53052 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices

Section 5125(d)(1) requires that notice

of an application for a preemption

determination must be published in the

Federal Register. Id. Following the

receipt and consideration of written

comments, RSPA publishes its

determination in the Federal Register.

See 49 CFR 107.209(d). A short period

of time is allowed for filing of petitions

for reconsideration. 49 C.F.R. 107.211.

Any party to the proceeding may seek

judicial review in a Federal district

court. 49 U.S.C. 5125(f).

RSPA’s authority to issue preemption

determinations does not provide a

means for review or appeal of State

enforcement proceedings, nor does

RSPA consider any of the State’s

procedural requirements applied in an

enforcement proceedings. The filing of

an application for a preemption

determination does not operate to stay

a State enforcement proceeding.

Preemption determinations do not

address issues of preemption arising

under the Commerce Clause of the

Constitution or under statutes other

than the Federal hazardous material

transportation law unless it is necessary

to do so in order to determine whether

a requirement is authorized by another

Federal law. A State, local or Indian

tribe requirement is not authorized by

another Federal law merely because it is

not preempted by another Federal

statute. Colorado Pub. Util. Comm’n v.

Harmon, above, 951 F.2d at 1581 n.10.

In making preemption determinations

under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d), RSPA is

guided by the principles and policy set

forth in Executive Order No. 12,612,

entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (52 FR 41685,

Oct. 30, 1987). Section 4(a) of that

Executive Order authorizes preemption

of State laws only when a statute

contains an express preemption

provision, there is other firm and

palpable evidence of Congressional

intent to preempt, or the exercise of

State authority directly conflicts with

the exercise of Federal authority.

Section 5125 contains express

preemption provisions, which RSPA has

implemented through its regulations.

III. Public Comment

Comments should be limited to

whether Federal hazardous material

transportation law preempts a

requirement allegedly applied and

enforced by PUCO, after January 1,

1991, for the use of a DOT specification

cargo tank motor vehicle for the

transportation of hypochlorite solutions

containing more than 5% and less than

16% available chlorine. WECCO and

TWC have not provided any evidence to

indicate that PUCO enforces different

requirements for the design,

construction, and certification of MC

312 specification cargo tank motor

vehicles. In addition, allegations in the

application relating to PUCO’s

procedures for holding hearings and

assessing penalties are not subject to

this proceeding.

Persons submitting comments should:

(1) Set forth in detail the manner in

which PUCO applies and enforces

requirements for transportation of

hypochlorite solution with more than

5% but less than 16% available

chlorine; and

(2) Specifically address whether

PUCO has enforced a requirement

concerning the packing of a hazardous

material that is ‘‘not substantively the

same as’’ the requirements in the HMR.

Comments may also address the ‘‘dual

compliance’’ and ‘‘obstacle’’ criteria

described in Part II, above.

Persons intending to comment should

review the standards and procedures

governing RSPA’s consideration of

applications for preemption

determinations, set forth at 49 CFR

107.201–107.211.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 3,

1997.

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–26918 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT

[Docket No. PS–142; Notice 9]

Pipeline Safety: Remaining Candidates

for the Pipeline Risk Management

Demonstration Program

AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Research and Special

Programs Administration’s (RSPA)

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) has

completed screening of twelve

candidate companies for the Pipeline

Risk Management Demonstration

Program. OPS named and described the

first three companies screened

(Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Shell

Pipe Line Corporation, Tennessee Gas

Pipeline/East Tennessee Natural Gas) in

a previous notice. The nine additional

companies screened subsequent to that

notice are: Chevron Pipe Line Company;

CNG Transmission Corporation;

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation/Columbia Gulf

Transmission Company; Duke Energy;

Florida Gas Transmission Company;

Lakehead Pipeline Company; Mobil

Pipe Line Company; Natural Gas

Pipeline Company of America; and

Phillips Pipe Line Company. OPS

believes these companies’

demonstration project proposals satisfy

all eligibility criteria, based on a Letter

of Intent (LOI) submitted by each

company to OPS, a subsequent OPS

screening, and an examination of each

company’s safety and environmental

compliance record. Although this notice

does not contain specific details of all

project proposals, OPS believes the

information provided in these

companies’ LOIs was sufficient to justify

proceeding to the consultation process.

Additional information, including

further details of specific project

proposals, will be provided in future

Federal Register notices and other

means of communication. This notice is

based on information obtained very

early in the process. It informs the

public of which companies are

interested in participating, the

technologies to be explored, and the

geographic areas demonstration projects

may traverse. OPS invites public

comment on any aspect of these

companies’ proposals.

