On August 20, 2001, the DOT made some minor corrections to the final regulations on qualification of pipeline personnel, which were published in the Federal Register on August 27, 1999 (64 FR 46853) (see RCP's September, 1999 DOT newsletter)HERE. These corrections are minor and do not affect the substance or content of the rule. The changes apply to both the Gas and Liquid regulations, and are effective immediately.

The revisions add the title, "Qualification of Pipeline Personnel", to subpart N of 49 CFR 192 and to subpart G of 49 CFR 195. In addition, the final regulations contained incorrect numbering for the evaluation methods in §192.803(b) and §195.503(b). The correct numbering is:

Evaluation means a process, established and documented by the operator, to determine an individual's ability to perform a covered task by any of the following:

(a) Written examination; (b) Oral examination; (c) Work performance history review; (d) Observation during: (1) Performance on the job, (2) On the job training, or (3) Simulations; (e) Other forms of assessment.

NOTE: the original rule numbered all these items sequentially (a) through (h), with no subparts (1), (2), and (3) under (d).

Lastly, the cutoff date for the use of experience under the Work Performance History Review option was extended by 2 months, and now reads:

Work performance history review may be used as a sole evaluation method for individuals who were performing a covered task prior to October 26, 1999.

Note: the original rule cutoff date was August 27, 1999.

Acquiring a pipeline?

RCP can provide due diligence audits to help you ensure that potential compliance issues have been addressed before the sale is final.

NGPL, a company previously selected to participate in the Risk Management Demonstration Program, has identified five pipeline segments in its system (all changing from Class 2 to Class 3) where it proposes to conduct risk control alternatives to the class location change requirements in 49 CFR §192.611. OPS seeks public comment on the proposed demonstration project modification so that it may consider and address these comments before modifying the order to approve the proposed risk control alternatives (the "Alternatives"). OPS requests that comments to this Notice or about this environmental assessment be submitted on or before September 17, 2001 so they can be considered before the modifications are approved. However, comments on this or any other demonstration project will be accepted in the Docket throughout the demonstration period (docket number RSPA-98-4034).

NGPL identified outside force damage and corrosion as the principal risks to the pipeline in the class location segments and the surrounding sections and defined the following risk control alternatives to achieve superior safety and environmental protection along these five segments:

• Internally inspecting class location change segments (and an extended length of pipe bordering each class change segment) using geometry and magnetic flux leakage in-line inspection tools, and repairing indications of corrosion or existing construction and outside force damage identified by the internal inspection.
• Performing close-interval surveys on the five class location segments and an extended length of pipe bordering each class location segment.
• Pressure testing the five class location change segments, an extended length of pipe that encompasses each class location segment, and additional segments on the same pipelines.
• Enhancing damage prevention activities in the class location change segments and an additional length of pipe bordering each class location segment.
• Increasing contacts with local emergency planners and emergency responders to ensure preparation for more effective and coordinated response to emergencies.
• Conducting public education on the subject of pipeline safety; part of this education program will be specifically developed for students in schools in the immediate vicinity of the Gulf Coast line class location segments.
• Continuing the NGPL current investigation, analysis, and mitigation program for Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC). This company program, initiated in response to recent experience on the NGPL system, involves integration of data regarding soil, coating, and pipe characteristics to identify areas of probable susceptibility to SCC. These areas are then investigated further to determine if SCC is present; any detected SCC is mitigated.

As part of the company's risk evaluation, NGPL has compared the risk reduction produced by these alternatives to that achieved by the current regulations. OPS has reviewed this evaluation in detail and concluded that the alternative risk control activities can be expected to reduce safety and environmental risk below that which would be achieved by compliance with 49 CFR 192.611. Furthermore, because of the resources saved by not having to replace pipe in these five locations, NGPL is able to conduct internal inspections and pressure tests on additional portions of its system.

The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) will meet on Thursday, September 13, 2001 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person at Dulles Airport Marriott, 45020 Aviation Drive, Dulles, VA 20166; phone (703) 471-9500. Due to limited space, anyone wishing to attend or participate should notify Juan Carlos Martinez, at (202) 366-1933, not later than August 30, 2001.

The TPSSC is a statutorily mandated advisory committee that advises RSPA on proposed safety standards for gas pipelines. The committee consists of 15 members-five each representing government, industry, and the public. On July 27, 2001, RSPA issued a notice of request for comments, "Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines)," (66 FR 34318, docket number RSPA 00-7666 ). RSPA sought further information and clarification, and invited further public comment about integrity management concepts as they relate to gas pipelines. To prepare the TPSSC for future consideration of proposed rules on integrity management programs for gas pipelines, RSPA will brief the Committee on integrity management concepts for gas pipelines and on the comments received in response to the notice.

