[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45236-45241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21601]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 250
RIN 1010-AC75
Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental
Shelf--Safety Measures and Procedures for Pipeline Modifications and
Repairs
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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.
Eventually, all pipeline valves leak internally, and this poses a
potential safety problem to offshore workers during pipeline
modifications or repairs, because hydrocarbons and pressure
differentials in pipelines can pose a significant hazard of fire and
explosion.
DATES: MMS will consider all comments we receive by October 29, 2001.
We will begin reviewing comments then and may not fully consider
comments we receive after October 29, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the
Interior; Minerals Management Service; Mail Stop 4020; 381 Elden
Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817; Attention: Rules Processing Team
(RPT). If you wish to e-mail comments, the RPT's e-mail address is:
[email protected]. Reference 1010-AC75 Safety Measures in your e-
mail subject line. Include your name and return address in your e-mail
message and mark your message for return receipt.
Mail or hand-carry comments with respect to the information
collection burden of the proposed rule to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and Budget; Attention: Desk
Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB control number 1010-
NEW); 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl W. Anderson, Operations Analysis
Branch, at (703) 787-1608 or e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
MMS is authorized to issue and enforce rules to promote safe
operations, environmental protection, and resource conservation on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). (The OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et
seq.) defines the 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.
Cutting into or opening an existing pipeline for purposes of
modifying or repairing it are among the most hazardous operations
involving offshore oil and gas production and transportation. The
pipeline first must be properly purged of significant collections of
hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and pressure.
Moreover, measures must be taken to ensure that no gases or volatile
fluids seep into the area that is to be repaired from areas in the
pipeline that are under higher pressure.
For example, a gas ``bubble'' in a pipeline on the seabed under 400
feet of water may be fairly confined by the pressure exerted by
hydrocarbons or water in the pipeline at that depth. If, however, that
relatively limited bubble is allowed to circulate to a surface opening
and work area where the pressure is decreased to ``one atmosphere,''
the bubble may quickly expand into a gas cloud that could drive
additional gas or liquid hydrocarbons into the area and either
asphyxiate or burn platform workers. Such an occurrence resulted in
seven fatalities and the loss of the entire production platform at
South Pass 60, Platform B, in March 1989. MMS's investigation report
for this accident concluded that two contributing causes to the
accident were ``the absence of detailed and coordinated planning for
the project,'' and ``the absence of oversight over contractor
activities.''
Other multiple fatalities have occurred offshore when workers
attempted either to cut into a pipeline or open a pig trap when they
believed that combustible hydrocarbons or high pressure had been
eliminated from the system. Such accidents occurred at Galveston Block
189, Platform A in May 1970 (nine fatalities), and Main Pass 41,
Platform B, in August 1995 (two fatalities).
[[Page 45237]]
In the Main Pass Block 41 accident, two workers died when they
attempted to blow down a 16-inch pipeline through its pig trap. They
were instantly killed when they erroneously opened the pig trap door
while it was under 1,000 pounds of pressure. Three years earlier, the
senior worker had received a commendation in his performance appraisal
for substantially reducing the time it takes to blow down a pipeline by
using a pig trap. In the subsequent accident investigation hearing
conducted by MMS, company workers said it was ``abnormal'' to blow down
a pipeline using a pig trap, and the company Operations Supervisor said
that it was an unacceptable method for blowing down a pipeline.
Although the pipeline blow-down operation had been discussed at the
daily morning meeting, there had been no agreed-upon or written
procedure for conducting the operation.
During late 2000, a diver was killed during a subsea pipeline
repair because of negative pressure conditions in the pipeline
engendered by attempts to de-pressurize the pipeline before repairs.
Under sea-bottom conditions, the negative pressures created vacuum-like
conditions in the pipeline relative to the outside environment. This
accident emphasized that negative-pressure conditions in a pipeline can
be as deadly as over-pressure conditions.
Internal Valve Leakage in Pipelines
Early in 1998, the American Petroleum Institute (API) requested
that MMS incorporate by reference into its regulations, at 30 CFR
250.198, Supplements 1 and 2 to API Specification 6D (API Spec 6D),
``Specification for Pipeline Valves (Gate, Plug, Ball, and Check
Valves),'' Twenty-first Edition, March 31, 1994 . MMS regulations had
incorporated API Spec 6D, but not its supplements.
