to Conduct Construction Inspections • Proposed to revise §192.305 & §195.204 to specify that the construction inspection of a transmission pipeline or main cannot be cannot be conducted by a person participated in its construction. • Proposal applies to both contractor and non-contractor work • Proposal was based in part on a petition from NAPSR

  39. Responsibility to Conduct Construction Inspections • NAPSR stated that: • resolution was intended to preclude operators from allowing contractor personnel to self-inspect their own work. • it was based on the experiences of NAPSR members concerned at that time with poor quality of construction by unsupervised contractors; • resolution does not propose mandatory third party inspection of all construction work

  40. Responsibility to Conduct Construction Inspections Comments received include but not limited to: • Proposed rule will result in significant cost impact to operators. • Overly burdensome economically and has the potential to compromise site safety due to additional personnel, congestion, inattention, carelessness and unnecessary overhead expenses. • Proposed amendment is clearly a significant regulatory action and inappropriately included in a non-significant rulemaking. • Remove proposed change and consider it in separate rule.

  41. Responsibility to Conduct Construction Inspections • Proposed language does not differentiate between and operator’s employee and a contractor’s employee. • Clarify the meaning of a person “participating in the construction” of a pipeline. • Make inspection and new construction OQ tasks. • Prohibiting any “person” involved in the construction of a pipeline could be interpreted to prohibit any other municipal employee from performing inspection. • Redefine “a person who participated” in the construction of the pipeline.

  42. Responsibility to Conduct Construction Inspections • § 192.305 Inspection: General • Each transmission line and main must be inspected to ensure that it is constructed in accordance with this subpart. An inspection may not be performed by a person who participated in the construction of that transmission line or main. INGAA Language: A required inspection may not be performed by the individual who performed the construction task requiring inspection NAPSR Language: Each transmission line and main must be inspected to ensure that it is constructed in accordance with this part. No operator shall use a person to perform thee required inspections if that person is perfoning any construction activities subject to inspection. Nothing in this section should prohibit the operator from inspecting construction activities with operator personnel who are involved in the construction activities.

  43. Agreed Upon Lange INGAA Language: A required inspection may not be performed by the individual who performed the construction task requiring inspection (§ 192.305) Modified NAPSR Language: Each transmission line and main must be inspected to ensure that it is constructed in accordance with this part. No operator shall use an individual to perform a required inspection if that individual performed the construction task requiring inspection. Nothing in this section prohibits the operator from inspecting construction activities with operator personnel who are involved in the construction activities. TAC (Liquid) Agreed Upon this language with applicable adjustments for 195.204 (Wed, July 11, 2012) TAC (Gas) Agreed Upon language (Wed, July 11, 2012)

  44. Responsibility to Conduct Construction Inspections • 195.204 Inspection – general. • Inspection must be provided to ensure the installation of pipe or pipeline systems in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. No person may be used to perform inspections unless that person has been trained and is qualified in the phase of construction to be inspected. An inspection may not be performed by a person who participated in the installation of the pipe or pipeline systems INGAA Language: A required inspection may not be performed by the individual who performed the construction task requiring inspection

  45. Vote • Both committees must motion and vote separately. • Sample language: • The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register related to construction inspection is technically, feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes are made (members insert language of proposed change). • Use bold language only as appropriate) • The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register is not (or cannot be made) made technically, feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.

  46. Qualifying Plastic Pipe joiners PHMSA proposed to revised the plastic pipe joiner qualification requirements to state the following: • A person must be re-qualified under an applicable procedure if: • During any calendar year (not exceeding 15 months) that person does not make any joints under that procedure; or • Any production joint is found unacceptable by testing under § 192.513. Proposal was based a petition from NAPSR.

  47. Qualifying plastic Pipe joiners; Comments • Disqualify and retrain if one joint unacceptable during 12-month period is overly excessive and without reasonable explanation. • No data to show that person who makes one unacceptable joint will make one more. • Proposed rule not reflective of NAPSR proposal: • A person individual must be requalified under an applicable procedure once each calendar year at intervals not exceeding 15 months, or after any production joint is found unacceptable by testing under 192.513. TAC Agreed Upon language (Wed, July 11, 2012)

  48. Qualifying plastic Pipe joiners • How does one unacceptable joint determine that an individual is unqualified? • Leave §192.258(c)(2) as is written, “3 or 3% whichever is greater”. • Zero tolerance standard fails to take into consideration that all plastic pipe are required to be pressure tested before going into service. This provides additional layer of service. • Analyze data on fusion failures, present the information to the public then determine how best to address issue. • Language unnecessarily restrictive.

  49. Vote • Sample language: • The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register related to qualifying plastic pipe joiners is technically, feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes are made (members insert language of proposed change). • Use bold language only as appropriate) • The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register is not (or cannot be made) made technically, feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.

  50. Limitation of Indirect Costs in State Grants • PHMSA reimburses the states for a portion of the costs incurred in administering their pipeline safety programs, and Congress appropriates these reimbursement funds on a regular basis. • The Pipeline Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act) removed a provision that imposed a 20% cap on state grant expenses. • PHMSA proposes to incorporate into the regulations a 20% limit on indirect expenses for grants to state pipelines.

More Related