Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
54 This chapter reviews the safety regulatory framework for liquefied petro- leum gas (LPG) pipeline distribution systems; the number, location, and size of the systems subject to the regulation; and the concerns raised by the LPG industry about the applicability, safety benefits, and compliance burden of federal regulations imposed on LPG systems serving 100 or fewer customers. The chapter begins with an overview of the state and local govern- mentsâ role in administering and enforcing pipeline safety regulations that apply to LPG systems. Although primary regulatory authority rests with the federal government acting through the U.S. Department of Transportationâs Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), most states take the lead in regulatory enforcement and can impose their own supplemental safety regulations. The results of a questionnaire circulated by the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR) to state pipeline safety regulators are summarized to estimate the number of LPG systems of various sizes that are under federal safety jurisdiction (and thus considered âjurisdictionalâ) and how states identify them for oversight and enforcement in interpretation of federal jurisdictional criteria. The chapter next considers the structure and coverage of the body of pipeline safety regulations that apply to small jurisdictional LPG pipeline systems, the main component of which are safety codes developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and incorporated by reference in federal, state, and local regulations. Instances where the federal regula- tions supplement the NFPA codes are identified, and the LPG industryâs concerns about the value and applicability of the federal requirements to 4 Safety Regulation and Its Applicability to Small LPG Distribution Systems
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 55 small jurisdictional systems are considered. The chapter concludes with a summary assessment of the issues raised by industry in light of what is known about these small pipeline systems and the safety benefits of the federal regulatory requirements in question. STATE AND LOCAL ROLES IN REGULATING AND ENFORCING LPG PIPELINE SAFETY REGULATIONS The United States has approximately 2.2 million miles of gas distribu- tion pipelines, including those in LPG pipeline systems.1 The federal govern- ment develops and enforces the safety standards that must be applied as a minimum by the operators of pipeline systems. In the case of pipelines that do not cross state boundaries, as typical of LPG distribution systems, state governments are allowed to regulate them as intrastate pipelines contingent on certification from PHMSA.2 However, states may not establish regula- tions that would result in a lesser safety benefit than the federal require- ments or that conflict with them. States may adopt more stringent safety requirements. In addition, local governments may have a role in regulating the siting and installation of LPG facilities. PHMSA treats state governments as partners in the enforcement of the federal pipeline safety regulations that apply to LPG and other gas distribution systems. Nearly all states participate in the PHMSA certifica- tion program that underpins these partnerships. Certified partner states conduct inspections for more than 96 percent of the 2.2 million miles of all intrastate gas distribution systems.3 Three states, Florida, Hawaii, and Wisconsin, have not entered into agreements with PHMSA to take safety jurisdiction of LPG systems, which means that federal personnel must con- duct LPG inspections and other enforcement activity. PHMSA provides funding support to cover up to 80 percent of the cost of partner state enforcement activity.4 In addition, PHMSA supports training programs for state regulators at its Training and Qualifications Center in Oklahoma City. The agency also develops and updates guidance manuals for federal and state officials to use in enforcing pipeline safety 1 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âGas Distribution, Gas Gathering, Gas Transmission, Hazardous Liquids, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), and Underground Natural Gas Storage (UNGS) Annual Report Data,â accessed March 23, 2018, https://www.phmsa.dot. gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/gas-distribution-gas-gathering-gas-transmission-hazardous-liquids. 2 âChapter 601âSafety,â 49 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 60105â60106, accessed January 26, 2018, https://www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2015-title49/html/USCODE-2015-title49-subtitleVIII-chap601.htm. 3 National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, âAbout NAPSR,â accessed June 28, 2018, http://napsr.org/about-napsr.html. 4 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âState Oversight,â accessed January 26, 2018, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/working-phmsa/state-programs/state-oversight.
56 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS requirements. This support and guidance is intended in part to bring about a more consistent level of regulatory understanding and enforcement across states. Nevertheless, states will have an interest in mitigating certain haz- ards that arise in the context of their particular circumstances and condi- tions. For example, state regulators may inspect a system and its compliance with regulatory requirements with a specific set of hazards in mind, such as extreme temperature fluctuations affecting system pressure levels, snow loads impinging on meters, and coastal air contributing to atmospheric corrosion. As discussed next, the variability in state pipeline safety interests and enforcement emphasis can lead to variability in the treatment of small jurisdictional LPG systems. JURISDICTIONAL LPG PIPELINE SYSTEMS BY STATE In the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49, Part 192, Transporta- tion of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline (hereafter, âPart 192â) and its implementation guidance, PHMSA defines terms relevant to LPG distri- bution systems. An LPG âsystemâ ânormally consists of a tank storing petroleum gas in liquid form and the appurtenant pipelines and other facilities used by the operator of the system to deliver gas to one or more customers.â5 Accord ing to 49 CFR Â§ 192.1(b)(5), an LPG system is not ââjurisdictionalââand thus not subject to federal regulationsâif it trans- ports gas to (i) fewer than 10 customers, if no portion of the system is located in a public place, or (ii) a single customer, if the system is located entirely on the customerâs premises (no matter if a portion of the system is located in a public place).â The regulatory definition is thus clear in indicating that a system that serves 10 or more customers is jurisdictional and subject to federal regu- lation. Even if that system resides entirely on the premises of the 10 cus- tomers, it is jurisdictional. The definition is also quite clear in stating that an LPG system is not jurisdictionalâand thus exempt from federal regulationâwhen it involves a single customer as long as the system is located entirely on the customerâs premises. The interpretation of the regulatory definition of a jurisdictional system can become more ambiguous when the system involves two to nine users and is located wholly or partially in a âpublic place.â A system with as few as two users becomes jurisdictional if a portion of that system is located in a public place. The source of this ambiguity is that Part 192 regulations do not define what constitutes a public place. In its Guidance Manual for Operators of LP Gas Systems, PHMSA states that a public place is 5 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âInterpretation Response #PI- 76-041,â July 28, 1976, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/interp/PI-76-041.
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 57 a place that is generally open to all persons in a community as opposed to being restricted to specific persons. Examples of public places include churches, schools, and commercial buildings, as well as any publicly owned right-of-way or property frequented by a person.6 In trying to determine how many LPG systems are jurisdictional, the committee learned that PHMSAâs regulatory definition and guidance leave considerable room for interpretation. Appendix B contains examples of interpretation letters from PHMSA responding to operators regarding the definition of a public place. Although PHMSAâs responses in the interpreta- tion letters show consistency at the federal level, the committee observed differences among the states that may be attributed to the interpretation of public place, as discussed in the following review of the NAPSR question- naire results. Because PHMSA does not have a count of the number systems that qualify as jurisdictional, the committee sought this information from in- dustry and from state pipeline safety regulators. In querying the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), the committee was able to obtain some general estimates of the number of LPG jurisdictional systems. NPGA esti- mates that about half of the 2,300 LPG suppliers (or 1,150) operate juris- dictional systems, on average about five systems each. This would imply approximately 5,750 systems nationally. NPGA further estimates that only about 5 percent of these systems (â¼300) have more than 100 customers and 75 percent (~4,300) have fewer than 50 customers. These numbers suggest there are about 1,150 systems with 50 to 99 customers. To supplement the NPGA estimates of small LPG systems and identify those that are subject to federal regulation, the committee asked NAPSR, whose members are state pipeline safety managers, to poll its membership on the number of jurisdictional systems by size (i.e., number of customers). The questionnaire administered by NAPSR is shown in Appendix A. The results, which are summarized next, suggest that the term âpublic placeâ is being interpreted differently from state to state. If true, the results imply that the federal regulations are not being applied uniformly to LPG systems having the same characteristics because all but three states have primary responsibility for enforcing the Part 192 requirements. 6 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âGuidance Manual for Operators of LP Gas Systems,â viii, accessed August 23, 2018, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/ files/docs/training/pipeline/56031/revised-guidance-operators-small-lp-gas-systems-april-2017.pdf.
