16 TAC §8.101
A correction of error notice for this rule appears in the In Addition
for this issue. The typographical error in subsection (f) was corrected in
this print edition of the Texas Register. The correction notice is published
only because the rule was published earlier on the Texas Register's daily
Internet subscription service.
The Railroad Commission of Texas adopts new §8.101,
relating to Pipeline Integrity Assessment and Management Plans for Natural
Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipelines, with changes to the proposal published
in the November 24, 2000, issue of the
Texas Register
(25 TexReg 11620). The rule will be in new 16 TAC chapter 8 to be
entitled "Pipeline Safety Regulations." As part of a future rule review, the
Commission plans to move its other pipeline safety rules from chapter 7 to
chapter 8.
Prior to proposing new §8.101, the Commission held two workshops at
which agency pipeline safety staff discussed and analyzed the various issues
attendant to pipeline integrity testing and received comments from pipeline
operators and other personnel. In order to avoid a "one-size-fits-all" solution,
the Commission has proposed a performance-based option within the rule under
which pipeline operators will develop an integrity assessment and testing
program to identify the risks associated with particular pipeline facilities.
Each operator's plan will be required to assess the integrity of specific
segments of a pipeline's system, considering all applicable risk factors,
including but not limited to such factors as location, age, product, and leak
history. Operators will have approximately 12 months to develop their assessment
plans and then another five years to do the initial assessments, after which
the operators will develop an ongoing integrity management plan for managing
the identified risks. The Commission will review all plans for integrity assessment
and management.
If an operator chooses not to develop an assessment program, then the operator
will be required to use the pressure testing or in-line testing options with
5 and 10 year retest intervals. Allowing operators to have these options under
new §8.101 will be more difficult for the Commission from an enforcement
standpoint because of the many differences between operators and plans; nevertheless,
this should allow for integrity assessment and risk management plans to be
more closely tailored to the specific characteristics of Texas pipeline facilities.
Based on §8.101, operators will develop a pipeline integrity assessment
and management plan for each pipeline subject to 49 CFR 192 or 49 CFR 195.
The plan must be completed by February 1, 2002. Operators may use one of two
options. The first is a risk-based assessment described in subsection (b)(1).
The second option is a prescriptive plan whereby operators must follow the
requirements specified in subsection (b)(2). Operators using the risk-based
plan are required to conduct at least 50% of the initial assessments by January
1, 2006, and the remainder by January 1, 2011; operators using the prescriptive
plan must complete the initial integrity testing by either January 1, 2006,
or January 1, 2011. Operators are not required to file their integrity assessment
plans at the Commission. Upon being notified by an operator that a plan is
complete, the Commission staff will have 185 days to review the plan and either
accept it or complete a determination of which portions of the plan do not
comply with the rule requirements.
Operators who identify defects or potential defects during the assessment
must promptly remove defects that are immediate hazards and, no later than
the next test interval, must mitigate any anomalies identified by the test
that could reasonably be predicted to become hazardous defects.
Operators of pipelines for which an integrity assessment was performed
prior to the effective date of new §8.101 are not required to implement
a new plan as long as the original assessment meets the minimum requirements
of §8.101.
Operators of pipelines which are not currently subject to this rule but
which undergo some change in circumstances which then makes the pipelines
subject to this rule shall comply with the requirements of this rule prior
to any further operation. Such changes may include but are not limited to
an addition to the pipeline, change in the operating pressure of the pipeline,
change from inactive to active status, change in population in the area of
the pipeline, or change of operator.
Operators with both intrastate and interstate pipelines may use an integrity
assessment plan developed for the interstate pipeline facilities, provided
that the plan meets the requirements of new §8.101.
The Commission received comments from two associations or groups, the Association
of Texas Intrastate Natural Gas Pipelines (ATIP) and the Texas Oil and Gas
Association (TxOGA), neither of which specifically opposed adoption of the
rule and both of which offered suggested changes in the wording. The Commission
adopts new §8.101 with some minor wording changes based on comments received
from ATIP, TxOGA, and TXU Lone Star Pipeline (TXU).
For the definition of "direct assessment," ATIP suggested changing "supplemental
assurance" to "assessment." The change was recommended because, under Commission
rules, the Commission did not intend to allow the use of direct assessment
unless the pipeline had been previously pressure-tested. The Commission considers
direct assessment as a supplemental, not a baseline establishment such as
smart pigging or hydrostatic testing. ATIP stated that direct assessment is
"a nationally recognized methodology that may be used," but the Commission
is not certain that the term or the scope of this method has yet been defined.