Discussions will be focused on a summary of comments on the seven elements described in the notice:

1. Defining high consequence areas.
2. Identifying and evaluating threats to pipeline integrity.
3. Selecting the assessment technologies.
4. Determining time frames to conduct a baseline integrity assessment and to make repairs.
5. Identifying and implementing additional preventive and mitigative measures.
6. Continually evaluating and reassessing pipeline segments.
7. Monitoring the effectiveness of the management process.

In addition, the TPSSC will be briefed on the progress of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' B31.8 Committee on the Integrity Management Standard. This new standard will outline the technical guidance for implementation of an operator's integrity management plan, including data management, quality control, management of change and communication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Whetsel, OPS, (202) 366-4431 or Richard Huriaux, OPS, (202) 366-4565, regarding the subject matter of this notice.

On July 30, 2001, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proposed amendments to their Natural Resource Damage Assessment rule in 15 CFR 990. The proposal addresses issues from a recent court ruling, and includes some clarifying and technical amendments in other parts of the regulation. This rule will affect companies that are held responsible for natural resource damages for oil and other hazardous substance spills, including liquid pipeline operators and dock operators. The entire notice can be downloaded from RCP's website HERE.

In the event of a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil (incident), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA-90), provides that federal, state, Indian tribal, and/or foreign natural resource trustees assess natural resource damages and develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent, of the injured natural resources and their services under their trusteeship. Congress directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to promulgate regulations for the assessment of natural resource damages resulting from an incident (OPA section 1006(e)(1)). NOAA promulgated final regulations on January 5, 1996 (see 61 FR 440), codified at 15 CFR Part 990.

Under these OPA regulations, trustees conduct natural resource damage assessments in the open, with responsible parties and the public involved in the planning process to achieve restoration more quickly, decrease transaction costs, and avoid litigation. These restoration plans form the basis of claims for natural resource damages. Under the natural resource damage assessment regulation, trustees then present a demand comprised of the final restoration plan to responsible parties for funding or implementation.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) is authorized to issue and enforce rules to promote safe operations, environmental protection, and resource conservation on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Under this authority, MMS regulates pipeline transportation of mineral production and rights-of-way for pipelines and associated facilities. MMS approves all OCS pipeline applications, regardless of whether a pipeline is built and operated under DOI or Department of Transportation (DOT) regulatory requirements. MMS also has sole authority to grant rights-of-way for OCS pipelines.

EDITORS NOTE to DOT Pipeline Operators in the Gulf of Mexico – this rule will apply to you!

The proposed rule pertains to any pipeline modification or repair that involves cutting into a pipeline or opening a pipeline at a flange. It requires that all lessees, lease operators, and pipeline right-of-way holders submit in writing the measures they plan to take and the procedures they plan to follow to ensure the safety of offshore workers and to prevent pollution before beginning any repair. For example:

Each lessee, lessee's operator, or pipeline right-of-way holder would be required, for any pipeline modification or repair that involves either cutting into a pipeline or opening a pipeline at a flange, to provide to the MMS Regional Supervisor a written work plan with their application to do the work that addresses the specific measures they plan to take and the procedures they plan to follow to ensure the safety of offshore personnel and to prevent pollution. The lessee, lease operator, or pipeline right-of-way holder-must submit and obtain the Regional Supervisor's approval for an application before they may conduct any of the following operations:

(1) Install a pipeline;

(2) Modify a pipeline;

(3) Cut into a pipeline or open a pipeline at a flange for purposes of modifying or repairing a

pipeline; or

(4) Decommission a pipeline.

If you submit an application for a pipeline modification or repair that involves cutting into a pipeline or opening a pipeline at a flange, you must include a written work plan with your application. Your written work plan must include a description of the specific measures you intend to take and the procedures you plan to follow to ensure the safety of offshore workers and to prevent pollution during the modification or repair. If you intend to repair a pipeline by installing a full encirclement mechanical clamp on the pipeline and do not intend to either cut into or open the pipeline at a flange, you do not have to submit a written work plan with your application. In writing a work plan, you must:

(1) Consider the operating history of the pipeline segment you plan to modify or repair, including past modifications or repairs and operating conditions peculiar to the pipeline segment;

(2) Develop all reasonable measures to ensure that pressure in the pipeline segment is equal to the external pressure (internally, there should be neither over-pressure nor negative pressure relative to external pressure);

(3) Develop all reasonable measures to ensure that you purge all combustibles and hydrogen sulfide (H²S) from the pipeline segment immediately before you conduct any work;

(4) Develop procedures to inform all facility workers (both company and contract) in advance concerning significant aspects of the modification or repair;

(5) Develop procedures to alert all facility workers immediately before you attempt to de-pressurize the pipeline and immediately before you cut into or open the pipeline to perform the modification or repair;

(6) Maintain onsite supervision during the entire modification or repair; and

(7) Develop procedures and safeguards to ensure that the pipeline segment remains isolated during the entire modification or repair so that facility workers (both company and contract) are not endangered by pressure differentials, H²S, or combustibles.