58 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS NAPSR Questionnaire Results State pipeline safety managers were asked by NAPSR to estimate the total number of LPG jurisdictional systems in the state, including the number serv- ing 100 or more customers, 50 to 99 customers, 10 to 49 customers, and fewer than 10 customers. NAPSR sent the questionnaire to 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Pipeline safety managers in 49 states and Puerto Rico reported 3,784 jurisdictional systems of varying sizes. The reported jurisdictional systems are concentrated in 34 states; 16 respondent states declared no jurisdictional systems.7 Of the 34 states, 28 of those re- ported jurisdictional systems by four system sizes according to customers served. The system counts from the 28 statesâtotaling 3,305 systemsâare shown in Table 4-1. An unanticipated result from the questionnaire was the degree of vari- ability among states in the share of their jurisdictional LPG systems having fewer than 10 customers (i.e., systems serving two to nine customers and located in a public place). As presented in Table 4-2, some states reported having large numbers of these very small systems (e.g., Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont). Yet, other states reported having fewâ sometimes zeroâof the very small jurisdictional systems despite having many larger jurisdictional systems (e.g., California, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Utah). This result may be explained in part by state-to-state variability in the use of LPG and in the types of systems installed by users. New England, for instance, has long had limited access to natural gas distribution systems. In the New England states, LPG is a common fuel type, used widely in non- rural areas where there may be a higher likelihood that systems will cross public places. Still, the variability among states in the reported number of jurisdictional systems and in the number of very small systems relative to larger systems raises questions about how states are interpreting PHMSAâs definition of a âjurisdictionalâ system.8 Indeed, the results of the NAPSR questionnaire suggest that some states are applying a more inclusive defini- tion of public place, while others are treating all LPG systems with fewer than 10 customers as non-jurisdictional or interpreting public place so nar- rowly that few small systems qualify as jurisdictional. 7 Puerto Rico is counted among the states reporting jurisdictional LPG systems. Alaska and the District of Columbia did not respond. 8 An LPG industry representative who briefed the committee raised concern that the Part 192 regulatory language contributes to the variability in interpretation; for example, by pointing to instances where the definition of a service line in the federal regulations can cause a state to regulate a system that is used by a single business as if it is jurisdictional because the system has piping to gas fireplaces in multiple rooms (i.e., rented guest rooms). Kim LaPierre and John Minchew, âSmall LP Gas Jurisdictional Systemsâ (Meeting 2, Irvine, California, August 24, 2017), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/Propane/LapierreMinchew82417.pdf.
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 59 TABLE 4-1 Number of Jurisdictional LPG Pipeline Distribution Systems of Different Size, Reported by 28 States That Provided Size Information, 2017 System Size, Customers Served Systems Percentage of Total Systems Reported Fewer than 10 1,672 49 10 to 49 1,239 37 50 to 99 206 6 100 or more 188 8 Total 3,305 100 SOURCE: National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, âQuestionnaire to State Pipeline Safety Program Managers on the Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Distribution Systems,â January 2018. Another possible explanation for the results in Table 4-2 is that some states are not trying, or are finding it difficult, to identify certain jurisdic- tional systems, particularly the very small ones with two to nine customers. It is plausible that even if all states employed the same definition of a public place, they might not share the same capacity to identify and oversee the systems meeting this definition. It is also plausible that individual states differ in their view about the risk presented by these small distribution sys- tems, and thus in the priority they give to identifying and overseeing them. Table 4-3 provides additional detail on the 28 states reporting LPG jurisdictional system by size. More than 90 percent of the very small LPG jurisdictional systems that were reported are from just four New England statesâConnecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. In addi tion, these four states reported more than 35 percent of the juris- dictional systems having 10 to 99 customers (see Table 4-3). Collectively, the four states account for 67 percent of the systems reported by the 28 states. Notably, however, the largest number of jurisdictional systems with 100 or more customers are outside New England. California, Delaware, and Texas reported nearly 70 percent of these systems. By comparison, these large jurisdictional systems are virtually nonexistent in New England. The committee suspects the reporting patterns were caused by a com- bination of factors, including geographic differences in system types, state- by-state variability in the definition and treatment of jurisdictional systems, differences in the completeness and accuracy of the questionnaire responses, and questionnaire instructions that may have been unclear. The variability in the interpretation of the definition and treatment of jurisdictional systems could explain reporting patterns in the Midwest, Rocky Mountain, and
60 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS TABLE 4-2 Smallest Systems as a Percentage of Jurisdictional LPG Pipeline Distribution Systems per State, Reported by 28 States That Provided Size Information, 2017 State Systems with 2â9 Customers Total Systems Systems with 2â9 Customers as Percentage of Total Systems Arizona 0 6 0 Arkansas 0 3 0 California 69 650 11 Colorado 0 7 0 Connecticut 247 352 70 Delaware 9 102 9 Iowa 0 2 0 Maine 511 623 82 Maryland 10 57 18 Massachusetts 3 11 27 Michigan 9 29 31 Minnesota 1 11 9 Montana 0 5 0 Nevada 5 15 33 New Hampshire 539 832 65 New Mexico 0 6 0 New York 1 4 25 Pennsylvania 0 15 0 Puerto Rico 14 31 45 South Carolina 0 3 0 Texas 11 76 14 Utah 0 34 0 Vermont 233 357 65 Virginia 10 68 15 West Virginia 0 1 0 Wyoming 0 1 0 Total 1,672 3,305 51 SOURCE: National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, âQuestionnaire to State Pipeline Safety Program Managers on the Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Distribution Systems.â
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 61 TABLE 4-3 Number of Jurisdictional LPG Pipeline Distribution Systems per State, Reported by 28 States That Provided Size Information, by System Size, 2017 State 2â9 Customers 10â99 Customers 100 or More Customers Total Arizona 0 1 5 6 Arkansas 0 3 0 3 California 69 516 65 650 Colorado 0 1 6 7 Connecticut 247 105 0 352 Delaware 9 48 45 102 Iowa 0 1 1 2 Maine 511 111 1 623 Maryland 10 36 11 57 Massachusetts 3 0 8 11 Michigan 9 18 2 29 Minnesota 1 6 4 11 Montana 0 2 3 5 Nevada 5 8 2 15 New Hampshire 539 292 1 832 New Mexico 0 6 0 6 New York 1 3 0 4 North Dakota 0 0 2 2 Ohio 0 0 2 2 Pennsylvania 0 10 5 15 Puerto Rico 14 16 1 31 South Carolina 0 3 0 3 Texas 11 45 20 76 Utah 0 34 0 34 Vermont 233 123 1 357 Virginia 10 56 2 68 West Virginia 0 0 1 1 Wyoming 0 1 0 1 Total 1,672 1,445 188 3,305 SOURCE: National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, âQuestionnaire to State Pipeline Safety Program Managers on the Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Distribution Systems.â
62 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Lower Atlantic regions where some states with larger jurisdictional systems report zero very small jurisdictional LPG systems and others report zero jurisdictional systems altogether. The system counts from the NAPSR survey, combined with the counts derived from NPGA estimates, provide some indication of the number of LPG systems that are jurisdictional. As noted, NPGA estimated 5,750 sys- tems nationally, including approximately 4,300 having fewer than 50 cus- tomers, 1,150 having 50 to 99 customers, and 300 having 100 or more customers (see Table 4-4). The NAPSR questionnaire reported close to 3,800 systems from 49 states and Puerto Rico, including about 2,900 having fewer than 50 customers, 200 having 50 to 99 customers, and 260 having 100 or more customers. Although NAPSR and NPGA differ in totals and are not precise enough for many quantitative purposes, the two sources considered together sug- gest there are nearly 4,000, but not more than 6,000, jurisdictional LPG systems nationally. They both suggest that a large majority of jurisdictional systemsâsome 75 to 85 percentâhave fewer than 50 customers, and that most have closer to 10 than 100 customers. With this background on system numbers in mindâand particularly the recognition that many LPG distribution systems are very small in sizeâthe next section takes a closer look at the regulatory requirements governing jurisdictional systems, their oversight and enforcement by states, and the claims that operators have made about the applicability of these systems, especially as they pertain to the smallest systems. COVERAGE AND APPLICABILITY OF THE REGULATIONS The Statement of Task calls for a review of federal, state, and local pipeline safety regulations and their applicability to LPG distribution systems serv- ing 100 or fewer customers. As discussed previously, many states regulate the safety of LPG systems, and additionally many local jurisdictions have building and fire protection codes controlling the placement and installa- tion of LPG tanks and piping. While the scores of state and thousands of local standards would have been impractical to examine, PHMSA officials and industry representatives noted that a common feature of both, shared with the federal Part 192 regulations, is reference to NFPA codes.9 In this section, the report discusses the main elements of the codes, along with the Part 192 requirements that apply to LPG systems when there is no corre- sponding NFPA code. 9 It merits noting that states differ in the specific edition of NFPA codes they reference. For example, Oklahoma references the 2017 edition of NFPA 58, while Arizona references the 2001 edition. See Appendix C for a listing of the states and their adopted edition of NFPA 58.