TXU also suggested removing the word "supplemental" and limiting the scope
of direct assessment. Based on discussions at the public workshops, the Commission
is reluctant to limit or define the scope of direct assessment, which has
yet to be determined and, in any event, will be different for each operator.
However, the Commission has made this change to the definition of direct assessment
but, in subsection (b)(1)(C)(iii), has limited the use of the direct assessment
method to those operators who have received approval from the Commission after
a hearing. The hearing will provide an opportunity for the operator to detail
the proposed direct assessment program for its applicability to all pipelines.
Regarding the definition of "in-line inspection," both ATIP and TXU suggested
adding the words "by a" after "An internal inspection" for clarification.
TxOGA suggested some different wording for this definition, which included
a specific reference to "smart pigs." The Commission agrees with the suggestions
from ATIP and TXU, and believes this clarification, now in subsection (a)(1)(B),
will also address TxOGA's concerns.
For the definition of "pressure test," ATIP and TXU expressed concern that
the wording did not exclude plastic pipe and recommended adding language to
clarify this. The Commission agrees that plastic pipe is excluded, but disagrees
with ATIP's suggested language; however, the Commission has added a new subsection
(a)(2) to state explicitly that this rule does not apply to plastic pipe.
TxOGA wanted to delete the references to 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195. The
Commission declines to make this change because these references clarify the
provisions for pressure test required by these Parts.
In subsection (b), ATIP suggested some additional language for clarification.
The Commission agrees with this added language; therefore, in the first sentence
of subsection (b), the proposed wording "shall develop and maintain a pipeline
integrity assessment and management plan including each system," along with
the second and third sentences, will be deleted and the following new language
added to complete the end of the first sentence: "shall designate to the Commission's
Pipeline Safety Section on a system-by-system or segment within each system
basis whether the pipeline operator has chosen to use the risk-based analysis
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection or the prescriptive plan authorized
by paragraph (2) of this subsection." In addition, the wording "pursuant to
the requirements of paragraph (2) of this subsection" will be added to the
last sentence of subsection (b) to add a reference for the prescriptive plan.
TXU proposed similar language but added a restriction regarding a 20% SMYS
figure. The Commission declines to add this more restrictive language because
there may be some lines that are covered that fall under this pressure and
the tables specify the requirements for the types of pipelines.
TxOGA suggested adding the word "certain" before "pipelines" to limit the
applicability, but the Commission declines to make this change because it
does not clarify the rule.
In subsection (b)(1)(A), both ATIP and TXU suggested changing "identification
of the pipelines and pipeline segments or sections in each system covered
by the plan" to "identification of the pipeline systems or pipeline segments
in each system covered by the plan." The Commission does not believe this
change is necessary. In subsection (b)(1)(B), ATIP and TXU suggested adding
the words "procedures for developing" to the beginning of this subparagraph
to more accurately describe the work done by the operator. The Commission
believes this change is unnecessary because the plan will cover this. In subsection
(b)(1)(B)(i), ATIP and TXU suggested adding "class location" in addition to
"population density" in the proposed rule. The Commission considered including
both population density and class location in the proposed rule, but because
hazardous liquids pipelines do not have class locations, the more general
term "population density" was retained. In subsection (b)(1)(C), ATIP and
TXU suggested a similar change as discussed for subsection (b)(1)(B), and
for the same reason, the Commission declines to make this change because the
term "population density" covers the information the Commission needs.
Subsection (b)(1)(C)(iv), as proposed, referred to "other new technology."
Both ATIP and TXU pointed out that this should not be limited to strictly
new technology, but to any technology that is different from that which is
standard at the time this rule becomes effective. TxOGA also suggested changing
"testing methodology" to "assessment methodology." The Commission agrees with
these changes because they are more accurate. Also, in this section the Commission
has added language that would require a hearing and approval by the Commission
prior to the use of other technology methods. The Commission added this language
so that both the direct assessment and other technology options would be subject
to review and approval by the same process.
In subsection (b)(1)(D), ATIP suggested changing "remediation" to "remedial
action." The Commission agrees with this change.
Subsection (b)(2) requires operators electing not to use the risk-based
plan to conduct a pressure test or an in-line inspection and to take remedial
action if necessary. ATIP proposed deleting the words "and take remedial action."
The Commission declines to make this change because the Commission expects
that any problems will be fixed before the next test interval. The proposed
language will make this a requirement, which is what the Commission intends.