The API Subcommittee on Valves and Wellhead Equipment issued
Supplements 1 and 2 to API Spec 6D on December 1, 1996, and December 1,
1997, respectively. (Supplement 2 actually fully incorporates and
expands upon Supplement 1.) For metal-to-metal seated valves, the
Supplements changed from a ``no visible leakage'' standard to
``allowable internal leakage rates'' according to valve size. Prior to
API's issuing the supplements, API Spec 6D allowed no visible leakage
from any valves.
Valve leakage within pipelines poses a special safety concern. Once
a pipeline system is purged of all contents and its valves closed,
there is a danger that the system may become re-pressurized if the
valves leak. Since all pipeline systems eventually are either cut into
or opened at a flange for repair or modification purposes, internal
valve leakage can have deadly consequences for unsuspecting workers.
Also, acceptance of ``allowable leakage rates'' means that out-of-
service pipelines isolated by block valves are never completely shut
down.
MMS rejected Supplements 1 and 2 as documents incorporated by
reference by issuing Notice to Lessees and Operators on the Outer
Continental Shelf (NTL) No. 98-16N in October 1998. MMS needed more
time to discuss the issues with API and to consider the ramifications
of the ``allowable internal leakage'' standard for the OCS regulatory
program. MMS reasoned:
``It may well be that the ``no visible leakage'' standard contained
in the 21st and previous editions of API Spec 6D is an unreasonably
high standard for metal-to-metal seats. Metal-to-metal seats are non-
deforming compared to non-metal-to-metal seats; therefore, it may be
reasonable to expect that some leakage would occur between facing metal
surfaces. Nevertheless, there appears to be no data or agreed-upon
formula for predicting an acceptable leakage rate.''
MMS made a concerted attempt with API to research this issue and
held further discussions with industry. In February 1999, MMS proposed
a research project on leakage rates to API. They surveyed their members
on their perceptions of the ``allowable leakage rates'' and willingness
to participate in the research project. Only 25 of 250 potential
respondents replied. Their answers indicated that few valve suppliers
believe that the ``no visible leakage'' standard is realistic, other
than for special-purpose, non-off-the-shelf (i.e., expensive) valves.
Support for new research was very limited.
Industry representatives maintained that there are little formal
data on leakage rates. They explained, however, that most
correspondence on this subject focuses on leakage rates contained in
International Standards Organization Standard 5208, Rate D. These rates
are incorporated into Supplements 1 and 2. The API Spec 6D workgroup
generally agreed that these leakage rates are reasonable and in line
with their experience.
Participants in the API Spec 6D workgroup almost unanimously agree
that all pipeline valves leak significantly after they have been in
service for a short time due to operational residue and abrasion. This
indicates that initial leakage rates for new valves are usually
irrelevant by the time a pipeline is in need of repair or placed out-
of-service. Therefore, measures in addition to ``closed valves'' are
needed to protect workers and to ensure ``isolated pipelines'' during
pipeline repairs.
MMS's pipeline staff conferred on these issues in November 1999 and
decided that rejecting the new allowable internal leakage rates would
be unrealistic in light of what MMS had learned from its discussions
with industry. Moreover, the maintenance of an unrealistic ``no visible
leakage'' standard would not address the real regulatory dilemma that
regardless of initial internal leakage rates, eventually all pipeline
valves will leak internally.
Therefore, the MMS workgroup recommended canceling NTL 98-16N and
adopting Supplement 2 as a document incorporated by reference. On May
1, 2000, MMS issued a technical amendment to its regulations adopting
Supplement 2 to API Spec 6D as a document incorporated by reference. As
of May 31, 2000, NTL No. 98-16N was cancelled.
The MMS workgroup further reasoned that since internal leakage
occurs in pipeline valves regardless of initial leakage rates, MMS must
address this concern in its inspection and maintenance procedures.
Therefore, the MMS workgroup also recommended the amendments to subpart
J that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
The Purpose of This Rule
The proposed rule would require that all lessees, lease operators,
and pipeline right-of-way holders consider and submit in writing the
measures they plan to take and the procedures they plan to follow to
ensure the safety of company or contract workers and to prevent
pollution during pipeline modifications or repairs. These written
measures and procedures would be required before beginning any pipeline
modification or repair that involves cutting into a pipeline or opening
a pipeline at a flange. Accidents involving pipeline modifications and
repairs have the potential for fire or explosion resulting in
fatalities, heavy equipment damage, and spills. This rulemaking is
necessary to ensure the degree of safety necessary to protect pipeline
workers and prevent pollution. The rule would amend 30 CFR Part 250,
Subpart J--Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way by:
Revising Section (Sec. ) 250.1000, paragraph (b);
Adding a new definition to Sec. 250.1001;
Redesignating current paragraph (c) under Sec. 250.1007 as
paragraph (d);
Adding a new paragraph (c) to Sec. 250.1007;
[[Page 45238]]
Revising Sec. 250.1008, paragraph (e); and
Revising Sec. 250.1014.
