Comparison of U.S. with Foreign Pipeline Land Use and Siting Standards; Maintenance, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting Policies and Practices

Overview

Main Objective

The report documents results from the analysis of maintenance, rehabilitation, and retrofitting policies and practices of the gas and hazardous liquids pipeline industry, and their comparison with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (i.e., 49 CFR Parts 191, 192, 194, and 195) as they apply to these areas. The report also compares these regulations with counterpart regulations in Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom, and in particular with respect to land use and siting of pipelines in close promiximity to urban (i.e., densely populated) and/or environmentally sensitive areas.

Public Abstract

The report documents results from the analysis of maintenance, rehabilitation, and retrofitting policies and practices of the gas and hazardous liquids pipeline industry, and their comparison with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (i.e., 49 CFR Parts 191, 192, 194, and 195) as they apply to these areas. The report also compares these regulations with counterpart regulations in Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom, and in particular with respect to land use and siting of pipelines in close promiximity to urban (i.e., densely populated) and/or environmentally sensitive areas.

A comparison of siting and land use policies in urban and/or environmentally sensitive areas for the six nations analyzed indicates that the regulations are written in a very similar manner. A few issues specifically addressed in some foreign regulations and not found currently in the United States regulations include the concepts of pipeline life, fatigue life, third-party factors, and the use of on-line instrumentation for leak detection and earthquake impacts.

Industry interviews, examination of internal documents and literature reviews were performed to develop and analyze current industry policies and practices. Seven operators were surveyed. Gas transmission pipeline operators generally exceed the regulatory requirements with regard to welding practices as a matter of good business. Their operating procedures for general construction requirements generally conform to the regulations; however, operators prefer replacement of damaged pipe even though repairs are allowed. Industry practices in corrosion control are extensive and discussed in the report. Testing practices meet and usually exceed those required by the regulations. Unanimously, the industry feels that the best preventative maintenance measure is qulaity control during construction. The analysis of the hazardous liquid pipeline operators revealed similar policies and practices to those of the gas operators.

Status History

Final report issue d04/1996

Relevant Files & Links