US
DOT’S PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA) Seeks
Additional and More Detailed Geospatial and Pipeline Attribute Data from
Operators
On July 30, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) issued a notable and significant notice and request for
comments on a proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) information
collection related to the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). The
notice proposes a substantial increase in the amount of pipeline attribute and
operational information that operators of hazardous liquid and gas pipelines
and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities must submit to PHMSA. Comments were due September 29. PHMSA proposes to collect, in a geospatial format
and largely at the pipeline segment level, the following information:
|
Substantially more accurate pipeline
location information (down to a 5-foot positional accuracy, in some cases)
Pipe diameter
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) and Maximum
Operating Pressure (MOP)
Pipe grade
Wall thickness
Seam type
Percent of Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) at annual
high operating pressures
Leak detection
Pipe coating
Pipe material
Pipe joining method
Year of construction or installation
|
Class Location
High Consequence Areas
Mainline block valves, valve type and valve operator
mechanism
Clear demarcations between onshore and offshore pipelines
In-Line Inspection (ILI) capabilities
Year of last ILI and year of last direct assessment
Year and pressure of original and most recent hydrostatic
test
Specific information about the commodity transported
Average daily throughput
Whether a pipe segment is subject to a Special Permit
Newly abandoned lines
|
Offshore gas gathering lines
Installation method if pipe crosses a body of water greater
than 100-feet wide
Facility response plan (Part 194) information
Storage field locations and type of storage
Refineries, gas processing, and gas treatment plant locations
Breakout tanks
LNG plant capacities, impoundments, exclusion zones and
construction year
Pump and compressor stations
|
PHMSA already collects some of this information through its
existing NPMS and annual reporting requirements; however, the new proposal
would expand the type of information collected and require its submittal in a geospatial
format linked to specific pipeline segments. These changes will allow
PHMSA to gather far more granular information about the characteristics of
pipeline systems and particular segments.
PHMSA states that collection of this additional information
will allow for better-informed first responders; strengthen PHMSA’s ability to
analyze operator programs; allow PHMSA to make better, risk-based decisions in
the context of inspections and rulemaking; and feed into “important
risk-ranking algorithms” used by PHMSA. Given the breadth and detail of
the information PHMSA proposes to require of operators, it is notable that the
initiative takes the form of an OMB information collection rather than a
proposed regulation. PHMSA’s proposed changes can be found in greater
detail in an updated draft of the NPMS Operator Standards Manual.
Abstract: Each operator of a pipeline facility (except distribution lines and gathering lines)
must provide PHMSA geospatial data for their pipeline
system and contact information. The provided information is incorporated into NPMS to support
various regulatory programs, pipeline inspections and authorized external customers. Following the initial submission of the requested data,
the operator must make a new submission to NPMS if any changes occur so PHMSA can maintain and improve the accuracy of NPMS’s
information.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2014–0092]
Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously
Approved Information Collection—National Pipeline Mapping System Program (OMB
Control No. 2137–0596).
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, PHMSA invites public comments on our intent to request the Office of Management and Budget’s approval
to revise and renew an information
collection currently under OMB Control Number 2137–0596 titled:
‘‘National Pipeline Mapping
System Program.’’ The collection currently requires
operators to submit geospatial data, attributes, metadata, public contact information and a transmittal letter to the National
Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) program. The proposed revisions will require operators
to submit additional information to the NPMS.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
on or before September 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
comments identified by Docket No. PHMSA–2014– 0092 through one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202–493–2251.
Mail or Hand Delivery:
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Room W12– 140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
on Federal holidays.
Instructions: Identify the docket number, PHMSA–2014–0092, at the beginning of your comments.
Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You should know that anyone
is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received
in any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the stamp the postcard
prior to returning
it to you via the U.S. mail.