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 63 TABLE 4-4 Jurisdictional LPG Systems Reported by 49 States and Puerto Rico to NAPSR by State Pipeline Safety Program Managers and by the NPGA, 2017 NAPSR NPGA Customers Served Systems Percentage, Total Systems Percentage, Total Fewer than 10 1,672 44 4,313a 75 10 to 49 1,239 33 50 to 99 206 5 1,150 20 100 or more 263 7 287 5 Fewer than 100, potentially all sizes 404b 11 Total 3,784 100 5,750 100 a NPGA reported this estimate for systems serving fewer than 50 customers. b Six of the 34 states with jurisdictional LPG systems reported their systems as small (fewer than 100 customers) or large (100 or more customers). The table groups the 404 small systems reported by the six states as a distinct category because more granular accounting of these jurisdictional systems is unavailable. The counts from the regulators for Florida, Hawaii, and Wisconsin, which are included within the 404 systems, are estimates. SOURCES: National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, âQuestionnaire to State Pipeline Safety Program Managers on the Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Distribution Systemsâ; Michael Caldarera, Rufus Youngblood, and Lyndon Rickards, âNational Propane Gas Association: Study on Propane Gas Pipeline Facilitiesâ (Meeting 1, Washington, DC, June 8, 2017), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/Propane/Caladeraetal6817.pdf. NPGA relayed its survey results verbally during the public data-gathering session. The NFPA codes are specific to LPG and are intended to apply to all types of LPG facilities regardless of number of customers. While the Part 192 requirements exempt nearly all single-user facilities and those multi-user systems that have fewer than 10 customers and do not cross a public place, they too are intended to have broad application across system sizes. Importantly, however, Part 192 regulations are written for all gas distribution systems, not just LPG ones. In cases where there is a conflict in the two sets of requirements, the federal regulations (CFR Â§ 192.11(c)) state that the LPG-specific NFPA codes prevail.10 In cases where there is a Part 192 requirement but no corresponding NFPA requirement, operators must follow the more generalized Part 192 requirement. There is no ready way to assess whether a given regulatory requirement should or should not be applied to an LPG system with 100 or fewer cus- 10 A conflict only exists when an operator cannot comply with a requirement in NFPA 58 and 59 because it conflicts with a requirement in Part 192.
64 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS tomers. Such requirement-by-requirement assessments are complicated by the fact that LPG systems with 100 or fewer customers are not uniform in their configurations, design features, and settings. The NAPSR data suggest that a multi-user LPG system is more likely to serve a dozen customers than several dozen customers. The former system could be very simple, possibly involving a single tank and service line that are located above ground, while the latter system will almost certainly involve a buried tank or tanks with underground service lines that cannot be visually identified and inspected. However, even those LPG systems of similar size can have important dif- ferences that make a regulatory requirement more or less applicable; for instance, one 50-user system might be compact, serving a single large apart- ment building, while another might involve a network of service lines that connects a neighborhood of single-family homes. By and large, the industry representatives who briefed the committee did not raise concern about the applicability of requirements in the NFPA codes. They raised concern, instead, about the desirability of the Part 192 requirements when applied to all LPG systems serving 100 or fewer cus- tomers. Additionally, they also noted that PHMSA has not updated the Part 192 reference to the NFPA codes with one of the more recent editions issued since 2004.11 After a short discussion of the two sets of requirements, these industry claims are discussed. NFPA Codes NFPA is a private nonprofit organization that develops and maintains consensus standards for fire prevention and protection. In the case of its LPG codes, NFPA manages the standards development process with tech- nical committees consisting of LPG suppliers, system installers, container and fitting manufacturers, state regulators and fire marshals, insurance underwriters, and consultants with engineering and technical expertise. The LPG codes are typically developed and updated on a 3-year sched- ule to reflect current technologies, engineering practices, and scientific principles following an American National Standards Instituteâcertified process. The NFPA codes also incorporate the latest consensus standards from other standard-setting bodies, such as the American Petroleum Insti- tute, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASTM International, and Underwriters Laboratories. 11 Regulators briefing the committee explained that PHMSA had not adopted the 2008 edition of the NFPA codes because of concern regarding revisions to the chapter on opera- tions and maintenance that PHMSA believed would be detrimental to safety. The NFPA codes have been revised since then to address PHMSAâs view. Additionally, the pace of the federal rulemaking process has been cited as a factor in updating the edition of the codes referenced in Part 192.
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 65 PHMSA has incorporated by reference the NFPA codes since 1970. Ac- cording to Part 192, a jurisdictional system that transports LPG must meet the requirements of NFPA 58, Liquified Petroleum Gas Code (2004 edi- tion), and NFPA 59, Utility LP-Gas Plant Code (2004 edition), where ap- plicable. NFPA 58 is most relevant to LPG pipeline distribution systems, as the code contains requirements intended to ensure the safe design, installa- tion, operation, and maintenance of systems used in LPG storage, handling, and transportation. While NFPA 59 is referenced in Part 192 and operators must comply with this code when applicable, it is intended to address safe design and operations for bulk LPG plant facilities. NFPA 59 requirements are not reviewed here because they rarely apply to LPG pipeline distribution systems serving fewer than 100 customers, which are generally supplied by cargo tank trucks from the NFPA 59âgoverned utility plants.12 The main areas of coverage in the 2004 edition of NFPA 58 are out- lined in Box 4-1, including examples of the subject matter of Chapters 4 through 7 and 14 and 15, which have the most relevance to LPG pipeline distribution systems. Example requirements include specifications for safe distances between tanks and one another, buildings, adjoining properties, and sources of ignition; maximum system operating pressure downstream of the first stage regulator; pipe and tubing materials and fittings that can be used; tank filling limits relative to holding capacity; and corrosion prevention. Part 192 Additional Requirements Box 4-2 summarizes the major provisions of the Part 192 regulations that apply to all gas pipeline systems. The subject matter ranges from materials and design to facility construction, testing, operations, and maintenance. Many of the Part 192 provisions are also met by LPG operators through compliance with NFPA 58, including overpressure protection of the down- stream components; corrosion control; component testing and approval 12 The committee is mindful of concerns raised by industry and regulators that the demar- cation between NFPA 58 and 59 poses challenges to pipeline facility operations and enforce- ment and believes that such issues fall within the purview of NFPA as a matter of policy and expertise. In a notable example, industry representatives and regulators raised the issue of an NFPA code requirement for relief valve testing that can result in an interruption of service to customers. Certain LPG system tanks that generally would be regulated under NFPA 58 based on storage volume as understood for several editions of the code are subject to the purview of NFPA 59 for relief valve testing every 5 years. Consequently, small systems (i.e., aggregate tank storage of 4,000 or fewer gallons) that are considered relatively simple under NFPA code must comply with an NFPA 59 requirement intended for large utility plants. Because these small systems often lack a specialized valve (see Figure 2-3) that is more likely found on a system at a utility plant, testing causes LPG liquid to be vented.
66 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Box 4-1 NFPA 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (2004 Edition), Summary of Content Chapter 1: Administration Chapter 2: Referenced Publications Chapter 3: Definitions Chapter 4: General Requirements (e.g., acceptance of equipment and sysÂ tems, gas odorization, notification of installations) Chapter 5: LP-Gas Equipment and Appliances (e.g., container service presÂ sure, container markings, appurtenance damage protection, appurÂ tenance materials, pressure relief devices, regulators, gauging devices, piping and tubing, vaporizers) Chapter 6: Installation of LP-Gas Systems (e.g., location and separation of containers, location of transfer operations, installation of appurteÂ nances and relief devices, regulator installation, sizing and pressure limitations of piping systems, installation of metallic and plastic pipÂ ing, corrosion protection, emergency shutoff valves) Chapter 7: LP Gas Liquid Transfer (e.g., filling and emptying containers, hose inspection, venting and purging gas, container filling limits) Chapter 8: Storage of Cylinders Awaiting Use, Resale, or Exchange Chapter 9: Vehicular Transportation of LP Gas Chapter 10: Buildings or Structures Housing LP Gas Distribution Facilities Chapter 11: Engine Fuel Systems Chapter 12: Refrigerated Containers Chapter 13: Marine Shipping and Receiving Chapter 14: Operations and Maintenance (e.g., written procedures for operator actions if leaks are detected or parameters exceed normal operatÂ ing limits; written procedures for maintenance, including corrosion control; maintenance and inspection recordkeeping) Chapter 15: Pipe and Tubing Sizing Tables (e.g., pipe sizing between first and second stage regulators and between second stage regulators and appliancesâby pipe material type) for the pressures in which they will operate; protection from outside force damage; and odorization of the supply product. Table 4-5 identifies those Part 192 requirements that are not met by compliance with NFPA 58. The table, which was derived from a document developed by PHMSA,13 lists those Part 192 requirements that do not have a corresponding NFPA 58 requirement. Some of the requirements concern facility designs, components, configurations, and conditions that are not 13 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âComparison of 49 CFR 192 and NFPA 58, NFPA 59,â April 26, 2011.