Comments: OPS requests that

comments to this notice be submitted on

or before December 9, 1997 so that OPS

can give the comments full

consideration before deciding whether

to approve a company’s proposal.

However, comments on any aspect of

the Demonstration Program, including

the individual projects, will be accepted

in the Docket throughout the 4-year

demonstration period. Comments

should be sent to the Dockets Facility,

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

Comments should identify the docket

number (PS–142). Persons should

submit the original document and one

(1) copy. Persons wishing to receive

confirmation of receipt of their

comments must include a self-addressed

stamped postcard. The Dockets Facility

is located on the plaza level of the

Nassif Building in Room 401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC.

The Dockets Facility is open from 10:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eben Wyman, (202) 366–0918 regarding

the subject matter of this notice. Contact

the Dockets Unit, (202) 366–5046, for

docket material.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Appendix

A of the Requests for Applications for

the Pipeline Risk Management
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices 53053

Demonstration Program (62 FR 14719;

March 27, 1997) describes how OPS will

receive, review, approve, monitor,

modify, and terminate company risk

management demonstration projects.

This process established a July 25, 1997

deadline for companies considering

participating in a demonstration project

to have submitted a Letter of Intent to

OPS. Based on Letters of Intent and

additional screening considerations,

OPS has chosen twelve candidate

companies whose project proposals

merit further consideration. OPS is

entering into consultations with

candidate companies to clarify and

refine demonstration project provisions.

OPS may approve up to ten

demonstration projects. If OPS approves

a project, OPS will issue an order and

begin auditing project performance. OPS

is limited to approving no more than ten

projects for participation in the

program.

OPS expects the projects, and the

Demonstration Program itself, to evolve

from lessons learned during the fouryear demonstration period. OPS hopes

to learn whether and in what form risk

management should be incorporated

into the Federal pipeline safety program

on a permanent basis.

This document is consistent with the

OPS Communications Plan (62 FR

43028), published in the Federal

Register on August 11, 1997. OPS is

requesting public input through all

stages of the demonstration projects,

beginning with receipt of the Letters of

Intent. Specific benefits of public

involvement in the Demonstration

Program for OPS, industry, State and

community representatives include:

• Exchange of information about

specific and relevant local factors

during the decision-making process that

may not be known at the Federal or

State level; and

• Feedback regarding the success of

the Demonstration Program in

accomplishing the goals for which it

was designed.

OPS requests comments on safety,

environmental, socioeconomic, land

use, geographic and any other issues

that relate to these demonstration

project proposals. OPS is considering

public input, as well as input from

local, State, and other federal agencies,

during its consultations with candidate

companies to discuss demonstration

project provisions. OPS will publish the

final provisions for each project and

allow for additional public comment

before issuing a project approval order.

OPS will continue to seek broadbased

input on individual demonstration

projects throughout the four-year

demonstration period. OPS is engaging

in consultations with companies to

achieve consensus on demonstration

project provisions. If OPS and a

company reach agreement, OPS will

evaluate the company’s formal proposal

and approve those that offer the most

benefits in testing risk management

practices on pipelines.

There were many distinguishing

features contained in the LOI’s that

attracted OPS to these proposals.

Besides many geographic areas

involved, the type of terrain that these

proposals would was also very diverse.

Proposals included marshlands, river

crossings, mountains, diverse climates,

diverse soil types, etc. Further,

demonstration sites varied in

population densities, and fall under all

Class locations ranging from Class 1 to

Class 4. Class locations are areas

characterized by different population

densities, and are how OPS regulates

pipelines according to populations in

areas where pipelines exist.

The following descriptions provide a

brief, introductory summary of each

company’s demonstration project

proposal. The information is derived

from each company’s LOI and from

subsequent discussions between OPS

and the company. More detailed

information regarding the individual

projects will be collected during the

consultation process and carefully

considered before a project is approved.

The company descriptions are listed in

alphabetical order.

1. Chevron Pipe Line Company (CPL):

Chevron Pipe Line Company (CPL) is

proposing to use all or a portion of its

Northwest Products Pipeline System

(NPPS) in the demonstration program.