Please note that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to Federal offices
in Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider an alternative method (Internet, fax, or professional delivery service) of submitting comments
to the docket and ensuring their timely receipt at the DOT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Nelson,
Geospatial Information Systems Manager,
Program Development Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by phone at 202–493–0591 or email at amy.nelson@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The NPMS is a geospatial dataset
that
contains information about PHMSA- regulated gas transmission pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines, and hazardous liquid low-stress gathering lines. The NPMS also contains
data
layers for all liquefied
natural gas plants and a partial
dataset of PHMSA- regulated breakout tanks.
The original
standards for the NPMS
data collection were drafted in 1998 by a joint government/industry committee comprised of members
from PHMSA’s predecessor agency
the Research and Special Programs Administration, the American Petroleum
Institute, the American Gas Association and the Interstate Natural
Gas Association of America. With the passage of the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2002 (codified at 49 U.S.C.
60132), gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline operators
are required to submit their
geospatial data, attributes, metadata, public contact information, and a transmittal letter
to the NPMS program. While
the standards reflected the state of geospatial data and positional accuracy at that time, they do not reflect
the current state
of geospatial data and positional accuracy.
PHMSA
requires more accurate and complete
information about each pipeline, liquefied natural
gas plant or breakout tank than the minimal set of attributes it receives
with NPMS submissions.
Collecting enhanced
data will strengthen PHMSA’s
ability to fulfill
its strategic goals to improve
public safety, protect the environment and ensure infrastructure is well-maintained. More accurate and complete
NPMS data will also help emergency
responders and government officials create better, more
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites public
comments on our intent to request
the Office of appropriate emergency response plans. Specifically, the new data will:
Aid the industry and all levels of government, from Federal to municipal, in promoting
public awareness of hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and
in improving emergency
responder outreach. Currently, 787 Federal officials, 1,208
state officials and 4,791 county officials
have access to the online mapping application. Providing these officials with an improved
NPMS containing system-specific information about local pipeline facilities
can help ensure emergency
response agencies and communities are better prepared and can better execute
response operations during incidents.
Permit more powerful and accurate
tabular and geospatial analysis,
which
will strengthen PHMSA’s ability to evaluate existing and proposed regulations as well as operator programs and/or procedures.
Strengthen the effectiveness of PHMSA’s risk rankings
and evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
Allow for more effective
assistance to emergency responders by providing them with a more reliable, complete dataset of pipelines and facilities.
Provide better
support to PHMSA’s inspectors by providing more accurate
pipeline locations and additional pipeline-related geospatial data that can be linked
to tabular data in PHMSA’s inspection database.
PHMSA discussed its NPMS information needs at the joint meeting of the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee, also known
as the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, and the Liquid
Pipeline Advisory Committee, also known as the Technical Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, on August 9, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia. Having discussed with the joint committee some of the challenges involved with gathering positional accuracy data for certain lines, PHMSA devised a proposal that will allow us to gather crucial NPMS data for lines that are in areas of the greatest
consequence.
The proposed
changes to the NPMS
Operator Standards Manual detailed below can be found
at: www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/ DraftOperatorStandards.pdf. The proposed changes to the attributes will be part of an operator’s annual NPMS submission. Unless
otherwise marked, all attributes will be linked to the geospatial pipeline file as attributes at the pipe segment
level.
PHMSA understands that operators, through their annual report submissions, are currently
collecting and have the following
information and attributes that PHMSA specifically proposes to collect as additional parts of
the NPMS submission. Collecting this geospatial information could lead to eliminating duplicate data requests from the annual
reports. PHMSA invites comment on how this expanded collection of information could affect the annual report:
Positional Accuracy:
PHMSA
proposes that for pipeline
segments located within
Class 3, Class 4, High Consequence Areas (HCA), or ‘‘could- affect’’ HCAs, operators submit data to the NPMS with a positional accuracy of five feet.
The degree of positional accuracy needed
is more stringent and important in these areas because of the potential for greater consequence in the event of a pipeline
incident. PHMSA further proposes
that for all pipeline segments located
within Class 1 or Class 2 locations, operators
submit data to the NPMS with a positional accuracy of 50 feet. PHMSA believes
that a large number of operators already
have access to data with this degree of accuracy within their GIS systems.