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 67 Box 4-2 Major Provisions of Part 192 Regulations and Example Content Subpart AâGeneral Â§Â§ 192.1â192.16 Scope, definitions, class locations Subpart BâMaterials Â§Â§ 192.51â192.65 Steel pipe, plastic pipe, marking of material Subpart CâPipe Design Â§Â§ 192.101â192.125 Wall thickness, yield strength, temperature rating Subpart DâDesign of Pipeline Components Â§Â§ 192.141â192.203 Fittings, outlets, anchors, pressure limiting devices Subpart EâWelding of Steel in Pipelines Â§Â§ 192.221â192.245 Procedures, welder qualifications, inspections and testing Subpart FâJoining of Materials Other Than by Welding Â§Â§ 192.271â192.287 Iron, plastic, copper pipe, inspection Subpart GâGeneral Construction Requirements for Transmission Lines and Mains Â§Â§ 192.301â192.328 Inspection of materials, installation of pipe in ditch, underÂ ground clearance, cover Subpart HâCustomer Meters, Service Regulators, and Service Lines Â§Â§ 192.351â192.385 Location of valves, meter operating pressure, excess flow valve installation, protection from damage Subpart IâRequirements for Corrosion Control Â§Â§ 192.451â192.491 External corrosion control, protective coating, cathodic protection, monitoring Subpart JâTest Requirements Â§Â§ 192.501â192.517 Strength test requirements for steel pipeline to operÂ ate at a hoop stress of 30 percent or more of SMYS, requirements for service lines, requirements for plastic pipelines Subpart KâUprating Â§Â§ 192.551â192.557 Requirements for increasing operating pressure above the previously established maximum pressure continued
68 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Subpart LâOperations Â§Â§ 192.601â192.631 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies; surveillance; damage prevention proÂ gram; emergency plans; public awareness; maximum and minimum allowable operating pressure; odorization Subpart MâMaintenance Â§Â§ 192.701â192.755 Patrolling, leak surveys, pressure limiting and regulating stations, valve maintenance Subpart NâQualification of Pipeline Personnel Â§Â§ 192.801â192.809 Qualification program and recordkeeping Subpart OâGas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management Â§Â§ 192.901â192.951 Subpart PâGas Distribution Pipeline Integrity Management (IM) Â§Â§ 192.1001â192.1015 Definitions (including small LPG operator), required eleÂ ments of an integrity management plan, specification of the lesser requirements for an IM plan if the operator is a small LPG operator, actions to address integrity issues Box 4-2 Continued relevant to LPG pipeline systems, especially small LPG systems that lack the components regulated under certain provisions, such as requirements governing compressor stations, vaults, transmission lines, control room management, and district pressure regulating stations. Others may have relevance to at least some small LPG systems, depending on system features and characteristics, such as requirements governing welding, repair of steel pipe, underground clearance, depth of cover for service lines, external cor- rosion control, condition surveillance, damage prevention programs, public awareness, and distribution system integrity management. A PHMSA advi- sory bulletin to industry provides additional guidance on the applicability of Part 192 to LPG systems.14 14 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âPipeline Safety: Reminder of Requirements for Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Utility Liquefied Petroleum Gas Pipeline Systems,â 78 Federal Register 65427, accessed June 18, 2018, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ FR-2013-10-31/pdf/2013-25837.pdf.
69 T A B L E 4 -5 F ed er al P ip el in e Sa fe ty R eq ui re m en ts ( 49 C FR P ar t 19 2) W it ho ut C or re sp on di ng R eq ui re m en ts i n N FP A 5 8, L iq ue fie d P et ro le um G as C od e (2 00 4 ed it io n) Su bp ar t A â G en er al Â§ 19 2. 30 7 In sp ec ti on o f m at er ia ls . Â§ 19 2. 61 3 C on ti nu in g su rv ei lla nc e. Â§ 19 2. 5 C la ss l oc at io ns . Â§ 19 2. 30 9 R ep ai r of s te el p ip e. Â§ 19 2. 61 4 D am ag e pr ev en ti on p ro gr am . Â§ 19 2. 16 C us to m er n ot ifi ca ti on . Â§ 19 2. 31 5 W ri nk le b en ds i n st ee l pi pe . Â§ 19 2. 61 5 E m er ge nc y pl an s. Su bp ar t B â M at er ia ls Â§ 19 2. 32 3 C as in g. Â§ 19 2. 61 6 Pu bl ic a w ar en es s. Su bp ar t C â Pi pe D es ig n Â§ 19 2. 32 5 U nd er gr ou nd c le ar an ce . Â§ 19 2. 61 7 In ve st ig at io n of f ai lu re s. Â§ 19 2. 11 1 D es ig n fa ct or ( F) f or s te el p ip e. Â§ 19 2. 32 8 A dd it io na l co ns tr uc ti on re qu ir em en ts f or s te el p ip e us in g al te rn at iv e m ax im um a llo w ab le o pe ra ti ng p re ss ur e. Â§ 19 2. 62 0 A lt er na ti ve m ax im um a llo w ab le op er at in g pr es su re f or c er ta in s te el p ip el in es . Â§ 19 2. 11 2 A dd it io na l de si gn r eq ui re m en ts fo r st ee l pi pe u si ng a lt er na ti ve m ax im um al lo w ab le o pe ra ti ng p re ss ur e. Su bp ar t H â C us to m er M et er s, S er vi ce R eg ul at or s, a nd S er vi ce L in es Â§ 19 2. 62 3 M ax im um a nd m in im um a llo w ab le op er at in g pr es su re ; L ow -p re ss ur e di st ri bu ti on sy st em s. Â§ 19 2. 11 3 L on gi tu di na l jo in t fa ct or ( E ) fo r st ee l pi pe . Â§ 19 2. 36 3 Se rv ic e lin es : V al ve r eq ui re m en ts . Â§ 19 2. 62 7 Ta pp in g pi pe lin es u nd er p re ss ur e. Â§ 19 2. 11 5 Te m pe ra tu re d er at in g fa ct or ( T ) fo r st ee l pi pe . Â§ 19 2. 36 5 Se rv ic e lin es : L oc at io n of v al ve s. Â§ 19 2. 62 9 Pu rg in g of p ip el in es . ( 2) Su bp ar t D â D es ig n of P ip el in e C om po ne nt s Â§ 19 2. 37 7 Se rv ic e lin es : C op pe r. Â§ 19 2. 63 1 C on tr ol r oo m m an ag em en t. Â§ 19 2. 14 4 Q ua lif yi ng m et al lic c om po ne nt s. Â§ 19 2. 37 9 N ew s er vi ce l in es n ot i n us e. Su bp ar t M â M ai nt en an ce Â§ 19 2. 15 0 Pa ss ag e of i nt er na l in sp ec ti on de vi ce s. Â§ 19 2. 38 1 Se rv ic e lin es : E xc es s flo w v al ve pe rf or m an ce s ta nd ar ds . Â§ 19 2. 70 3 G en er al . Â§ 19 2. 15 1 Ta pp in g. Su bp ar t I â R eq ui re m en ts fo r C or ro si on C on tr ol Â§ 19 2. 70 5 T ra ns m is si on l in es : Pa tr ol lin g. Â§ 19 2. 15 5 W el de d br an ch c on ne ct io ns . Â§ 19 2. 45 2 H ow d oe s th is s ub pa rt a pp ly t o co nv er te d pi pe lin es a nd r eg ul at ed o ns ho re ga th er in g lin es ? Â§ 19 2. 70 6 T ra ns m is si on l in es : L ea ka ge su rv ey s. co nt in ue d