The NPPS consists of two, eight-inch

products pipelines, one transporting all

grades of gasoline, the other

transporting distillates such as diesel

and jet fuel. The 40-year old pipeline

system transports a total of 72,000

barrels per day over 705 miles,

traversing the states of Utah, Idaho,

Oregon, and Washington. These states

fall under the oversight of the OPS

Western Region. The pipeline system

begins at Chevron’s Salt Lake City, Utah,

refinery and terminates in Spokane,

Washington. The pipeline crosses

various terrains, including desert,

farmland, mountains and several major

river crossings. Most of the route is

through low density population areas,

with the exception of Salt Lake City and

Boise, Idaho, where the population

densities are moderate.

CPL conducted a risk assessment of

the NPPS in April, 1997. The

assessment identified areas requiring

mitigation that CPL believed it would

not have otherwise identified through

existing regulatory requirements. CPL

found most of the existing regulations to

be effective in reducing pipeline

incidents, but also looked for

opportunities to diverge from existing

regulations and offer risk reduction

alternatives that will add value. CPL is

proposing a set of risk management

procedures that consider the scope of

the risks and would involve several

employees throughout the company.

CPL looks forward to a closer working

relationship with pipeline regulatory

agencies to allow for cost-effective

alternatives that provide superior safety.

CPL’s risk management coordinator

and point-of-contact is Dave Feiglstok.

He can be reached at Chevron Pipe Line

Company, P.O. Box 6059, 4000

Executive Parkway, San Ramon,

California, 94583–0959, or by calling

(510) 842–6893.

2. CNG Transmission Corporation:

CNG Transmission Corporation (CNGT)

operates an interstate natural gas

pipeline system consisting of 8,274

miles of transmission, storage, and

gathering pipelines located in Maryland,

New York, Ohio, West Virginia,

Pennsylvania and Virginia. CNGT has

identified 23 pipeline sections in all six

states for its risk management

demonstration project. These states fall

under the OPS Central and Eastern

Region.

CNGT proposes to apply risk control

activities as an alternative to current

pipeline safety requirements regarding

maximum allowable operating pressure

(MAOP) in various Class locations.

These risk control activities include use

of smart pigging, special aerial patrols,

and remediation of anomalies, or defects

that could affect the pipeline’s integrity.

CNGT also proposes to incorporate

additional prevention and mitigation

measures in its comprehensive

demonstration project to reduce the risk

of third party damage.

CNG’s risk management coordinator

and point-of-contact is Robert Fulton.

He can be reached at CNG Transmission

Corporation, 445 West Main Street, P.O.

Box 2450, Clarksburg, West Virginia

26392–2450, or by calling (304) 623–

8200.

3. Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation and Columbia Gulf

Transmission Company (Columbia): The

Columbia system includes 12,705 miles

of pipeline operated by Columbia Gas

Transmission and 3,856 miles of

pipeline operated by Columbia Gulf

Transmission. The Columbia Gas

Transmission portion originates in the

Appalachian production areas and

transports gas to the Midwest and midAtlantic states. The Columbia Gulf

portion originates in the Gulf Coast
53054 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices

production areas and transports gas to

the Columbia Gas system. Both pipeline

systems traverse a wide variety of

terrain, including coastal plain,

offshore, marsh, major river crossings,

mountainous regions, and agricultural

regions as well as some major

population areas. The scope of the

proposed project includes New York,

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee, and

falls under OPS Central, Eastern, and

Southern Region’s responsibility.

Columbia will include most, if not all,

of its pipeline system and phase in the

implementation of risk control activities

over the four-year demonstration period.

For the initial phase of the project,

Columbia proposes the following for its

entire system:

• Modified inspection frequency for

relief and regulator valves including

capacity calculations;

• Modified inspection frequency for

rectifier and test point inspection and

detail survey;

• Modified class location change

resulting in different inspection

frequencies and time frame for action

under certain circumstances;

• Use of hardness testing correlation

to confirm pipe properties in lieu of lab

analysis under certain conditions;

• Expanded use of alternative

pipeline repair techniques including

welding activities and composite

sleeves; and

• Modified inspection frequency for

valves and vaults.

Columbia also intends to include

certain geographic or site-specific risk

management activities including:

• Elimination of pipe replacement

due only to class location changes under

certain conditions in Tennessee, New

York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania;

• Modification of MAOP under

certain conditions in Ohio,

Pennsylvania, and New York; and

• New design and construction

techniques for their proposed

Millennium Pipeline System.

OPS is interested in how Columbia

approaches the maintenance program

for older pipelines, and uses a

management approach that integrates

data collected across the organization.

Columbia’s risk management

coordinator and point-of-contact is John

S. Zurcher. He can be reached at

Columbia at 1700 MacCorkle Avenue,

S.E., P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West

Virginia, 25325–1273, or by calling

(304) 357–2669.