If we can never be sure that a valve is holding its seal, then we
have to assume that an ``isolated'' pipeline segment contains pressure,
H2S, combustibles, or a combination of these conditions.
Under some conditions, the segment could contain negative or vacuum
pressure, which is also hazardous. We have to pay much closer attention
to the work procedures and practices to prepare for modification or
repair work on a pipeline. Accordingly, we have developed the following
procedures that lessees, lease operators, and pipeline right-of-way
holders would be required to implement to improve safety before and
during pipeline modifications and repairs that would involve either
cutting into a pipeline or opening the pipeline at a flange. In
planning for any modifications or repairs for an existing pipeline
segment, all lessees, lease operators, and pipeline right-of-way
holders would be required to:
(1) Consider the operating history of the pipeline segment to be
modified or repaired, including past modifications or repairs and
operating conditions peculiar to that segment;
(2) Employ 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), and that they purge all combustibles from the
segment immediately before conducting any work;
(3) Develop procedures, first, to inform all facility workers (both
company and contract workers) in advance concerning the nature of any
upcoming modification or repair, and then to alert all facility workers
immediately before any attempts to de-pressurize a pipeline and
immediately before cutting into or opening any pipeline to perform the
modification or repair;
(4) Ensure that they maintain onsite supervision during the entire
modification or repair; and
(5) Provide procedures and safeguards to ensure that the 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.
We originally intended to write a requirement for out-of-service
pipelines in this proposed rulemaking, but decided against it. However,
we are proposing a definition for out-of-service pipelines, since
subpart J currently does not have a criterion for declaring a pipeline
out of service.
Procedural Matters
Public Comment
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which we
would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as
allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address,
you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment.
However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
This is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866 and does
not require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
a. The proposed rule will not have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. The proposed rule will not create an
adverse effect upon the ability of the United States offshore oil and
gas industry to compete in the world marketplace, nor will the proposal
adversely affect investment or employment factors locally. The economic
effects of the rule would not be significant. They would add about $400
to the cost of each pipeline modification or repair. This is not a
large cost compared to the overall cost of a modification or repair,
and it may reduce significantly the possibility of a fatal or
environmentally damaging accident during the course of a repair. Direct
costs to industry for the entire proposed rule total $80,000 annually.
This is based on the approximately 25 applications we receive annually
for pipeline modifications in both the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS
Regions. We also receive notifications of about 175 pipeline repairs
annually for both Regions. All modifications and repairs add up to a
total of 200 written procedures at an average cost of $400 each (200
procedures x $400 per procedure = $80,000). This also constitutes the
entire annual Paperwork Reduction Act burden costs for the proposed
rule. The proposed rule will have a minor and perhaps indeterminate
economic effect on the offshore oil and gas and transmission pipeline
industries.
b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. This rule does not change the relationships of the OCS oil and
gas leasing program with other agencies' actions. These relationships
are all encompassed in agreements and memoranda of understanding that
will not change with this proposed rule. This rulemaking is being
coordinated with the Office of Pipeline Safety under the DOT, according
to the 1996 Memorandum of Understanding on OCS pipelines between the
DOI and DOT.
c. This rule will not affect entitlements, grants, loan programs,
or the rights and obligations of their recipients. It is strictly a
planning requirement to prevent accidents and environmental pollution
on the OCS.
d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. There is
a precedent for actions of this type under regulations dealing with the
OCS Lands Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
Regulatory Flexibility (RF) Act
DOI has determined that this rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. While this
rule will affect a substantial number of small entities, the economic
effects of the rule will not be significant.
The regulated community for this proposal consists of about 160 oil
and gas producers and 88 pipeline companies. Of these operators, 80
producers and 18 pipeline companies are considered to be ``small.'' Of
the small producers to be affected by the proposed rule, almost all are
represented by the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code 211111 (crude petroleum and natural gas extraction). The
small pipeline companies are represented primarily by NAICS codes
486110 (crude petroleum pipelines) and 486210 (natural gas transmission
pipelines).
DOI's analysis of the economic impacts indicates that direct costs
to both large and small companies for the entire rule total
approximately $80,000 annually. The proposed rule will have a minor and
perhaps indeterminate economic effect on any of the production or
transportation pipeline operators on the OCS, regardless of
[[Page 45239]]
company size. This is because in the overwhelming majority of cases,
operators choose to perform pipeline repairs or modifications on their
own initiative, not because of an MMS safety inspection. The proposed
rule would add relatively little to the cost of a pipeline repair.