70 Â§ 19 2. 15 7 E xt ru de d ou tl et s. Â§ 19 2. 45 3 G en er al . (1 ) Â§ 19 2. 70 7 L in e m ar ke rs f or m ai ns a nd tr an sm is si on l in es . Â§ 19 2. 16 5 C om pr es so r st at io ns : L iq ui d re m ov al . (1 ) Â§ 19 2. 45 9 E xt er na l co rr os io n co nt ro l: E xa m in at io n of b ur ie d pi pe lin e w he n ex po se d. Â§ 19 2. 70 9 T ra ns m is si on l in es : R ec or d ke ep in g. ( 1) Â§ 19 2. 16 7 C om pr es so r st at io ns : E m er ge nc y sh ut do w n. ( 1) Â§ 19 2. 46 5 E xt er na l co rr os io n co nt ro l: M on it or in g. Â§ 19 2. 71 1 T ra ns m is si on l in es : G en er al re qu ir em en ts f or r ep ai r pr oc ed ur es . Â§ 19 2. 16 9 C om pr es so r st at io ns : Pr es su re lim it in g de vi ce s. ( 1) Â§ 19 2. 46 9 E xt er na l co rr os io n co nt ro l: Te st st at io ns . Â§ 19 2. 71 3 T ra ns m is si on l in es : Pe rm an en t fie ld re pa ir o f im pe rf ec ti on s an d da m ag es . Â§ 19 2. 17 9 T ra ns m is si on l in e va lv es . Â§ 19 2. 47 1 E xt er na l co rr os io n co nt ro l: Te st le ad s. Â§ 19 2. 71 5 T ra ns m is si on l in es : Pe rm an en t fie ld re pa ir o f w el ds . Â§ 19 2. 18 5 V au lt s: A cc es si bi lit y. Â§ 19 2. 47 3 E xt er na l co rr os io n co nt ro l: In te rf er en ce c ur re nt s. Â§ 19 2. 72 1 D is tr ib ut io n sy st em s: P at ro lli ng . Â§ 19 2. 18 7 V au lt s: S ea lin g, v en ti ng , an d ve nt ila ti on . (1 ) Â§ 19 2. 47 5 In te rn al c or ro si on c on tr ol : G en er al . Â§ 19 2. 72 3 D is tr ib ut io n sy st em s: L ea ka ge su rv ey s. Â§ 19 2. 18 9 V au lt s: D ra in ag e an d w at er pr oo fin g. Â§ 19 2. 47 6 In te rn al c or ro si on c on tr ol : D es ig n an d co ns tr uc ti on o f tr an sm is si on l in e. Â§ 19 2. 73 5 C om pr es so r st at io ns : St or ag e of co m bu st ib le m at er ia ls . (1 ) Â§ 19 2. 20 3 In st ru m en t, c on tr ol , an d sa m pl in g pi pe a nd c om po ne nt s. Â§ 19 2. 47 7 In te rn al c or ro si on c on tr ol : M on it or in g. Â§ 19 2. 73 6 C om pr es so r st at io ns : G as de te ct io n. ( 1) Su bp ar t E â W el di ng o f St ee l i n Pi pe lin es Â§ 19 2. 48 3 R em ed ia l m ea su re s: G en er al . Â§ 19 2. 73 9 Pr es su re l im it in g an d re gu la ti ng st at io ns : In sp ec ti on a nd t es ti ng . Â§ 19 2. 22 7 Q ua lifi ca ti on o f w el de rs . Â§ 19 2. 48 5 R em ed ia l m ea su re s: T ra ns m is si on lin es . Â§ 19 2. 74 1 Pr es su re l im it in g an d re gu la ti ng st at io ns : Te le m et er in g or r ec or di ng g au ge s. Â§ 19 2. 22 9 L im it at io ns o n w el de rs . Â§ 19 2. 48 7 R em ed ia l m ea su re s: D is tr ib ut io n lin es o th er t ha n ca st i ro n or d uc ti le i ro n lin es . Â§ 19 2. 74 3 Pr es su re l im it in g an d re gu la ti ng st at io ns : C ap ac it y of r el ie f de vi ce s. ( 2) Â§ 19 2. 23 1 Pr ot ec ti on f ro m w ea th er . Â§ 19 2. 49 0 D ir ec t as se ss m en t. Â§ 19 2. 74 5 V al ve m ai nt en an ce : T ra ns m is si on lin es . Â§ 19 2. 23 3 M it er j oi nt s. Su bp ar t Jâ T es t R eq ui re m en ts Â§ 19 2. 74 9 V au lt m ai nt en an ce . Â§ 19 2. 23 5 Pr ep ar at io n fo r w el di ng . Â§ 19 2. 50 5 St re ng th t es t re qu ir em en ts f or s te el pi pe lin e to o pe ra te a t a ho op s tr es s of 3 0 pe rc en t or m or e of S M Y S. Â§ 19 2. 75 3 C au lk ed b el l an d sp ig ot j oi nt s. Â§ 19 2. 24 1 In sp ec ti on a nd t es t of w el ds . Â§ 19 2. 50 7 Te st r eq ui re m en ts f or p ip el in es t o op er at e at a h oo p st re ss l es s th an 3 0 pe rc en t of S M Y S an d at o r ab ov e 10 0 ps i (6 89 k Pa ) ga ge . Su bp ar t N â Q ua lifi ca ti on o f Pi pe lin e Pe rs on ne l Â§ 19 2. 24 3 N on de st ru ct iv e te st in g. Â§ 19 2. 50 9 Te st r eq ui re m en ts f or p ip el in es t o op er at e be lo w 1 00 p si ( 68 9 kP a) g ag e. Â§ 19 2. 80 1 Sc op e. ( 1) Â§ 19 2. 24 5 R ep ai r or r em ov al o f de fe ct s. Â§ 19 2. 51 5 E nv ir on m en ta l pr ot ec ti on a nd sa fe ty r eq ui re m en ts . Â§ 19 2. 80 3 D efi ni ti on s. Su bp ar t Fâ Jo in in g of M at er ia ls O th er T ha n by W el di ng Su bp ar t K â U pr at in g Â§ 19 2. 80 5 Q ua lifi ca ti on p ro gr am . Â§ 19 2. 28 7 Pl as ti c pi pe : In sp ec ti on o f jo in ts . Su bp ar t Jâ O pe ra ti on s Â§ 19 2. 80 7 R ec or dk ee pi ng . Su bp ar t G â G en er al C on st ru ct io n R eq ui re m en ts fo r T ra ns m is si on L in es a nd M ai ns Â§ 19 2. 60 3 G en er al p ro vi si on s. Â§ 19 2. 80 9 G en er al . Â§ 19 2. 30 3 C om pl ia nc e w it h sp ec ifi ca ti on s or st an da rd s. Â§ 19 2. 60 9 C ha ng e in c la ss l oc at io n: R eq ui re d st ud y. Su bp ar t O â G as T ra ns m is si on P ip el in e In te gr it y M an ag em en t Â§ 19 2. 30 5 In sp ec ti on : G en er al . ( 2) Â§ 19 2. 61 1 C ha ng e in c la ss l oc at io n: C on fir m at io n or r ev is io n of m ax im um al lo w ab le o pe ra ti ng p re ss ur e. Su bp ar t Pâ D is tr ib ut io n Pi pe lin e In te gr it y M an ag em en t (I M ) N O T E S: P ar t 19 2 re qu ir em en ts li st ed h av e no c or re sp on di ng r eq ui re m en t in N FP A 5 8. T ho se m ar ke d w it h th e nu m er al o ne ( 1) in di ca te t ha t N FP A 58 d oe s no t sp ec ifi ca lly a dd re ss t he P ar t 19 2 re qu ir em en t. T ho se m ar ke d w it h th e nu m er al t w o (2 ) in di ca te t ha t N FP A 5 8 ha s a co rr es po nd in g re qu ir em en t fo r co nt ai ne rs b ut n ot p ip el in es . SO U R C E : G ar y M cD on al d, â C om pa ri so n of 4 9 C FR 1 92 a nd N FP A 5 8, N FP A 5 9â ( Pi pe lin e an d H az ar do us M at er ia ls S af et y A dm in is tr at io n, 20 11 ), h tt ps :// w w w 8. na ti on al ac ad em ie s. or g/ pa /p ro je ct vi ew .a sp x? ke y= 49 87 3. T A B L E 4 -5 C on ti nu ed
71 Â§ 19 2. 15 7 E xt ru de d ou tl et s. Â§ 19 2. 45 3 G en er al . (1 ) Â§ 19 2. 70 7 L in e m ar ke rs f or m ai ns a nd tr an sm is si on l in es . Â§ 19 2. 16 5 C om pr es so r st at io ns : L iq ui d re m ov al . (1 ) Â§ 19 2. 45 9 E xt er na l co rr os io n co nt ro l: E xa m in at io n of b ur ie d pi pe lin e w he n ex po se d. Â§ 19 2. 70 9 T ra ns m is si on l in es : R ec or d ke ep in g. ( 1) Â§ 19 2. 16 7 C om pr es so r st at io ns : E m er ge nc y sh ut do w n. ( 1) Â§ 19 2. 46 5 E xt er na l co rr os io n co nt ro l: M on it or in g. Â§ 19 2. 71 1 T ra ns m is si on l in es : G en er al re qu ir em en ts f or r ep ai r pr oc ed ur es . Â§ 19 2. 16 9 C om pr es so r st at io ns : Pr es su re lim it in g de vi ce s. ( 1) Â§ 19 2. 46 9 E xt er na l co rr os io n co nt ro l: Te st st at io ns . Â§ 19 2. 71 3 T ra ns m is si on l in es : Pe rm an en t fie ld re pa ir o f im pe rf ec ti on s an d da m ag es . Â§ 19 2. 17 9 T ra ns m is si on l in e va lv es . Â§ 19 2. 47 1 E xt er na l co rr os io n co nt ro l: Te st le ad s. Â§ 19 2. 71 5 T ra ns m is si on l in es : Pe rm an en t fie ld re pa ir o f w el ds . Â§ 19 2. 18 5 V au lt s: A cc es si bi lit y. Â§ 19 2. 47 3 E xt er na l co rr os io n co nt ro l: In te rf er en ce c ur re nt s. Â§ 19 2. 