59024 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Notices

These previous studies identified the

need for a new location, multiple lane

roadway with full control of access;

however, these DEIS’s were never

finalized. Much of the relevant

information developed for these studies

will be utilized during the project

development process for proposed

SH 45.

Major considerations in the EIS will

include an analysis of the costs of rightof-way, the numbers and types of

relocations necessary, engineering

constraints and limitations due to

topography, and potential

environmental impacts involving land

use, socioeconomic conditions, water

resources, air quality, noise, traffic,

ecological/cultural resources, and

hazardous materials sites. Multiple

alignment alternatives will be studied

for the new location sections. At the

present stage of the EIS process, no

preferred alternative has been selected.

A public meeting was held on

September 23, 1997, at the Cedar Valley

Middle School in Round Rock, Texas. In

addition, a public hearing will be held

after the Draft EIS has been completed

and made available to the agencies and

public. Other public involvement

opportunities include a newsletter to be

sent periodically to update the public

on the EIS progress and the dates, times,

and locations of public meetings and

hearings; and news releases to be

prepared at appropriate times during the

EIS process to inform the public about

the EIS status and relevant dates, time,

and locations of public meetings and

hearings. In addition, at appropriate

times over the course of the EIS process,

presentations will be made to the Round

Rock City Council, Williamson County

Commissioner’s Court, numerous

resource protection agency personnel,

and the Austin Transportation Study,

which serves as the region’s

Metropolitan Planning Organization.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues

identified, comments and suggestions

are invited from all interested parties.

Comments or questions concerning this

proposed action and the EIS should be

directed to the FHWA or TxDOT at the

address provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research,

Planning and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

Issued on: October 21, 1997.

John Mack,

Acting District Engineer Austin, Texas.

[FR Doc. 97–28867 Filed 10–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. RSPA–97–2707; Notice 2]

Pipeline Safety; Liquefied Natural Gas

Facilities, Grant of Waiver; Applied

LNG Technologies

Applied LNG Technologies (ALT)

petitioned the Research and Special

Programs Administration (RSPA) for a

waiver from compliance with certain

provisions of 49 CFR Part 193 for its

Needle Mountain Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG) storage and truck loading facility

at Topock, Arizona. This facility

consists of two, 50,000 gallon LNG

storage tanks and a truck transfer

system. The LNG is piped a short

distance to a liquefaction facility owned

and operated by a subsidiary of El Paso

Natural Gas. A transmission pipeline,

owned by El Paso Natural Gas

Company, supplies Part 192 regulated

gas to the El Paso Field Services, a

liquefaction facility. Petitioner alleges

that the Needle Mountain LNG storage

and loading facility (NMF) is nonjurisdictional in accordance with

Sections 193.2001(a) and (b)(1) because

the facility would not be transporting

natural gas by pipeline, but rather

would be loading LNG into tank trucks

for delivery to commercial and

industrial customers. ALT claims that

it’s NMF is the ultimate consumer of

LNG.

On May 16, 1997, the RSPA issued a

Interpretation of Part 193 as it applies to

the NMF facility. In that interpretation,

RSPA stated that regardless of who

owns or operates different sections of an

LNG facility, it is subject to Part 193 in

its entirety. Part 193 encompasses all

parts of an LNG facility from the point

at which it receives gas from a Part 192

regulated gas transmission pipeline

through the liquefaction process,

storage, and transfer into a motor carrier

vehicle.

Petitioner then requested a waiver

from compliance with certain sections

of Part 193 and proposed to ensure

equivalent safety through compliance

with the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) standard 59A. The

specific sections of Part 193 for which

Petitioner sought a waiver are:

(1) § 193.2173—Water Removal:

§ 193.2173(a) requires that except for

Class 1 systems, impounding systems

must have sump pumps and piping over

the dike to remove water collecting in

the sump basin.

NFPA 59A section 2–2.2.7 requires

either sump pumps or gravity drainage

for water removal, provided there is

means to prevent the escape of LNG by

way of the drainage system.

Petitioner’s rationale for

noncompliance: The impoundment area

in this facility drains to a sump basin.

A sump dump is not provided due to

the arid location. In the rare event of

rain in Topock, AZ, Petitioner does not

expect to have standing water for any

length of time.

RSPA proposed granting waiver from

§ 193.2173 only if petitioner could

demonstrate that there would be no

standing water (i.e., proving ground is

permeable) in the sump for any

significant period.