4. Duke Energy: Duke Energy

(formerly PanEnergy Corporation)

operates approximately 21,000 miles of

interstate natural gas transmission

pipelines within the United States. This

pipeline system is composed of four

interstate pipeline operating companies:

Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company

(6,600 miles), Texas Eastern

Transmission Corporation (9,000 miles),

Trunkline Gas Company (4,200 miles),

and Algonquin Gas Transmission

Company (1,100 miles). The system is

composed of pipelines with diverse

physical attributes, such as age,

strength, and size, and operates in

diverse geographic and demographic

environments. The project would be

conducted in Pennsylvania, and is

under OPS Eastern Region’s oversight.

Duke’s proposal would be deployed

in four phases. Each phase would be

initiated contingent on a detailed

explanation of the risk assessment and

risk management programs that Duke

uses on its pipelines and OPS’s

acceptance of the implementation of

each phase. The first phase would

involve the use of welding to repair

external corrosion damage. Recent

research work by the pipeline industry

evaluated and tested this technique

under simulated pipeline operating

conditions, and developed criteria for

safe operation. Duke proposes to use

these criteria for repairs on the Texas

Eastern system for anomalies detected

during planned remediation work of the

pipeline in Pennsylvania. The work

would be restricted to specific, rural

sections of pipeline on Line A. Line A

is a 36-inch pipeline installed from the

late 1970 through the early 1980’s,

which traverses the state of

Pennsylvania west to east in parallel

with two and sometimes three other

Texas Eastern pipelines of varying ages.

Duke Energy’s proposal is being

considered because this company offers

extensive experience with data

collection and modeling for risk

assessment, applied in a prioritized

structure.

Duke Energy’s risk management

coordinator and point-of-contact is

Andy Drake. He can be reached at Duke

Energy Corporation, P.O. Box 1642,

5444 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas

77056–1642, or by calling (713) 989–

2311.

5. Florida Gas Transmission Company

(FGTC): Florida Gas Transmission

Company (FGTC), a wholly owned

subsidiary of Citrus Corporation,

operates a pipeline of approximately

5,051 miles with a capacity of 1.5

BCF/day. It transports natural gas from

Texas to Florida. Citrus Corporation is

jointly owned by an Enron Corp.

subsidiary and Sonat Inc.

FGTC proposes a demonstration

project involving a pipeline system

operated by its Orlando Florida Team.

The proposed test area includes a 379-

mile network of pipelines ranging in

size from four-inch through 30-inch and

in-age timeframes from one to 38 years,

with numerous measurement and

regulation stations, a range of

population densities (from rural to

highly metropolitan), and various

geographic and soil conditions.

For the demonstration program, FGTC

proposes to submit an application

covering a wide range of alternative risk

controls for:

• Modifying MAOP;

• Alternatives for class location

changes; and

• Changes in inspection frequencies

and methods.

This project is being considered for

use of diverse elements in construction

and operation practices.

FGTC’s risk management coordinator

and point-of-contact is Max Brown. He

can be reached at Florida Gas

Transmission Company, P.O. Box 1188,

Houston, Texas 77251–1188, or by

calling (713) 853–6161.

6. Lakehead Pipe Line Company:

Lakehead Pipe Line Company

(Lakehead) operates approximately

2,700 miles of liquid petroleum

pipelines through seven Midwestern

states. Lakehead intends to use a risk

management approach for the control of

potential longitudinal seam cracks and

internal and external corrosion on the

34-inch segments of its Line 3 crude

petroleum pipeline in North Dakota,

Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Items to be

considered in this project include:

• The use of advanced elastic wave

in-line inspection methodology (in lieu

of hydrostatic testing) to evaluate and

mitigate the potential risk of a pipeline

rupture resulting from long-seam crack

propagation on certain submerged

pipeline segments.

• The use of in-line inspection and

advanced internal corrosion mitigation

and monitoring techniques to reduce the

potential risk of a pipeline rupture

resulting from corrosion damage.

• Application of comprehensive risk

management techniques to evaluate and

mitigate problems associated with the

integrity of tape coating on a large

diameter pipeline.

• Identification of prescribed

activities that may become redundant or

unnecessary in view of the potentially

more effective and significant measures

employed above.

OPS sees benefit in Lakehead’s

exploration of techniques that may offer

greater safety benefits than current

requirements. Lakehead has also

expressed an interest in developing new

communications protocols with OPS.