72 1 D is tr ib ut io n sy st em s: P at ro lli ng . Â§ 19 2. 18 7 V au lt s: S ea lin g, v en ti ng , an d ve nt ila ti on . (1 ) Â§ 19 2. 47 5 In te rn al c or ro si on c on tr ol : G en er al . Â§ 19 2. 72 3 D is tr ib ut io n sy st em s: L ea ka ge su rv ey s. Â§ 19 2. 18 9 V au lt s: D ra in ag e an d w at er pr oo fin g. Â§ 19 2. 47 6 In te rn al c or ro si on c on tr ol : D es ig n an d co ns tr uc ti on o f tr an sm is si on l in e. Â§ 19 2. 73 5 C om pr es so r st at io ns : St or ag e of co m bu st ib le m at er ia ls . (1 ) Â§ 19 2. 20 3 In st ru m en t, c on tr ol , an d sa m pl in g pi pe a nd c om po ne nt s. Â§ 19 2. 47 7 In te rn al c or ro si on c on tr ol : M on it or in g. Â§ 19 2. 73 6 C om pr es so r st at io ns : G as de te ct io n. ( 1) Su bp ar t E â W el di ng o f St ee l i n Pi pe lin es Â§ 19 2. 48 3 R em ed ia l m ea su re s: G en er al . Â§ 19 2. 73 9 Pr es su re l im it in g an d re gu la ti ng st at io ns : In sp ec ti on a nd t es ti ng . Â§ 19 2. 22 7 Q ua lifi ca ti on o f w el de rs . Â§ 19 2. 48 5 R em ed ia l m ea su re s: T ra ns m is si on lin es . Â§ 19 2. 74 1 Pr es su re l im it in g an d re gu la ti ng st at io ns : Te le m et er in g or r ec or di ng g au ge s. Â§ 19 2. 22 9 L im it at io ns o n w el de rs . Â§ 19 2. 48 7 R em ed ia l m ea su re s: D is tr ib ut io n lin es o th er t ha n ca st i ro n or d uc ti le i ro n lin es . Â§ 19 2. 74 3 Pr es su re l im it in g an d re gu la ti ng st at io ns : C ap ac it y of r el ie f de vi ce s. ( 2) Â§ 19 2. 23 1 Pr ot ec ti on f ro m w ea th er . Â§ 19 2. 49 0 D ir ec t as se ss m en t. Â§ 19 2. 74 5 V al ve m ai nt en an ce : T ra ns m is si on lin es . Â§ 19 2. 23 3 M it er j oi nt s. Su bp ar t Jâ T es t R eq ui re m en ts Â§ 19 2. 74 9 V au lt m ai nt en an ce . Â§ 19 2. 23 5 Pr ep ar at io n fo r w el di ng . Â§ 19 2. 50 5 St re ng th t es t re qu ir em en ts f or s te el pi pe lin e to o pe ra te a t a ho op s tr es s of 3 0 pe rc en t or m or e of S M Y S. Â§ 19 2. 75 3 C au lk ed b el l an d sp ig ot j oi nt s. Â§ 19 2. 24 1 In sp ec ti on a nd t es t of w el ds . Â§ 19 2. 50 7 Te st r eq ui re m en ts f or p ip el in es t o op er at e at a h oo p st re ss l es s th an 3 0 pe rc en t of S M Y S an d at o r ab ov e 10 0 ps i (6 89 k Pa ) ga ge . Su bp ar t N â Q ua lifi ca ti on o f Pi pe lin e Pe rs on ne l Â§ 19 2. 24 3 N on de st ru ct iv e te st in g. Â§ 19 2. 50 9 Te st r eq ui re m en ts f or p ip el in es t o op er at e be lo w 1 00 p si ( 68 9 kP a) g ag e. Â§ 19 2. 80 1 Sc op e. ( 1) Â§ 19 2. 24 5 R ep ai r or r em ov al o f de fe ct s. Â§ 19 2. 51 5 E nv ir on m en ta l pr ot ec ti on a nd sa fe ty r eq ui re m en ts . Â§ 19 2. 80 3 D efi ni ti on s. Su bp ar t Fâ Jo in in g of M at er ia ls O th er T ha n by W el di ng Su bp ar t K â U pr at in g Â§ 19 2. 80 5 Q ua lifi ca ti on p ro gr am . Â§ 19 2. 28 7 Pl as ti c pi pe : In sp ec ti on o f jo in ts . Su bp ar t Jâ O pe ra ti on s Â§ 19 2. 80 7 R ec or dk ee pi ng . Su bp ar t G â G en er al C on st ru ct io n R eq ui re m en ts fo r T ra ns m is si on L in es a nd M ai ns Â§ 19 2. 60 3 G en er al p ro vi si on s. Â§ 19 2. 80 9 G en er al . Â§ 19 2. 30 3 C om pl ia nc e w it h sp ec ifi ca ti on s or st an da rd s. Â§ 19 2. 60 9 C ha ng e in c la ss l oc at io n: R eq ui re d st ud y. Su bp ar t O â G as T ra ns m is si on P ip el in e In te gr it y M an ag em en t Â§ 19 2. 30 5 In sp ec ti on : G en er al . ( 2) Â§ 19 2. 61 1 C ha ng e in c la ss l oc at io n: C on fir m at io n or r ev is io n of m ax im um al lo w ab le o pe ra ti ng p re ss ur e. Su bp ar t Pâ D is tr ib ut io n Pi pe lin e In te gr it y M an ag em en t (I M ) N O T E S: P ar t 19 2 re qu ir em en ts li st ed h av e no c or re sp on di ng r eq ui re m en t in N FP A 5 8. T ho se m ar ke d w it h th e nu m er al o ne ( 1) in di ca te t ha t N FP A 58 d oe s no t sp ec ifi ca lly a dd re ss t he P ar t 19 2 re qu ir em en t. T ho se m ar ke d w it h th e nu m er al t w o (2 ) in di ca te t ha t N FP A 5 8 ha s a co rr es po nd in g re qu ir em en t fo r co nt ai ne rs b ut n ot p ip el in es . SO U R C E : G ar y M cD on al d, â C om pa ri so n of 4 9 C FR 1 92 a nd N FP A 5 8, N FP A 5 9â ( Pi pe lin e an d H az ar do us M at er ia ls S af et y A dm in is tr at io n, 20 11 ), h tt ps :// w w w 8. na ti on al ac ad em ie s. or g/ pa /p ro je ct vi ew .a sp x? ke y= 49 87 3.
72 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Presented with this large list of additional Part 192 requirements and lacking all but the most basic information about LPG systems with 100 or fewer customers, the committee was not in a position to assess each require- ment individually for applicability. Accordingly, the committee asked LPG industry representatives to provide their views on the Part 192 require- ments, including their reasoning for wanting some or all the requirements to be eliminated or eased for systems having 100 or fewer customers. Their response is summarized next. LPG Industry Concerns About the Applicability of Part 192 As detailed in the Preface, several LPG industry representatives briefed the committee, including officials from NPGA. As noted previously, they raised concern about states applying a varied, and sometimes overly in- clusive, interpretation of a public place for determining whether a small LPG system is jurisdictional. They claimed that state-to-state variability in the regulatory treatment of systems creates compliance uncertainty and costs, especially for multi-state operators who must prepare for varied state interpretations. In addition to this general concern about the treatment of small ju- risdictional LPG systems, the industry representatives gave the following examples of prescriptive requirements in Part 192 that they believe are not sensible or add no value to the LPG-specific NFPA requirements: â¢ Use 50 pounds per square inch gage (psig) as the construction test pressure for plastic piping, which is 20 psig higher than the operat- ing pressure for plastic pipe allowed by NFPA code. â¢ Use a nonflammable testing material for LPG system leaks, when standard practice has been to use propane to test for leaks. â¢ Perform odor testing with an instrument, as opposed to only a sniff test as required by NFPA code. They also questioned the value of and justification for the added com- pliance cost of several Part 192 requirements to undertake periodic inspec- tions and testing of small LPG pipeline systems, including requirements for â¢ An annual inspection of atmospheric corrosion and cathodic pro- tection testing, â¢ An annual inspection of regulator devices and relief and key valves, â¢ An annual leak survey, â¢ Quarterly patrolling, and â¢ Quarterly odorization testing.