(2) § 193.2209(b)(2)—Instrumentation

for LNG storage tanks: For LNG tanks

with capacity of 70,000 gallons or less,

§ 193.2209(b)(2) requires pressure gages

and recorders with high pressure alarm.

NEPA 59A 7–2.1 requires only a

pressure gage.

Petitioner does not believe that safety

has been compromised by requiring

only a pressure gage, because any high

pressure in the storage tank is controlled

by a recompressor system within the

‘‘facility’’ that maintains the storage

pressure at 20 psig. Any failure of this

system places the entire storage facility

in a ‘‘fail safe’’ (shut down) mode.

RSPA proposed not granting a waiver

from § 193.2209(b)(2) because, in our

view recorders (at the storage tank site

and possibly at the control center) and

a high pressure alarm (at the control

center) are essential in the event of the

failure of the recompressor system.

Although the entire storage facility will

be placed in a shut down mode, there

appears to be no way to prevent

pressure from increasing in the LNG

storage tank. This is especially

important because this LNG storage

facility will be an unattended operation.

(3) § 193.2321(a)—Nondestructive

tests, Circumferential butt welds:

§ 193.2321(a) requires that 100 percent

of circumferential butt welded pipe

joints in the cryogenic piping and 30

percent of circumferential butt welded

pipe joints in the non-cryogenic piping

be nondestructively tested.

NEPA 59A 6–6.3.2 requires all

circumferential butt welds to be

nondestructively tested, except that

liquid drain and vapor vent piping with

an operating pressure that produces a

hoop stress of less than 30 percent of

specified minimum yield stress (SMYS)

need not be nondestructively tested,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Notices 59025

provided it has been inspected visually

in accordance with the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME) standard B31.3, Chemical Plant

and Petroleum Refinery Piping, 344.2.

RSPA considered granting a waiver

from 193.2321(a) for the liquid drain

and vapor vent piping with operating

pressures that produce hoop stresses of

less than 20 percent SMYS, if that

piping complies with the NFPA 59A 6–

6.3.2. We believe that safety is not

comprised.

(4) § 193.2321(e)—Nondestructive

test, Circumferential and longitudinal

welds in metal shells of storage tanks:

§ 193.2321(e) requires 100 percent of

both longitudinal and circumferential

butt welds in metal shells of storage

tanks that are subject to cryogenic

temperatures, and are under pressure, to

be radiographically tested.

NFPA 59A 4–2.2.2 requires welded

construction for shell in accordance

with the ASME Code section VIII, and

shall be ASME-stamped and registered

with the National board of Boiler and

Pressure Vessels (NBBI)

Petitioner’s rationale for requesting a

waiver is that safety in this case is not

comprised as storage tanks at NMF

facility are small, shop fabricated, and

built to ASME Code. ASME Section VIII

is an accepted standard to which

cryogenic pressure vessels are built all

over the world.

RSPA proposed to grant a waiver from

§ 193.2321(e), because we believe that

safety is not compromised for smaller

pressure vessels (less than 70,000

gallons) which are designed and built to

ASME Code VIII (greater than 15 psig).

Tanks built to this code are shop

fabricated under strict quality control

and are inspected and stamped by the

Authorized Inspectors of the NBBI.

Storage tanks at the NMF facility are

built to ASME code Section VIII and

have a capacity of 50,000 gallons

(relatively small).

(5) §§ 193.2329 (a) and (b)—

Construction Records: § 193.2329(a)

requires that an operator shall retain

records of specifications, procedures,

and drawings consistent with this part,

and § 193.2329(b) requires that an

operator shall retain records of results of

tests, inspections and quality assurance

program required by this subpart.

Petitioner requested a waiver for

records for design and manufacture of

the pressure vessels, because they are

built to the ASME code as referenced in

NFPA 59A. Petitioner would comply

with all other recordkeeping

requirements in accordance with

§§ 193.2329 (a) and (b).

RSPA proposed to grant waiver from

§§ 193.2329 (a) and (b) for those parts of

the NMF facility where the petitioner

has requested.

(6) § 193.2431 (c)—Vents:

§ 193.2431(c) requires that venting of

natural gas/vapor under operational

control which could produce a

hazardous gas atmosphere must be

directed to a flare stack of heat

exchanger.

NFPA 59A 3–4.5 also requires safe

discharge of boil-off and flash gas to the

atmosphere or into a closed system.

NFPA 10–12.4.4 requires that safety

relief valve discharge stacks or vents

shall discharge directly into the

atmosphere.