The current accuracy requirement of 500 feet does
not allow PHMSA to effectively locate a pipeline to the degree needed to respond to environmental and integrity threats. It also hinders
PHMSA in identifying special
features on the pipeline that may be relevant
for emergency response
considerations. The new degree
of accuracy will help emergency responders more effectively locate a pipeline to the degree
needed to respond to environmental and integrity threats and help in emergency planning.
Pipe Diameter:
PHMSA proposes
to require operators
to submit data on the nominal diameter of a pipe segment. Knowing the diameter of a pipeline
can help emergency
responders determine the impact
area of a pipeline. This attribute also gives PHMSA the opportunity to gain a broader understanding of the diameters of pipe being operated in any given geographical region and to further
assess potential impacts
to public safety and the environment.
Maximum Allowable
Operating Pressure (MAOP), Maximum
Operating Pressure (MOP): PHMSA proposes operators submit the maximum
MAOP
or MOP for a pipeline segment
in pounds per square inch gauge. This
information is critical because it affects important risk-ranking algorithms and the potential
impact radius of a pipeline, which can influence emergency response planning.
Pipe Grade:
PHMSA proposes operators submit
information on the predominant pipe grade of a pipeline segment. This information is essential in issues regarding pipe integrity and is a necessary component in determining the allowable operating
pressure of a pipeline.
Percent Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS):
PHMSA proposes operators submit information pertaining to the percent at which the pipeline
is operating to SMYS. Specifically, operators would submit hoop stress caused by the highest
operating pressure during the year as a percentage of SMYS. PHMSA
uses the percentage of operating SMYS to determine low- and high-stress pipelines, class locations, test requirements, inspection intervals,
and other requirements in the pipeline safety regulations.
Leak Detection: PHMSA proposes operators submit
information on the type of leak detection system
used. The type of leak detection
used can drastically alter effective response
times for operators and emergency responders. Knowing the type of leak detection system used during an incident will help emergency
responders respond appropriately in the event
of a release.
Pipe Coating/Type of Coating:
PHMSA proposes
operators indicate the level of and types of coating on a pipeline segment.
The type of coating relates to the level of protection from external
corrosion a pipe has while in the ground.
Understanding the level
of coating helps PHMSA assess
pipe
integrity and perform better
risk
assessments.
Pipe Material:
PHMSA proposes operators submit data on the type of pipe material. Knowing
the pipe material helps PHMSA determine the level of potential risk from excavation damage and external
environmental loads. These
can also be factors in emergency response planning.
Pipe Join
Method: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on the pipe joining method. PHMSA
uses this information to identify high-risk
joining methods and will be used in PHMSA’s risk rankings
and evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline inspection priority and frequency.
Year of Construction/Installation:
PHMSA proposes
operators submit data on the predominant year of original construction (or installation). The year of construction determines which regulations apply
to a pipeline for enforcement purposes.
The data requested pertains
to the year of construction and not the year the pipe was manufactured. On the
annual report, operators have the option
of selecting categories of years to report the year of installation. As a result
of this revised collection, operators will be able to submit
data on the specific year of construction or installation. Although this information is currently
collected in the annual report, collecting this information geospatially rather than tabularly allows
PHMSA to run better risk-ranking algorithms through pattern analysis and relating pipe attributes to surrounding geographical areas.
Class Location:
PHMSA proposes operators of gas transmission pipeline segments submit information on class location at the segment
level. Class location is based upon number of dwellings within 220 yards on
either side of the pipeline in a one-mile segment level.
This data will help PHMSA determine whether operator IM plans are
adequate and complete.
High Consequence ‘‘Could Affect’’ Areas: PHMSA proposes hazardous liquid and gas transmission operators identify pipe segments which could affect HCAs as defined by 49 CFR 192.903 and 195.450.
Pipe segments can be classified as affecting a populated area, an ecologically sensitive
area, or a sole-source drinking water
area. This information will increase the awareness emergency responders have of potential areas of significant impact.