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 73 They claimed these inspection and testing requirements are excessive in light of common industry practices and NFPA requirements for the â¢ Inspection of tank and associated equipment condition that occurs during LPG delivery operations, â¢ Operating test and inspections for system leaks each time a new occupant moves in, and â¢ Odorization test at LPG transfer (from production to individual transport modes). One LPG supplier, Suburban Propane, reported that the additional Part 192 inspection and testing requirements increase the cost of operating and maintaining a small jurisdictional LPG system by an average of $1,700 per year.15 The committee was unable to validate this or other compliance cost information provided by industry. In addition to these compliance costs, the industry representatives were especially concerned about the cost associated with the personnel training stipulated by Part 192 in Subpart N. They maintained that the NFPA code and most state licensing regulations already require that technicians install- ing, repairing, and maintaining LPG systems, as well as drivers delivering LPG, have NPGA (Certified Employee Training Program or CETP) or equivalent certification that involves written exams and skill evaluation.16 They questioned whether the additional Part 192 training and documenta- tion requirements, which include an Operator Qualification Plan and an- nual qualification of pipe joiners, are needed. Suburban Propane estimated that the average cost of initial training of a technician to meet Part 192 Subpart N is $8,000 more than the cost of CETP training.17 Finally, several industry representatives indicated that Part 192 contains several requirements for planning, registration, and documentation that have little applicability to small LPG systems. They questioned the need for all small LPG systemsânot just those with large amounts of underground pipingâto register for one-call notification systems (âcall before you digâ) in compliance with Part 192âs damage prevention program requirements (Â§ 192.614). They also questioned the rationale for these small systems to be obligated to create site-specific emergency response plans, liaise with local fire departments, and provide public awareness notifications. 15 LaPierre and Minchew, âSmall LP Gas Jurisdictional Systems.â The committee was not in a position to independently verify this number or other compliance costs, or to determine whether these costs were justified by the safety benefits. 16 National Propane Gas Association, âCertified Employee Training Program (CETP),â ac- cessed April 24, 2018, https://www.npga.org/industry/cetp-certification. 17 LaPierre and Minchew, âSmall LP Gas Jurisdictional Systems.â
74 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS The Suburban Propane representatives reported that even for very small jurisdictional systems, the labor costs associated with developing and maintaining the added documentation required by Part 192 averaged about $750 per system.18 The suppliers complained that compliance with these requirements is made more burdensome by variability in state (and some- times individual inspector) interpretations of what constitutes a compliant plan or program. The variability requires multi-state operators to develop numerous state-specific operations and maintenance manuals, operator qualification plans, and distribution integrity management programs. In briefing the committee, the national LPG supplier AmeriGas esti- mated that the average annual cost of complying with all Part 192 require- ments ranges from about $4,700 to $7,700 per year per system (adding about 200 person-hours of labor), with the higher end of the range being more applicable to smaller operators that do not enjoy the scale economies of the multi-state LPG suppliers. Enforcement Experience Results from enforcement data published by PHMSA and reported in the NAPSR questionnaire provide some insight into the challenges that LPG system operators face in complying with the Part 192 requirements and that regulators face in enforcing compliance. As noted previously, PHMSA conducts all enforcement of federal regu- latory requirements that apply to LPG pipeline distribution systems in the states of Florida, Hawaii, and Wisconsin, because these states do not have enforcement partnerships with the federal agency. Data on PHMSA en- forcement actions in these three states from 2011 through 2016 show that more than 85 percent of violations by LPG systems (of all sizes including systems with 100 or more customers) pertained to Part 192 requirements, as opposed to the NFPA code (listed as âTransportation of gasâ), as shown in Table 4-6. These results may be indicative of operators finding it difficult to comply with the federal regulations, perhaps because of unfamiliarity with the requirements or uncertainty about how to comply with particular demands, such as those for planning and documentation. It is possible, however, that the results are skewed by PHMSA inspectors having more familiarity with, and enforcement interest in, the Part 192 requirements than the NFPA code. One state, Connecticut, provided the committee with detailed data on its LPG enforcement activities during the same time period (see Table 4-6). It is notable that in this state, where there are many small jurisdictional LPG systems, about half of the enforcement actions were for NFPA code violations, which does not support a conclusion that opera- 18 LaPierre and Minchew, âSmall LP Gas Jurisdictional Systems.â
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 75 TABLE 4-6 PHMSA Enforcement Actions in Florida, Hawaii, and Wisconsin and in Connecticut by the Stateâs Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, Jurisdictional LPG Pipeline Distribution Systems (all sizes), 2011â2016 Actions by PHMSA in FL, HI, WI, Total Actions by State Regulator, CT Number of jurisdictional LPG systems (all sizes) ~430 352 Enforcement category Operation/maintenance 86 122 Corrosion control 46 26 Transportation of gas (NFPA code violation) 28 362 Operations, maintenance, and emergencies procedural manual 19 83 Public awareness 17 3 Integrity management 8 6 Operator qualification 7 27 Reporting 6 0 Damage prevention 4 19 Customer meter/service line 4 8 Joining of materials other than by welding 4 70 Design 2 0 Test requirements 2 15 Welding of steel in pipelines 1 0 Total actions 234 741 NOTES: The count of jurisdictional systems represents an estimate for Florida, Hawaii, and Wisconsin and includes small and large jurisdictional LPG pipeline distribution systems. All 352 systems in Connecticut are small systems serving fewer than 100 customers. SOURCES: Blaine Keener, âNAS LPG Enforcement 2018-01-29.Xlsxâ (Pipeline and Haz- ardous Materials Safety Administration, January 2018), https://www8.nationalacademies. org/pa/projectview.aspx?key=49873; Bruce Benson, âConnecticut PURA Enforcement Data 20180316.Xlsxâ (Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, March 2018), https:// www8.nationalacademies.org/pa/projectview.aspx?key=49873. tors find it more challenging to comply with Part 192 than with the NFPA requirements. Connecticut has an active pipeline safety program, devoting consider- able resources to inspecting small LPG pipeline systems. In response to the NAPSR questionnaire, the state reported that it spends about $200,000, or approximately 20 percent of staff time resources, per year enforcing fed-
76 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS eral and state regulations applicable to LPG systems. Only one other state, Maine, reported expenditures of this magnitude (~$150,000 per year). Because of the variability in state responses to the NAPSR questionnaire, and to the expenditure-related questions in particular, it is difficult to know how costly and challenging the LPG regulations are to enforce at the state level. Those challenges and costs, of course, are important to know when assessing the benefits and costs of regulations. Inasmuch as the NAPSR questionnaire results discussed earlier suggest that many states do not have a good inventory of their small LPG systems, it is reasonable to conclude that enforcement of both NFPA and Part 192 requirements are spotty for these systems. If regulatory enforcement is indeed spottyâor concentrated in a few states or regionsâthis raises questions about the practical extent to which small LPG operators are burdened by regulatory compliance. SUMMARY ASSESSMENT For several reasons, the committee is not in a position to assess the validity of all of the LPG industryâs claims regarding the Part 192 regulations as they apply to small LPG pipeline distribution systems. One reason is that these systems, even though they serve many fewer customers when compared to natural gas systems, are not monolithic, and thus a Part 192 requirement that has limited applicability and safety relevance to the circumstances and configuration of one system may have greater applicability and relevance to another system. There is a paucity of the most basic data on the number of small jurisdictional LPG systems by size, much less the kinds of data needed to profile systems according to characteristics relevant to the risks that individual Part 192 or NFPA 58 requirements are intended to address. For instance, in its review of the experience of enforcement agencies, the committee observed that responses to the NAPSR questionnaire resist meaningful analysis. Other than the count of LPG systems, the responses include potentially relevant though limited information related to the en- forcement experience of state regulators. That is, the responses lack con- sistency in the use of terminology and specificity in referencing regulatory requirements. To illustrate the disparities among regulatorsâ responses, consider the first question in the NAPSR questionnaire (see Appendix A) that asks, âWhat are the most common regulatory violations found in inspections of LPG pipeline systems serving 99 or fewer customers?â Re- sponses range from some specific citations of Part 192 requirements and mention of storage tank placement and protection that connote sections, rather than specific requirements, in the NFPA 58 code to âviolations are wide spread,â âa general lack of understanding of the regulations and how to implement them on a system,â and âleak repair issues.â That range of language prevents reliable examination of the association between re-