Thus, there would not be a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities under the RF Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The proposed
rule would not cause the business practices of any of these companies
to change.
Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness boards were
established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal
agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the
enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions of MMS,
call toll-free (888) 734-3247.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)
This rule is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The
rule does not have a significant effect on energy supply, distribution,
or use because in the overwhelming majority of cases, operators choose
to perform pipeline repairs or modifications on their own initiative,
not because of an MMS safety inspection. The proposed rule would add
about $400 to the cost of each pipeline modification or repair. This is
not a large cost compared to the overall cost of a modification or
repair, and it may reduce significantly the possibility of a fatal or
environmentally damaging accident during the course of a repair. MMS'
analysis of the economic impacts indicates that direct costs to both
large and small companies for the entire rule total approximately
$80,000 annually. All modifications and repairs add up to a total of
200 written procedures at an average cost of $400 each (200 procedures
x $400 per procedure = $80,000). This will not significantly affect
domestic energy supply, distribution, or use.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA.
The proposed rule would add about $400 to the cost of each pipeline
modification or repair, but this is not a large cost compared to the
overall cost of a modification or repair. Moreover, it may reduce
significantly the possibility of a fatal or environmentally damaging
accident during the course of a repair. Such an accident could be
economically disastrous for a small entity. Thus, the proposed rule
will have a minor and perhaps indeterminate economic effect on the
small offshore oil and gas operators and transmission pipeline
companies. Based on our economic analysis:
a. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. As indicated in our cost analysis, direct costs to
industry for the entire proposed rule total approximately $80,000
annually. The proposed rule will have a minor economic effect on the
offshore oil and gas and transmission pipeline industries.
b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
c. This rule does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
The proposed rule requires information collection, and an
information collection request (form OMB 83-I) has been submitted to
OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. The title
of this collection of information is ``Proposed Rulemaking--30 CFR 250,
Subpart J, Safety Measures and Procedures for Pipeline Modifications
and Repairs.'' Respondents include approximately 160 oil and gas
producers and 88 pipeline companies. The frequency of reporting is on
occasion. The information collection does not include questions of a
sensitive nature or require proprietary information.
This proposed rule requires reporting of the following information
and estimated burden hours to protect the marine, coastal, and human
environment to ensure safety and compliance with the OCS Lands Act:
In Sec. 250.1007, new paragraph (c), 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. We estimate that about 200 such
work plans would be submitted each year, with an estimated burden of 4
hours per work plan, for a total annual burden of 800 hours.
The total public reporting burden for this information collection
requirement is estimated to be 800 annual burden hours. This includes
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
and gathering the data. The proposed rule requires no recordkeeping
burdens. At $100 per hour, the annual paperwork burden would be
$80,000.
The requirement to respond is mandatory. The requirement is
``performance-based'' in that the operator determines the safest and
most environmentally sound method to perform a pipeline modification or
repair. MMS uses the information to ensure that the operator has taken
the time to think through the work procedure so that it is performed in
a safe and environmentally sound way.
All OCS lessees, lease operators, and pipeline rights-of-way
holders under MMS jurisdiction are already subject to the regulatory
and paperwork requirements in 30 CFR 250, subpart J, on Pipelines and
Pipeline Rights-of-Way. The information collection requirements in this
subpart are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1010-0050. The
proposed rule revises several sections that require information
collection currently approved under 1010-0050. However, the revisions
only restate current requirements and do not affect the currently
approved burdens.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, MMS invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment
on any aspect of the reporting burden in the proposed rule. You may
submit your comments directly to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Please send a copy of your comments to MMS so
that we can summarize all written comments and address them in the
final rule preamble. Refer to the ADDRESSES section for mailing
instructions.
The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Until OMB approves the collection of information and
assigns a control number, you are not required to respond. OMB is
required to make its decision on the information collection aspects of
this proposed rule between 30 to 60 days after publication in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full
[[Page 45240]]
effect if OMB receives it by September 27, 2001. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to MMS on the proposed
regulations.
a. We specifically solicit comments on the following questions:
(1) Is the proposed collection of information necessary for MMS to
properly perform its functions, and will it be useful?
(2) Are the estimates of the burden hours of the proposed
collection reasonable?
(3) Do you have any suggestions that would enhance the quality,
clarity, or usefulness of the information to be collected?