Lakehead’s risk management

coordinator and point-of-contact is

Richard Sandahl. He can be reached at
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices 53055

Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Lake

Superior Place, 21 West Superior Street,

Duluth, Minnesota 55802–2067, or by

calling (218) 725–0102.

7. Mobil Pipe Line Company: Mobil

Pipe Line Company (Mobil) currently

owns approximately 5,409 miles of

hazardous liquid pipeline in nine states.

The proposed demonstration project

will be conducted at Mobil’s Patoka,

Illinois, breakout tank facility in the

OPS Central Region, and is intended to

demonstrate Mobil’s release prevention

program. The prevention program uses

an integrated system that includes

proper equipment design, construction,

operator training, operating procedures,

periodic maintenance, periodic

inspection, management controls, and

management practices. Mobil proposes

to use the Mobil Engineering Practices,

elements of American Petroleum

Institute standards, sound engineering

judgment, management controls,

sophisticated techniques called ‘‘multiattribute’’ risk assessment scenarios, and

risk management principles to validate

and verify the integrity of its storage

tanks. The project would also help

demonstrate how these release

prevention measures would work in

conjunction with OPS’s proposal to

adopt multiple API Above Ground

Storage Tank standards. Mobil’s

proposal offers a focus on challenges to

tank integrity to provide special

protection. Mobil’s risk management

coordinator and point-of-contact is

Steve Streeter. He can be reached at

Mobil Pipe Line Company, P.O. Box

900, Dallas, Texas 75221–0900, or by

calling (703) 842–6189.

8. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of

America: Natural Gas Pipeline Company

of America (NGPL), a subsidiary of the

MidCon Corporation, moves natural gas

through 13,000 miles of pipeline and

pipeline facilities in 14 different states.

Approximately seventy percent of

NGPL’s cross country transmission

pipelines were constructed in the last 50

years and are between 24 and 36 inches

in diameter. The terrain in which these

pipelines are located is relatively flat

with predominantly lower stress clay,

loam, and sandy soil. Population

distribution within 220 yards of the

pipeline is 92 percent Class 1, three

percent Class 2, and five percent Class

3. This means that NGPL’s pipeline

exists predominantly in low-density

population areas.

NGPL currently practices risk

management in its normal operations

and proposes to build on risk

management programs by developing a

more formal set of procedures in

compliance with the requirements of the

Risk Management Program Framework

(62 FR 14719) and Risk Management

Program Standard. It proposes to apply

risk management to the entire pipeline

system traversing Iowa, Illinois, and

Indiana, all of which operate under the

oversight of OPS’s Central Region office.

Company-wide issues that NGPL

anticipates addressing include:

• Testing existing research by the

Pipeline Research Committee for inservice surface weld repair of pipe body

defects and cold field bending of pipe;

• Current drug testing frequency

requirements;

• Third party damage prevention

programs, including annual public

awareness activities;

• Review record retention

requirements;

• Evaluating shorted casing corrosion,

over pressure protection and proof

testing of new or existing pipelines

using inert gas along with new

technologies in corrosion minimization/

identification; and

• Proof testing pipeline facilities

using water or gas, design factor

requirements for fabricated assemblies,

meter facilities, and compressor

facilities.

Site-specific issues in NGPL’s

proposal include:

• Pipe replacement or maximum

allowable operating pressure (MAOP)

reduction due to Class Location change;

• The design yield strength or wall

thickness of pipe with an unknown

strength;

• The design factor at different

population areas in Class 1, 2 and 3

locations;

• Distance interval requirements for

pipeline sectioning with block valves;

• Inspection intervals for rectifiers

and other corrosion inspection test

intervals;

• Surface rust on aboveground pipe

and pipeline facilities; and

• Odorization in Class 3 areas and

line patrol for different ‘‘Class’’

locations.

NGPL offers a very extensive range of

alternatives in its proposal, and has

shown considerable interest in working

with OPS to choose these alternatives to

address the most problematic areas.

NGPL’s risk management coordinator

and point-of-contact is Craig Howard.

He can be reached at Natural Gas

Pipeline of America, 701 East 22nd

Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148–5072, or

by calling (630) 691–3617.

9. Phillips Pipe Line Company:

Phillip’s risk management proposal

encompasses its Sweeny-Pasadena

system, which consists of a 12-inch and

18-inch refined products pipeline in

Texas. These lines cross 60 miles of

varied population densities in the

Houston, Texas area.

Phillips is proposing a risk-based

approach to all company and third-party

excavation activities that occur on these

pipelines to demonstrate that risk

management practices can be effectively

applied to improve safety through

reduction of third party damage.