Regarding subsection (b)(2), TXU's comment implies that there would be
two different options for the plans, but the Commission points out that if
an operator uses the tables in the rule, the operator can incorporate the
tests into their operations and maintenance manual (O&M) required by Part
192 and Part 195. Therefore, the Commission declines to make any changes.
ATIP submitted a comment regarding the first row in the table, stating
that the entry for "Class 2, 3, or 4" should be "n/a" and not "Intervals prescribed
by operator." The Commission in fact intended for this entry to be "n/a" and
the version of the table with the entry "Intervals prescribed by operator"
was an incorrect version. The Commission has included in this adoption the
table with the correct entry.
Subsection (d) refers to the completion of the assessment required under
either plan and the mitigation of certain anomalies identified by the test.
TXU suggested adding the word "initial" before "assessment," and ATIP suggested
deleting the words "remove defects that are immediate hazards." The Commission
disagrees with both suggestions. Adding the word "initial" would make the
language apply only to the first assessment, but the Commission intends this
subsection to apply to every assessment made at the specified test intervals.
Deleting the words suggested by ATIP would result in some pipelines not being
repaired as necessary, and the Commission intends that operators make these
repairs in pipelines as necessary.
In subsection (e), ATIP and TXU suggested adding the date January 1, 2011,
as the deadline for conducting another assessment of the pipeline's integrity,
allowing essentially 10 years. However, because the rule contains both five-year
and 10-year periods, the Commission declines to make this change.
ATIP and TXU both suggested adding a new subsection (f) regarding the applicability
for new pipelines and giving a five-year grace period for pipelines before
they are brought into the program. This item was discussed at the public workshops
and the Commission intended that subsection (e) would address this issue,
and therefore makes no changes in response to these comments.
Subsection (f) of the proposed rule stated that if a pipeline not subject
to the new rule undergoes any change in circumstances that results in the
pipeline becoming subject to the rule, then the operator of the pipeline shall
establish integrity of the pipeline prior to any further operation, and goes
on to list some examples of changes in circumstances. TXU and ATIP commented
that the rule should be changed to allow an operator six months to review
the change and determine if the plan needs to be revised. The Commission disagrees
with this recommendation because it severely alters the intent of the rule.
The Commission does intend for pipeline operations to be suspended if the
integrity test is not conducted prior to the change in circumstances. In addition,
subsection (b)(1)(E) already requires operators to review their assessment
and management plans every 36 months or more frequently if necessary, and
this would be an example of reviewing the plans more frequently.
TxOGA also suggested changing subsection (f) to limit the integrity testing
requirements by changing the words "establish the integrity" to "evaluate
the integrity" and to delete the requirement for this to be done prior to
further operation of the line. The Commission, for the reasons stated in the
preceding paragraph, disagrees with this change but has added language to
clarify the intent of the section by providing compliance guidance for changes
in operations.
The Commission adopts the new rule under Texas Utilities Code,
Chapter 121, Subchapter E, which authorizes the Commission to adopt safety
standards for the transportation of natural gas and for natural gas pipeline
facilities; to require record maintenance and reports; and to inspect records
and facilities to determine compliance with adopted safety standards; Texas
Natural Resources Code, Chapter 117, which requires the Commission to adopt
rules that include safety standards for and practices applicable to the intrastate
transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline and intrastate hazardous liquids
pipeline facilities; and Texas Natural Resources Code, §81.051, which
gives the Commission jurisdiction over all common carrier pipelines, as defined
in Texas Natural Resources Code, §111.002, in Texas; oil and gas wells
in Texas; persons owning or operating pipelines in Texas; and persons owning
or engaged in drilling or operating oil or gas wells in Texas.
Texas Utilities Code, Chapter 121, Subchapter E, and Texas Natural Resources
Code, Section 81.051 and Chapter 117, are affected by the new rule.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 10, 2001.
§8.101.Pipeline Integrity Assessment and Management Plans for Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipelines.
(a)
Definitions and Applicability.
(1)
Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in
this section shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
(A)
Direct assessment--A structured process that defines locations
where a pipeline is physically examined to provide assessment of pipeline
integrity. The process includes collection, analysis, assessment, and integration
of data, including but not limited to the items listed in subsection (b)(1)
of this section. The physical examination may include coating examination
and other applicable non-destructive evaluation.
(B)
In-line inspection--An internal inspection by a tool capable
of detecting anomalies in pipeline walls such as corrosion, metal loss, or
deformation.