Onshore/Offshore: PHMSA proposes operators designate
whether a pipe segment
is onshore or offshore. As there is no universally accepted onshore/offshore boundary,
comparisons between the NPMS (PHMSA-generated) offshore mileage statistics and operator-generated annual report offshore mileage
statistics do not match. This collection will allow PHMSA to standardize and compare the statistics for regulatory purposes.
Inline Inspection: PHMSA proposes operators indicate
whether their system is capable of accommodating an inline inspection (ILI)
tool. PHMSA considers inline inspections of pipelines to be better, safer,
and more cost-effective than other inspection methods.
Knowing this information will help PHMSA determine
the percentage of the pipeline industry already employing this practice and could help PHMSA address concerns
related to NTSB recommendation P–11–17.
Year of Last Inline Inspection and Year
of Last Direct
Assessment: PHMSA proposes operators submit data detailing the year of a pipeline’s last corrosion, dent, crack
or ‘‘other’’ ILI inspection.
PHMSA also proposes to collect the year of the last direct assessment. This information is used to verify integrity of the pipeline
and is a key metric in PHMSA’s pipeline
risk calculations, which are used to determine the priority and frequency
of inspections.
Year and Pressure of Original and Last Hydrostatic Test: PHMSA proposes to collect data on a pipeline’s original and most recent
hydrostatic test years and pressures. This information is used to verify
a pipeline’s integrity
and is a key metric in pipeline
risk calculations.
Commodity Detail:
PHMSA
proposes operators submit commodity details for pipelines if that commodity is crude
oil, product or natural gas. The choices for crude oil will be ‘‘sweet crude’’ or ‘‘sour crude.’’ The choices for product will be refined non-ethanol blended gasoline, refined
fuel oil or diesel, refined kerosene
or jet fuel, other refined and/or
non HVL petroleum products, ethanol blended
gasoline, biodiesel blend and other biofuels. The choices for natural
gas will be pipeline- quality or tariff-quality natural
gas, wet but non-sour
natural gas, sour but non- wet natural gas, and wet, sour natural gas. Other
choices may be added as the need arises.
This level of detail is required because of potential differences in leak characteristics, rupture-impacted hazardous areas and a pipeline’s internal integrity. Emergency responders would also be able to better respond to and be better prepared
for pipeline incidents
if they knew what commodities were being transported in which locations.
Special Permit:
PHMSA proposes operators denote whether a pipe segment is part of a PHMSA Special
Permit and thus would have a different maximum operating
pressure than would otherwise be allowed. The Special Permit number
is also needed. This information allows
PHMSA to more easily
locate these pipe segments and could help emergency responders respond adequately
in the event of an emergency.
Wall Thickness: PHMSA proposes to collect data on the nominal wall thickness of a pipe. This is a fundamental piece of information about a pipe that is used for
risk calculations.
Seam Type: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on the seam type of each pipe segment.
This is a fundamental piece of information about a
pipe that is used for risk
rankings and evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline inspection priority and frequency.
PHMSA understands that operators may or may not have the following attributes in their GIS systems and therefore, operators may need to do additional research
to compile this information:
Abandoned Pipelines: PHMSA proposes that all gas
transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines abandoned after the effective
date of this information collection be mandatory
submissions to the NPMS. Abandoned lines are not currently required to be submitted to the NPMS. Based on a recent incident
in Wilmington, CA, where confusion as to whether
a pipeline was abandoned or not was a factor, abandoned
pipelines need to be identified to help ensure that they are maintained in the proper manner in accordance with pipeline
safety regulations. Abandoned lines are at higher risk for excavation damage and are a critical integrity
management issue. Operators
only need to submit this data in the calendar
year after the abandonment occurs.
Offshore Gas Gathering Lines:
PHMSA proposes operators of offshore gas gathering pipelines make NPMS data submissions. This information is not currently collected, but due to a rising rate of incidents involving offshore gas gathering lines, PHMSA believes this information is necessary to develop risk calculations and accurate response measures
for incidents involving such pipelines.