(4) Is there a way to minimize the information collection burden on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology?
b. In addition, the PRA requires agencies to estimate the total
annual reporting and recordkeeping ``non-hour'' cost burden resulting
from the collection of information. We have not identified any and
solicit your comments on this item. For reporting and recordkeeping
only, your response should split the cost estimate into two components:
(1) The total capital and startup cost component, and (2) annual
operation, maintenance, and purchase of services component. Your
estimates should consider the costs to generate, maintain, and disclose
or provide the information. You should describe the methods you use to
estimate major cost factors, including system and technology
acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount
rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Generally, your
estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: before
October 1, 1995; to comply with requirements not associated with the
information collection; for reasons other than to provide information
or keep records for the Government; or as part of customary and usual
business or private practice.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
According to Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. The proposed rule does not change the
role or responsibilities of Federal, State, and local governmental
entities. The rule does not relate to the structure and role of States
and will not have direct, substantive, or significant effects on
States.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
DOI certifies that this rule does not represent a governmental
action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property
rights.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
DOI has certified to OMB that this regulation meets the applicable
civil justice reform standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995
This rule does not contain any unfunded mandates to State, local,
or tribal governments, nor would it impose significant regulatory costs
on the private sector. Anticipated costs to the private sector will be
far below the $100 million threshold for any year that was established
by UMRA.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
We have analyzed this rule according to the criteria of NEPA and
516 Departmental Manual 6, Appendix 10.4C, ``issuance and/or
modification of regulations.'' We completed a Categorical Exclusion
Review (CER) for this action on April 25, 2000, and concluded: ``The
proposed rulemaking does not represent an exception to the established
criteria for categorical exclusion, and its impacts are limited to
administrative, economic, or technological effects. Therefore,
preparation of an environmental document will not be required, and
further documentation of this CER is not required.''
Clarity of This Regulation
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions
such as the following:
(1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
(2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
interfere with its clarity?
(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
(4) Is the description of the rule in the Supplementary Information
section of this preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else
can we do to make the rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
You may also e-mail the comments to this address: [email protected]
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250
Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental
protection, Government contracts, Investigations, Mineral royalties,
Oil and gas development and production, Oil and gas exploration, Oil
and gas reserves, Penalties, Pipelines, Public lands--mineral
resources, Public lands--rights-of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulphur development and production, Sulphur exploration,
Surety bonds.
Dated: August 16, 2001.
J. Steven Griles,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as follows:
PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331, et seq.
2. In Sec. 250.1000, the following changes are made:
(A) Revise the title and paragraph (b) of the section to read as
set forth below;
(B) Paragraphs (c) through (e) are redesignated as paragraphs (d)
through (f);
(C) New paragraph (c) is added as set forth below.
Sec. 250.1000 What are the general requirements for pipelines and
pipeline rights-of-way?
* * * * *
(b) You--the lessee, lease operator, or pipeline right-of-way
holder--must submit and obtain the Regional Supervisor's approval for
an application before you 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.
(c) For right-of-way pipelines (see Sec. 250.1001, Definitions) you
must submit the applications required by paragraph (b) of this section
and the requests required by this paragraph. You must obtain the
Regional Supervisor's approval for each request. You must submit:
[[Page 45241]]
(1) A request for a pipeline right-of-way grant before you install
a right-of-way pipeline;
(2) A request to modify an existing pipeline right-of-way grant
before you conduct any operations that are not covered by the grant as
approved; and
(3) A request to relinquish an existing pipeline right-of-way grant
before you decommission a right-of-way pipeline.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 250.1001, a definition of the term ``out-of-service
pipeline'' is added in alphabetical order as follows:
Sec. 250.1001 Definitions.
* * * * *
Out-of-service pipelines are those pipelines that have not been
used to transport oil, natural gas, sulfur, or produced water for more
than 30 consecutive days.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 250.1007, paragraph (c) is redesignated as paragraph
(d); and a new paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 250.1007 What to include in applications.
* * * * *
(c) 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.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 250.1008, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 250.1008 Reports.
* * * * *
(e) 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.
* * * * *
6. Section 250.1014 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 250.1014 Relinquishment of a right-of-way grant.
You may surrender a right-of-way grant or a portion thereof by
filing three copies of a written relinquishment with the Regional
Supervisor. Your relinquishment must contain those items required by
Sec. 250.1007(d) of this subpart. Your relinquishment will take effect
on the date you file it, provided that you have fulfilled all your
obligations for outstanding debts, fees, or fines and the requirements
in Sec. 250.1009(c)(9) of this subpart.
[FR Doc. 01-21601 Filed 8-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P