Because third-party damage is the

leading cause in pipeline failures, OPS

looks forward to investigating these

damage prevention practices to provide

superior safety on the pipeline.

Currently, Phillips deploys planning

and oversight resources based on

regulatory requirements on an equal

basis regardless of related risks. In its

risk management application, the

company would consider risk factors

such as depth of cover, operating status,

population, and environmental

exposure, and equipment used. Phillips

would demonstrate that applying risk

management principles to these factors,

as well as developing specific of

performance measures, can be more

effective in assuring the pipeline’s

safety than what is achieved by current

regulations.

Phillip’s risk management coordinator

and point-of-contact is L.J. Schmitz. He

can be reached at Phillips Pipe Line

Company, 370 AB, Bartlesville, OK

74004, or by calling (918) 661–4814.

This concludes the nine

demonstration summaries. For your

convenience, we are providing the

summaries of the three companies that

were screened earlier in the process.

Appendix—Excerpt from the Federal

Register Notice, ‘‘Candidates for the

Pipeline Risk Management

Demonstration Program’’ (62 FR 40135;

July 25, 1997), which described the

three projects screened earlier. The only

change in this section is that the Pointof-Contact for Northwest Pipeline’s

proposed demonstration project has

changed since this notice was

published. This updates the previous

language.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPS has

previously screened the following three

candidates, and has determined that

they meet the criteria for participating

with OPS in consultations about their

proposals: Northwest Pipeline

Corporation, Shell Pipe Line

Corporation, and Tennessee Gas

Pipeline Corporation/East Tennessee

Natural Gas Company.

1. Northwest Pipeline Corporation

(Northwest): Northwest operates

approximately 3,900 miles of interstate

natural gas transmission line running

through six western states, with

endpoints at Ingacio, Colorado and the

Canadian border at Sumas, Washington.

The pipeline traverses the densely

populated regions of western
53056 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices

Washington and Oregon through the

agricultural areas of eastern Oregon,

Washington and Idaho into the isolated

areas of southwest Wyoming, Utah and

Colorado. The route covers a variety of

terrains from mountains to deserts,

crossing numerous rivers and lakes,

encountering very moderate to very

extreme climates, and crossing national

parks, Indian nations, wilderness areas,

and habitats of numerous threatened

and some endangered species.

While Northwest proposes to apply a

risk management approach to its entire

system, the company plans to limit

regulatory exemptions to specified

locations on the pipeline.

OPS is interested in entering into

consultations with Northwest because

its risk management program has the

potential to:

• Explore means of assessing and

addressing risks presented by a pipeline

in rugged terrain susceptible to land

movement;

• Investigate the risk-reduction

benefits of certain new technologies;

and

• Investigate new means of industry/

government partnering to conduct

cooperative pipeline research.

The proposed Northwest

demonstration project also has the

potential to help OPS examine the

benefits of risk management as a

regulatory alternative under a variety of

conditions because of the following

distinguishing features:

• A location with diverse geographic

features (the demonstration site

traverses six western states:

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming,

Utah, and Colorado);

• The identification of land

movement as a significant risk issue for

Northwest; and

• The opportunity to explore various

regulatory approaches, from item-byitem approvals to approvals of riskbased decision processes.

Northwest’s risk management

program coordinator and point-ofcontact is Deonne Hootman. She can be

reached at Northwest Pipeline

Corporation, P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake

City, UT, 84158–8800, or by calling

(801) 584–6874.

2. Shell Pipe Line Corporation (SPLC):

SPLC operates nearly 8,000 miles of

pipelines, transporting over 4.0 million

barrels of oil, oil products, and carbon

dioxide daily and employing over 700

people in 16 states.

SPLC is proposing portions of two

separate interstate pipeline systems

with different yet very distinct risk

characteristics as its demonstration

project: one transporting ethylene, a

flammable, highly volatile liquid (HVL)

that becomes a slightly lighter-than-air

gas when released to the atmosphere,

and which, under certain conditions,

could form an explosive vapor cloud

until diluted/dispersed; the second

transporting carbon dioxide, a nonflammable, inert, non-toxic liquid that

becomes a heavier-than-air gas when

released to the atmosphere, and which,

under certain conditions, could become

an asphyxiation hazard until diluted/

dispersed. Both ethylene, a hazardous

liquid, and carbon dioxide must comply

with Part 195 of the Code of Federal

Regulations.