Installation Method if Pipe Crosses
Body of Water Greater
Than 100 Feet in Width: Due to recent
incidents involving
washed-out pipelines, including the incident that occurred
near Laurel, MT, PHMSA proposes operators submit data on the installation methods of pipe segments that cross bodies of water greater
than 100 feet in width. This information will give pipeline inspectors the ability to verify the depth of cover of pipeline segments under water. PHMSA will also use this information in risk-ranking algorithms. Operators will be able to select from options such as open cut, trenchless technologies, pipe spans, etc.
Facility Response Plan: PHMSA proposes operators submit the Facility Response Plan control
number and sequence number for applicable liquid pipeline segments.
This information will be used by PHMSA inspectors to verify compliance with PHMSA requirements and to aid in emergency response efforts.
Throughput: Throughput is used to
denote a pipeline’s capacity by stating the pipelines ability to flow a measured
amount of product per unit of time.
PHMSA proposes
operators submit average daily
throughput so States
can better identify
shortages and implement contingency plans for potential widespread pipeline
service outages to maintain an uninterrupted flow of energy supplies.
Mainline Block
Valve Locations:
PHMSA proposes
operators submit a geospatial point file containing the locations of mainline
block valves, the type of valves and the type of valve operators. This information is essential for first responders, as the extent and
severity of property damage and life- threatening risks
during high- consequence incidents
can be reduced if the appropriate valves on affected segments are located
and used more quickly. This information will also assist PHMSA in accurate
risk
assessment.
Storage Field Locations and Type of Storage: PHMSA proposes operators submit a geospatial polygon file containing the locations of storage fields and the field type. The footprint of the storage field
helps determine the impact to the surrounding area and helps PHMSA provide accurate
information to first responders.
Refinery Locations/Gas Process/ Treatment Plant Locations: PHMSA
proposes operators
submit a geospatial point file containing the locations of refineries (for liquid operators) and gas process/treatment plants
(for gas transmission operators). The location of these facilities helps determine the impact to the surrounding area and helps PHMSA provide accurate information to first responders.
Breakout Tanks:
PHMSA proposes to require the submission of breakout tank data. As PHMSA
regulates these tanks, knowing their locations and attributes is an essential piece of knowledge.
LNG Plants:
PHMSA proposes
to collect additional data attributes
for liquefied natural
gas (LNG) plants. These new attributes include type of plant, capacity, impoundments, exclusion zones
and year constructed.
Pump and Compressor Stations: PHMSA proposes
operators submit a geospatial point file containing the locations of pump (for liquid
operators) and compressor (for gas transmission operators) stations. Pump and compressor stations
are vulnerable areas, and emergency responders need to know their locations for adequate
emergency planning. Additionally, the stations are often referenced as inspection boundaries for PHMSA’s inspectors.
B. Summary of Impacted
Collections
The following
information is provided for this information collection: (1) Title of the information collection, (2) OMB control number, (3) Current expiration date, (4) Type of request,
(5) Abstract of the information collection activity, (6) Description of affected public,
(7) Estimate of total annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden,
and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
OMB Control
Number: 2137–0596.
Title: National Pipeline Mapping System Program.
Form Numbers:
N/A.
Type of Review: Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection.
Abstract: Each operator of a pipeline facility (except distribution lines and gathering lines)
must provide PHMSA geospatial data for their pipeline
system and contact information. The provided information is incorporated into NPMS to support
various regulatory programs, pipeline inspections and authorized external customers. Following the initial submission of the requested data,
the operator must make a new submission to NPMS if any changes occur so PHMSA can maintain and improve the accuracy of NPMS’s
information.
Respondents: Operators of natural
gas,
hazardous liquid, and liquefied
natural gas pipelines.
Number of Respondents: 1,211.
Frequency: Annual.
Number of Responses: 1,211.
Total Annual
Burden: 420,516 hours.
Public Comments
Invited: You are asked to comment
on any aspect of this information collection, including: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Department’s performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated
burden; (c) ways for the Department to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for the Office of Management and Budget’s clearance of this information collection.
Authority: The Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995;
44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 24, 2014, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate
Administrator for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014–17865 Filed 7–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
.jpg)