You must notify the Regional Supervisor within 24 hours after you decide that a pipeline repair is necessary, or immediately in cases of a pipeline failure. All such notifications must be made before you start the repair work. You must also submit a confirmation report of the repair of any pipeline or pipeline component to the Regional Supervisor within 30 days after you complete the work. Your confirmation report must include the following:

(1) Description of the repair;

(2) X-Y coordinates of the pipeline repair;

(3) Confirmation of the damage to or failure of the pipeline as originally reported;

(4) Confirmation that the repair was completed as approved by the Regional Supervisor; and

(5) Results of the hydrostatic pressure test.

MMS will consider all comments received by October 29, 2001. The complete proposed rule can be accessed on RCP's website HERE.

Quick-Hit coming your way? One item of interest from the OPS Integrity Management meeting in Houston on August 7 and 8 was the inspection process for integrity management programs. OPS intends to do "quick hit" inspections of all affected operators in the first 4 months of 2002. During these inspections, OPS will:

1. ensure that appropriate segments that could affect HCAs have been identified,
2. ensure that baseline assessment plans and integrity management programs have all the essential elements,
3. identify any noteworthy practices that should be shared with other pipeline operators, and
4. prioritize operators for more in-depth inspections to be conducted later in 2002.

The presentation materials from this workshop are now available at http://www.cycla.com/opsiswc/wc.dll?webdoc~Details~&id;=001848&query;=no&prj;=0052⊂=11&lp;=62&u;=lp. The next workshop will be held on October 10 and 11, 2001 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at the Renaissance Houston Hotel, 6 Greenway Plaza East, Houston, Texas, 77046, 713-629-1200 or 800-Hotels-1. Rooms may be reserved within a block identified as "DOT/IMP Public Meeting Block" no later than September 12, 2001. Please notify Beth Callsen if you’re planning to attend the October workshop at beth.callsen@rspa.dot.gov or at 202-366-4572.

One more item of interest from the OPS Integrity Management Workshop in Houston this month was the nomenclature that Kinder Morgan is using to describe pipeline segments that "are in or could effect" a High Consequence Area. We think they did a great service to the pipeline industry by defining 3 distinct areas, as follows, and expect that others in the pipeline industry will quickly adopt these definitions as useful and fairly self-explanatory:

1. Direct Impact Zone: areas where a pipeline is physically located within an HCA.
2. Indirect Impact Zone: areas where a pipeline is within a certain buffer distance from an HCA (the distance to be used will vary depending on the pipeline size / flowrate / etc.).
3. Potential Transport Zone: areas outside the Direct and Indirect Impact Zones that could be impacted by a spill. These areas will depend on terrain, discharge volumes, product types, HCA sensitivities, etc.

The last item of interest (at least, the last one we will mention in this edition) concerns the notifications that operators may need to make to OPS during their PIM program. These include:

1. desire to use an "other" assessment technology.

2. inability to meet required pipeline repair schedule.

3. desire to reasses at greater than 5 year intervals.

OPS made it clear that they expected such notifications to contain full and detailed justifications for the proposed action, that they will verify the information contained in the notification during their inspection process, and that they will post all operator notifications on their website. They also stated that they intend to take enforcement action if a notice is late, incomplete, or technically inadequate.

Our president made a presentation to the SouthWest Regional Gas Association meeting in Phoenix, Arizona this week on State Pipeline Agency Rulemakings and Initiatives. One handout from that presentation was a summary table showing each state pipeline safety agency and the program delegations that they have received (intra-state gas program, etc.). That handout has been posted on our www.DOTPipeline.org website HERE. We believe that information in that table is up to date, but please feel free to e-mail us with any changes or clarifications that you think are appropriate.

Help Wanted

Know someone with regulatory expertise who is interested in full or part time work? Our recruiting coordinator would be glad to get their resume! Have them sent to chandra@your-rcp.com, or FAX to 713-655-8083.