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 77 quirements in Part 192 or NFPA 58 and safety benefits even if a chain of causation between violations and incident causes were established. How- ever, with third-party excavation damage and unknown causes comprising the majority of incident causes (see Figure 3-1), there appears to be weak or indeterminate correlation between the operatorsâ operation and mainte- nance of LPG systems and safety performance. Another reason is that the committee cannot validate the compliance cost information provided by industry, how widespread these compliance costs are, and whether the costs are reasonable in proportion to the safety benefits of compliance. The data provided by state regulatory agencies suggest wide variability in state enforcement activity and presumably wide variability in the demands placed on operators to comply with Part 192 requirements. Some of the reported costs are difficult to put in context; for instance, it was reported that training of personnel according to Part 192 requirements costs $8,000 per technician beyond the cost required to meet NFPA training requirements. Without knowing how much this added train- ing contributes to the ability of operator personnel to prevent and effec- tively respond to a safety incident, it is difficult to know whether this is a reasonable or unjustifiably large figure. Some of the Part 192 requirements that were identified as problematic by industry may be valid, at least with respect to smaller LPG systems, such as those closer to 10 customers than 100. These include annual leak surveys and testing regimes. However, it is not possible to determine whether the Part 192 requirements deemed problematic by the industry are not justi- fied without knowing more about the condition and characteristics of the systems affected. Conversely, some of the industry claims of inapplicability would appear to have questionable validity. For example, a Part 192 regula- tion cited as problematic is the requirement for operators to register their systems with one-call notification programs (Â§ 192.614), a requirement intended to prevent excavation damage. As reported in Chapter 3, excava- tion damage is a leading cause of hazardous leaks in gas mains and service lines (accounting for around 80 percent). While these data are derived from LPG systems that serve 100 or more customers, they are indicative of the risks of outside force damage to underground gas installations. Given the experience with excavation risks, it is difficult to see how a requirement that compels an operator of a buried gas tank and lines to register with a one-call system could be viewed as unreasonable or extraordinary. Industry representatives cited several Part 192 regulations that require the development and documentation of plans and programs that can be costly to develop and susceptible to the varied interpretations of state regulators responsible for enforcement. The challenge that both small firms and state regulators face in complying with and enforcing regulations that require such management-based plans and programs were well documented
78 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS in a recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine re- port.19 While requirements for management systems are often flexible in the sense that they give regulated firms the ability to customize their programs in accordance with their circumstances, they can present implementation challenges for operators with limited technical expertise and can be difficult for regulators to assess consistently. The requirement that gas pipeline distribution systems implement distri- bution integrity management programs (DIMPs) is an example of a manage- ment-based rule, and one that was cited by LPG operators as problematic for small systems. When extending the DIMP requirement to LPG systems, PHMSA reasoned that because LPG presents unique hazards (heavier than air and will not disperse as readily as natural gas), operators should be ex- pected to put in place more systematic means for identifying and managing risks than the NFPA requires. However, PHMSA recognized that operators of very small systems might not have the resources and technical expertise to comply with the requirements. Accordingly, PHMSA defined a âsmall LPG operatorâ as an operator of a system having fewer than 100 customers from a single source20 and decided that such operators should be subject to more streamlined DIMP requirements, as discussed in Box 4-3. Some of the issues and concerns that surrounded the debate about the DIMP ruleâs applicability to small LPG operators are noted in Box 4-4. This particular debate is illustrative of the difficulty the committee faced in assessing the validity of claims made by industry about the inapplicabil- ity and burden of some Part 192 requirements. During the decade since DIMPâs issuance, efforts have been made by PHMSA, industry, and states to accommodate smaller systems by providing program templates, model plans, and other guidance tailored for small systems.21 Still, it is possible that despite this guidance and assistance, the Part 192 DIMP requirement may have limited safety benefits, be burdensome to some operators of small LPG systems, and be unevenly enforced by states. To assess this possibility, however, would have required a thorough review of this specific require- ment, which was not possible based on the data available to the committee. Some of the information that the industry provided for analysis in this 19 Designing Safety Regulations for High-Hazard Industries (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2018). https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24907. 20 Existing regulations have already included this criterion to differentiate between large and small LPG operators in provisions exempting the latter from filing annual condition reports. 21 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âGuidance Manual for Operators of LP Gas Systemsâ; Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âDistribution Integrity Management: Guidance for Master Meter and Small Liquefied Petroleum Gas Pipe- line Operators,â November 2009, https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/dimp/docs/GuidanceForMaster MeterAndSmallLiquefiedPetroleumGasPipelineOperators_11_09.pdf. These two manuals are examples of guidance tailored for operators of small LPG systems.
SAFETY REGULATION AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO SMALL LPG SYSTEMS 79 Box 4-3 Distribution Integrity Management Program A DIMP, which is required for gas pipeline distribution systems by Part 192 SubÂ part P, is intended to ensure the safe performance of a pipeline system through identification of system integrity threats and the development and execution of methods to prevent or mitigate them. Although DIMP requirements are intended to be flexible to allow for customization, a compliant program should include the following seven components that are demonstrated in a written plan with docuÂ mentation submitted annually to PHMSA: â¢ Knowledge of system infrastructure (e.g., location, configuration, size of system); â¢ Identification of threats (e.g., corrosion, excavation damage, other outside force damage); â¢ Evaluation and prioritization of risk in descending order of likelihood (e.g., excavation damage, corrosion, natural forces); â¢ Identification and implementation of measures to mitigate risks (e.g., genÂ eral system monitoring, corrosion protection, one-call notification system); â¢ Performance measurement (e.g., recording the number of hazardous leaks eliminated or repaired and excavation damage); â¢ Periodic evaluation and improvement (e.g., revise the identified threats as circumstances change and update mitigation measures accordingly); and â¢ Reporting of performance measures to PHMSA. However, as with the Part 192 requirement for annual reporting on system condiÂ tion (Â§ 191.11), the DIMP requirement applies differently to smaller LPG pipeline systems. An operator of an LPG system with fewer than 100 customers is required to follow a streamlined version of the DIMP requirements intended to reflect the relative simplicity of the systems. These systems are exempt from having to report performance measures to PHMSA and are subject to less stringent planning and documentation requirements. For example, the regulation (Â§ 192.1015) stipulates that program documentation should be sufficiently descriptive of the operatorâs integrity management processes to ensure consistent implementation by operator personnel.a PHMSAâs implementation guidance to operators and state regulators advises that an operator may provide a written explanation of the processes used to develop and implement each program component, as opposed to the more detailed documentation of program plans and procedures as required for larger LPG systems and natural gas distribution systems.b a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âGas Distribution Pipeline InÂ tegrity Management Enforcement Guidance: 49 CFR Part 192âSubpart P,â December 7, 2015, 49, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/DIMP_Enforcement_ Guidance_12_7_2015.pdf. b Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 49; Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âGuidance Manual for Operators of LP Gas Systems,â April 2017, Appendix 2.3, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/training/ pipeline/56031/revisedÂguidanceÂoperatorsÂsmallÂlpÂgasÂsystemsÂaprilÂ2017.pdf.
80 SAFETY REGULATION FOR SMALL LPG DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Box 4-4 Issues Arising in the Debate About Extending DIMP Requirements to Operators of Small LPG Systems In issuing the DIMP rule in 2009,a PHMSA gave its reasoning for extending the requirement to LPG distribution systems. Comments to the rulemaking raised a number of concerns about the applicability of an integrity management rule to small LPG operators. NPGA argued that such operators should be fully exempt from the rule because there would be no benefit from compliance. The industry association claimed that small operators are already sufficiently regulated through the requirements of NFPA 58 and noted that the total quantity of gas that could be released in an accident is limited by the capacity of the tanks, a limitation not shared with natural gas systems. Conversely, the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, the PennÂ sylvania Public Utility Commission, and NAPSR commented that small LPG operators should not be treated differently. They questioned whether enough is known about these small systems and the risk they pose and maintained that simpler systems would inherently have simpler programs that would not demand substantial resources and technical expertise. Other commentersâincluding the Missouri, New Hampshire, and New Mexico state regulatorsâwere supportive of more limited integrity management requirements for small LPG operators. The Arizona Corporation Commission comÂ mented that the rule should be prescriptive and simple for small LPG operators because their operators would be overwhelmed by the requirement, potentially leading to noncompliance. The Iowa state regulator argued that a requirement that compels these operators to at least evaluate and prioritize their risk should not be particularly burdensome. a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, âPipeline Safety: Integrity ManÂ agement Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines,â 74 Federal Register 63906 (2009), https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSAÂRSPAÂ2004Â19854Â0258. chapter raises questions about the safety benefits conferred by Part 192 re- quirements when applied to small LPG jurisdictional systems, especially the smallest systems that are jurisdictional but are not being identified by many states for regulatory compliance. Because these systems may be presenting safety risks that have not been documented, it is difficult to know whether more rigorous identification and enforcement is warranted or whether their coverage under Part 192 requirements should be eased. The next chapter considers an approach for making such determinations in a more systematic and informed manner.