Petitioner requested a waiver from

§ 193.2431(c) which requires flare

stacks. Petitioner’s reasons for

noncompliance are that (i) safety relief

valves relieve under emergency

conditions, and (ii) there will be no boiloff venting at this facility because LNG

storage vessels are maintained at a

storage pressure of 20 psi by a

recompressor system.

RSPA agrees that at the NMF facility

recompressor system will maintain a

pressure of 20 psi in the LNG storage

tanks. Therefore, no continuous

discharge of boil-off to atmosphere is

expected. We believe that relief valves

discharge only under emergency

conditions. Therefore, it is safe to

discharge them to the atmosphere

through a stack without flaring. Based

on that information, RSPA proposed to

grant a waiver from compliance with

§ 193.2431(c), as long as relief valves

discharge through stacks were higher

than surrounding structures at this

facility.

(7) § 193.2817(b)(2)—Fire Equipment:

§ 193.2817(b)(2) requires fire control

equipment and supplies to include a

water supply and associated delivery

system, if the total inventory of LNG is

70,000 gallons.

NFPA 59A 9–5.1 similarly requires a

water system except where an

evaluation in accordance with 9–1.2

indicates the use of water is

unnecessary or impractical. Section 9–

1.2 also requires evaluation of the

methods necessary for protection of the

equipment and structures from the

effects of fire exposure.

Petitioner requested a waiver from

§ 193.2817(b)(2), citing exemption in

paragraph 9–5.1 of the NEPA 59A.

Petitioner’s rationale for such a waiver

was that this facility is remotely located,

generally unattended, and is equipped

with fire detection sensors which will

annunciate fire detection to the control

center, as well as initiate a facility

shutdown to a fail-safe condition.

RSPA disagreed with Petitioner’s

rationale that water was unnecessary

and impractical at this facility and

proposed not to grant waiver from

§ 193.2817(b)(2). RSPA argued that a fire

protection water system was necessary

for protection of the components and for

controlling unignited leaks and spills at

the NMF facility. RSPA also believed

that providing a water system at this

facility was feasible.

After reviewing the petition, the

RSPA published a notice inviting

interested persons to comment on this

waiver (Notice 1) (62 FR 41993; August

4, 1997). RSPA received no comments

in response to the notice.

On August 12, 1997, two pipeline

safety inspectors from the Arizona

Public Utility Commission, one

inspector from the Office of Pipeline

Safety (OPS), Southwest Region office

and one representative from the OPS

headquarters visited the NMF facility.

The purpose of this trip was to get more

facts and discuss the above issues with

the representatives of the ALT, ElPaso

Natural Gas Company and its

subsidiary. At this meeting ALT was

advised to provide a formal report

addressing firewater requirements and a

letter from the NFPA confirming the fact

that an exception to this requirement is

allowed when the evaluation required

by Section 9–1.2 of the NFPA 59A

indicates the use of water is

unnecessary or impractical. All other

issues in this petition were verified and

agreed by all parties.

Subsequently, Petitioner in support of

its waiver, has provided: (1) a report of

the ‘‘percolation test’’, proving the

ground near the facility is permeable,

dated August 12, 1997, prepared by

Western Technologies, Inc.; (2)

drawings and data report on ‘‘heat flux

exclusion zones’’ and ‘‘Degadis

Analysis’’; (3) a formal report on ‘‘fire

water requirement determination’’ dated

September 30, 1997, developed by CH–

IV Corporation; and (4) an interpretation

letter from the NFPA dated October 1,

1997.

After a thorough review of the CH–IV

Corporation’s report, RSPA is not

convinced with the conclusions that the

lack of a fire water supply may not

significantly increase foreseeable

consequences of fires, including the

failure of components or buildings

within the facility.

RSPA notes that the above referenced

NFPA interpretation letter states that

Standard 59A permits the use of other

fire protection systems (exclusive of a

fixed water system) if an evaluation of

the facility shows that the use of water

is unnecessary or impractical. The

NFPA letter further states that fire

protection must be provided for all LNG

facilities, and that water is the preferred
59026 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Notices

fire protection agent, but it is not

mandated. The CH–IV report on the

need for LNG fire fighting protection

systems at the ALT facility describes fire

detection, equipment shutdown and

control systems. However, it does not

address what other fire protection

systems (in lieu of fixed water system)

be utilized to prevent fire from

spreading. Thus, it does not satisfy

paragraph 9–1.2(c) of NFPA 59A, which

states ‘‘The methods necessary for

protection of the equipment and

structures from the effects of fire

exposure.’’ RSPA has also concerns

about safety of the Mojave Compressor

Station (MCS) and its day-shift

personnel. According to ALT’s drawings

MCS lies clearly within the ‘‘lower

explosive limit’’ of the ALT facility.