The first part of SPLC’s proposed

demonstration project consists of nearly

its entire Texas-Louisiana 12’’ Ethylene

Pipeline System (approximately 205

miles of 250 miles), which transports

chemical-grade ethylene between Shell

Oil Products Company’s Deer Park

(Texas) Manufacturing Complex and its

Napoleonville (Louisiana) transfer

facility. Ethylene is a chemical feed

stock which is used in the manufacture

of plastics, antifreeze, detergents and

other consumer products. This proposed

test area addresses risks concerning the

operation of a 12 inch, HVL pipeline

(and related facilities) at pressures

between 1000 and 1400 psig, in the

proximity to, and sometimes traversing,

five areas with large and growing

industrial/residential populations. SPLC

has been the operator of the pipeline

since its construction in 1979.

The second part of SPLC’s proposed

demonstration project consists of the

northwestern half (approximately 260

miles) of its Cortez 30’’ Carbon Dioxide

Pipeline System which transports

merchantable-grade carbon dioxide from

Cortez, Colorado across New Mexico to

Denver City, Texas (the demonstration

segment terminates near Albuquerque,

New Mexico). This carbon dioxide, in

turn, is then used for tertiary oil

recovery in the Denver City area. This

proposed test area will assess the risks

surrounding the operation of a 30-inch,

carbon dioxide pipeline (and related

facilities) at pressures between 1300 and

2200 psig, where it operates in

proximity to five areas with small and

growing residential populations. SPLC

has been the operator of the pipeline

since its construction in 1983.

For the test area included in the

demonstration program, SPLC proposes

a comprehensive risk management

program that will assess all hazards and

risks associated with operation of these

pipelines.

OPS is interested in entering into

consultations with SPLC because its risk

management program has the potential

to:

• Explore resource reallocation from

lower-risk carbon dioxide pipeline to

higher-risk ethylene;

• Evaluate the effect on public safety

and environmental protection caused by

resource reallocation within an

individual pipeline system, based on

the constantly changing set of internal

(i.e. pressure) and external (i.e.

population) conditions; and

• Employ the risk management

communications initiative to improve

third-party damage prevention and

emergency response coordination.

The proposed SPLC demonstration

project also has the potential to help

OPS examine the benefits of risk

management as a regulatory alternative

under a variety of conditions because of

the following distinguishing features:

• The commodities (ethylene and

carbon dioxide);

• The location (the demonstration

sites cross several southwestern states,

including Colorado, New Mexico,

Texas, and Louisiana);

• Technical/regulatory issues (SPLC

is considering operating a section of the

carbon dioxide pipeline at a higher

pressure than is currently allowed by

the regulations); and

• Policy issues (the allocation of

resources between high and low risk

pipelines, and between high and low

risk sections on the same pipeline).

Fred Fischer, Manager, Technical

Operations Support, leads SPLC’s

designated Risk Management team and

serves as the central information contact

for the program. He can be reached at

Shell Pipe Line Corporation, Two Shell

Plaza, P.O. Box 2648, Houston, Texas,

77252, or by calling 713–241–0461.

3. Tennessee Gas Pipeline

Corporation/East Tennessee Natural

Gas Company (Tennessee/East

Tennessee): Tennessee/East Tennessee

are subsidiaries of El Paso Natural Gas

Company of Houston, Texas. Tennessee

Gas operates a total of 14,574 miles of

both onshore and offshore pipeline,

while East Tennessee Natural Gas

operates 1,149 miles of onshore

pipeline.

Tennessee/East Tennessee proposes to

apply a risk management approach to its

entire system. The company proposes

modifying or eliminating compressor

station relief valve testing and

inspection under certain conditions,

extending from 18 months to 24 months

the time it is allowed to confirm or

revise maximum allowable operating

pressure due to class location changes,

reducing the inspection frequency

under certain conditions of certain

emergency valves and regulators, and

using new design criteria for increased

system efficiency.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices 53057

1The Board will grant a stay if an informed

decision on environmental issues (whether raised

by a party or by the Board’s Section of

Environmental Analysis in its independent

investigation) cannot be made before the

exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any

request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible

so that the Board may take appropriate action before

the exemption’s effective date.

2Each offer of financial assistance must be

accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is

set at $900. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).

Tennessee/East Tennessee has also

specified locations in western

Pennsylvania, central Tennessee, and

offshore Louisiana where it proposes

altering maximum allowable operating

pressure to suit local conditions.

The company believes superior safety

can be achieved by enhanced damage

prevention, increased patrolling, the use

of internal inspection tools, and the

reallocation of funds to re-habilitation

projects on its higher risk pipeline

segments.