(C)
Pressure test--Those techniques and methodologies prescribed
for leak-test and strength-test requirements for pipelines. For natural gas
pipelines, the requirements are found in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 192, and specifically include 49 CFR §§192.503(b)(c)(d), 192.505,
192.507, 192.515, and 192.517. For hazardous liquids pipelines, the requirements
are found in 49 CFR Part 195, and specifically include 49 CFR §§195.304,
195.305, 195.306, 195.308, and 195.310.
(2)
Applicability. This section does not apply to plastic pipelines.
(b)
By February 1, 2002, operators of intrastate transmission
and gathering lines subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 192 or 49 CFR 195
shall designate to the Commission's Pipeline Safety Section on a system-by-system
or segment within each system basis whether the pipeline operator has chosen
to use the risk-based analysis pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection
or the prescriptive plan authorized by paragraph (2) of this subsection. Operators
using the risk-based plan shall complete at least 50% of the initial assessments
by January 1, 2006, and the remainder by January 1, 2011; operators using
the prescriptive plan shall complete the initial integrity testing by January
1, 2006, or January 1, 2011, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (2)
of this subsection.
(1)
The risk-based plan shall contain at a minimum:
(A)
identification of the pipelines and pipeline segments or
sections in each system covered by the plan;
(B)
a priority ranking for performing the integrity assessment
of pipeline segments of each system based on an analysis of risks that takes
into account:
(i)
population density;
(ii)
immediate response area designation, which, at a minimum,
means the identification of significant threats to the environment (including
but not limited to air, land, and water) or to the public health or safety
of the immediate response area;
(iii)
pipeline configuration;
(iv)
prior in-line inspection data or reports;
(v)
prior pressure test data or reports;
(vi)
leak and incident data or reports;
(vii)
operating characteristics such as established maximum
allowable operating pressures (MAOP) for gas pipelines or maximum operating
pressures (MOP) for liquids pipelines, leak survey results, cathodic protection
surveys, and product carried;
(viii)
construction records, including at a minimum but not
limited to the age of the pipe and the operating history;
(ix)
pipeline specifications; and
(x)
any other data that may assist in the assessment of the
integrity of pipeline segments.
(C)
assessment of pipeline integrity using at least one of
the following methods appropriate for each segment:
(i)
in-line inspection;
(ii)
pressure test;
(iii)
direct assessment after hearing and approval by the Commission,
or
(iv)
other technology or assessment methodology not specifically
listed in this paragraph after hearing and approval by the Commission.
(D)
management methods for the pipeline segments which may
include remedial action or increased inspections as necessary; and
(E)
periodic review of the pipeline integrity assessment and
management plan every 36 months, or more frequently if necessary.
(2)
Operators electing not to use the risk-based plan in paragraph
(1) of this subsection shall conduct a pressure test or an in-line inspection
and take remedial action in accordance with the following schedule:
Figure 1: 16 TAC §8.101(b)(2)
Figure 2: 16 TAC §8.101(b)(2)
(c)
Within 185 days after receipt of notice that an operator's
plan is complete, the Commission shall either notify the operator of the acceptance
of the plan or shall complete an evaluation of the plan to determine compliance
with this section.
(d)
After the completion of the assessment required under either
plan, the operator shall promptly remove defects that are immediate hazards
and, no later than the next test interval, shall mitigate any anomalies identified
by the test that could reasonably be predicted to become hazardous defects.
(e)
Operators of pipelines for which an integrity assessment
was performed prior to the effective date of this proposed new rule shall
not be required to implement a new plan as long as the original assessment
meets the minimum requirements of this section.
(f)
If a pipeline that is not subject to this section undergoes
any change in circumstances that results in the pipeline becoming subject
to this section, then the operator of such pipeline shall establish integrity
of the pipeline pursuant to the requirements of this section prior to any
further operation. Such changes include but are not limited to an addition
to the pipeline, change in the operating pressure of the pipeline, change
from inactive to active status, change in population in the area of the pipeline,
or change of operator of the pipeline segment. If a pipeline segment is acquired
by a new operator, the pipeline segment can continue to be operated without
establishing pipeline integrity as long as the new operator utilizes the prior
operator's operation and maintenance procedures for this pipeline segment.
If the population in the area of a pipeline segment changes, the pipeline
segment can continue to operate without establishing pipeline integrity until
such time as the operator determines whether or not the change in population
affects the criteria applicable to the integrity management program, but for
no longer than the time frames established under 49 CFR Part 192 or 195.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on April 10, 2001.
TRD-200102037
Mary Ross McDonald
Deputy General Counsel
Railroad Commission of Texas
Effective date: April 30, 2001
Proposal publication date: November 24, 2000
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1295