Therefore, it lies within the perimeter

where fire could occur as result of vapor

dispersion. Based on the above discussion, RSPA

is not granting a waiver from the

firewater requirements in

§ 193.2817(b)(2). RSPA, however, may

consider any other alternative fire

protection systems satisfying Section 9–

1.2(c) of NFPA 59A.

Except for the sections for which

RSPA is granting a waiver, this LNG

facility must meet all the other

requirements of Part 193. For the

sections for which RSPA is granting a

waiver, RSPA believes that the granting

of a waiver from these requirements

would not be inconsistent with pipeline

safety, as long as Petitioner follows

alternative provisions in the NFPA 59A.

Therefore, ALT’s petition for waiver

from compliance with above specified

sections of 49 CFR 193 is granted,

effective October 31, 1997.

Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 2002(h) and

2015; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on October 27,

1997.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–28959 Filed 10–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33475]

C&NC Railroad Corporation—Lease

and Operation Exemption—Lines of

the Norfolk and Western Railway

Company and Indiana Hi Rail

Corporation

C&NC Railroad Corporation (CNUR), a

noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of

exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to

lease and operate the Connersville Line

(Line) in the State of Indiana, consisting

of 27.62 miles of rail line. CNUR will

lease from the Norfolk and Western

Railway Corporation (NW) and operate

the 22.42-mile portion of the rail line

that is owned by NW: (1) from Beesons,

(N&W milepost 4.80), to New Castle,

(N&W milepost 25.30—Thornburg

Street); and (2) from milepost 0.0 to

1.92, in New Castle, (the New Castle

Industrial Track). R. Franklin Unger,

Trustee of the Indiana Hi Rail

Corporation (Hi Rail) currently leases

and operates the NW portion of the

Line.

The remaining 5.2 miles of the Line,

from Beesons, milepost 5.2, to

Connersville, milepost 0.0, is owned

and operated by Hi Rail and is the

subject of a separate acquisition

exemption in STB Finance Docket No.

33476, C&NC, L.L.C.—Acquisition

Exemption—Indiana Hi Rail

Corporation. CNUR has entered into an

agreement with C&NC, L.L.C. (CLLC) to

lease from CLLC and operate the

Beesons to Connersville portion of the

Line.

CNUR will grant to NW incidental

trackage rights over the main and

auxiliary tracks of CNUR for nonrevenue operations between mileposts

CB–25.30 (through C.B. 25.00=R–00)

and R–0.80.

The transaction was scheduled to be

consummated on or after the October

15, 1997 effective date of the exemption.

The transaction is related to the Hi Rail

Trustee’s filing of an Amended Plan of

Reorganization with the Board in STB

Finance Docket No. 33491 on October 3,

1997.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the

proceeding to revoke the exemption

under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed

at any time. The filing of a petition to

revoke will not automatically stay the

transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33475, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on Richard R.

Wilson, Esq., 1126 Eighth Avenue, Suite

403, Altoona, PA 16002.

Decided: October 21, 1997.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–28786 Filed 10–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33476]

C & NC, L.L.C.—Acquisition

Exemption—Indiana Hi Rail

Corporation

C & NC, L.L.C. (CLLC), a noncarrier,

has filed a verified notice of exemption

under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire a line

of railroad owned and operated by R.

Franklin Unger, Trustee of the Indiana

Hi Rail Corporation (Hi Rail) from

Connersville, IN (milepost 0.0), to

Beesons, IN (milepost 5.2), a distance of

approximately 5.2 route miles.

The line will be operated by C&NC

Railroad Corporation under a lease and

operating agreement with CLLC, which

is the subject of a separate lease and

operation exemption in STB Finance

Docket No. 33475, C&NC Railroad

Corporation—Lease and Operation

Exemption—Lines of the Norfolk and

Western Railway Company and Indiana

Hi Rail Corporation.

The transaction was scheduled to be

consummated on or after the October

15, 1997 effective date of the exemption.

The transaction is related to the Hi Rail

Trustee’s filing of an Amended Plan of

Reorganization with the Board in STB

Finance Docket No. 33491 on October 3,

1997.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the

proceeding to revoke the exemption

under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed

at any time. The filing of a petition to

revoke will not automatically stay the

transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33476, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on Richard R.

Wilson, Esq., 1126 Eighth Avenue, Suite

403, Altoona, PA 16002.

Decided: October 21, 1997.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–28787 Filed 10–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P