OPS is interested in entering into

consultations with Tennessee/East

Tennessee because its risk management

program has the potential to:

• Provide examples of data collection

and analysis tools for supporting risk

management; and

• Provide examples of how

companies can use risk management to

re-allocate resources to re-habilitation

projects and other high value safety

activities.

The proposed Tennessee/East

Tennessee demonstration project also

has the potential to help OPS examine

the benefits of risk management as a

regulatory alternative under a variety of

conditions because of the following

distinguishing features:

• Consideration of worker safety as

well as public safety in risk assessment;

• Examination of the risk control

potential of a number of existing

regulations;

• The use of risk-based arguments for

establishing MAOP; and

• The breadth of the demonstration

site (which includes four OPS regions:

Southern, Eastern, Central, and

Southwest; and 17 states).

Tennessee/East Tennessee’s risk

management program coordinator and

point-of-contact is Daron Moore. He can

be reached at Tennessee Gas Pipeline

Company, P.O. Box 2511, Houston, TX,

77252–2511, or by calling (713) 757–

4023.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6,

1997.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–26916 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–77 (Sub-No. 10X)]

Bangor & Aroostook Railroad

Company—Abandonment Exemption—

in Aroostook County, ME

Bangor & Aroostook Railroad

Company (Applicant) has filed a notice

of exemption under 49 CFR 1152

Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to

abandon a 5.66-mile line of railroad on

the Fort Fairfield Branch from milepost

F–13.00 to the end of the branch at

milepost F–18.66, in the Town of Fort

Fairfield, in Aroostook County, ME. The

line traverses United States Postal

Service Zip Code 04742.

Applicant has certified that: (1) No

local traffic has moved over the line for

at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead

traffic moving over the line; (3) no

formal complaint filed by a user of rail

service on the line (or by a state or local

government entity acting on behalf of

such user) regarding cessation of service

over the line either is pending with the

Surface Transportation Board (Board) or

with any U.S. District Court or has been

decided in favor of complainant within

the 2-year period; and (4) the

requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7

(environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8

(historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11

(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12

(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental

agencies) have been met.

As a condition to this exemption, any

employee adversely affected by the

abandonment shall be protected under

Oregon Short Line R.Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91

(1979). To address whether this

condition adequately protects affected

employees, a petition for partial

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

must be filed. Provided no formal

expression of intent to file an offer of

financial assistance (OFA) has been

received, this exemption will be

effective on November 9, 1997, unless

stayed pending reconsideration.

Petitions to stay that do not involve

environmental issues,1 formal

expressions of intent to file an OFA

under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail

use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR

1152.29 must be filed by October 20,

1997. Petitions to reopen or requests for

public use conditions under 49 CFR

1152.28 must be filed by October 30,

1997, with: Surface Transportation

Board, Office of the Secretary, Case

Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20423.

A copy of any petition filed with the

Board should be sent to applicant’s

representative: Sebastian Ferrer,

Esquire, Gollatz, Griffin & Ewing, P.C.,

213 W. Miner Street, P. O. Box 796,

West Chester, PA 19381–0796.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio.

Applicant has filed an environmental

report which addresses the

abandonment’s effects, if any, on the

environment and historic resources. The

Section of Environmental Analysis

(SEA) will issue an environmental

assessment (EA) by October 15, 1997.

Interested persons may obtain a copy of

the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500,

Surface Transportation Board,

Washington, DC 20423) or by calling

SEA, at (202) 565–1545. Comments on

environmental and historic preservation

matters must be filed within 15 days

after the EA becomes available to the

public.

Environmental, historic preservation,

public use, or trail use/rail banking

conditions will be imposed, where

appropriate, in a subsequent decision.

Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR

1152.29(e)(2), Applicant shall file a

notice of consummation with the Board

to signify that it has exercised the

authority granted and fully abandoned

the line. If consummation has not been

effected by Applicant’s filing of a notice

of consummation by October 10, 1998,

and there are no legal or regulatory

barriers to consummation, the authority

to abandon will automatically expire.

Decided: October 6, 1997.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–27026 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–290 (Sub-No. 191X)]

Interstate Railroad Company—

Abandonment Exemption—in Wise

County, VA

Interstate Railroad Company

(Interstate) has filed a notice of

exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart

F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon a

2.6-mile line of its railroad between

milepost D–0.0 at Dorchester Junction

and milepost D–2.6 at Dorchester, in

Wise County, VA. The line traverses