USCG Alternatives to Pipe Testing and One-Time Transfer Authorizations – Revisited
John K. Carroll III
Associate Managing Director at Witt O'Brien's, LLC, Part of the Ambipar Group
(This article was written without AI tools, i.e., ChatGPT.)
?
The two topics in today’s article come up frequently with Witt O’Brien’s clients. I’ve written about them in the past, and as the conversation evolves, it is useful to revisit the issues and offer additional guidance. There are many variables in both topics, and each has a unique path to the correct answer. This update can serve as a starting point for oil companies subject to the United States Coast Guard (USCG), given their geographic location and specific operations.
?
USCG Alternatives to Pipe Testing
This continues to be a hot topic because we are seeing more facilities located further from their transfer docks, which are often shared docks. Given how the USCG’s regulations are written, the pipeline from the dock to the first valve within secondary containment at a facility falls under USCG jurisdiction (full definition). This can create challenges concerning the USCG pipe testing requirements. We have seen cases where the dock and first valve locations are over 11 miles apart.
Can a company file for an alternative to pipe testing with the USCG?
Examining the rule helps answer this question:
(a) The COTP may consider and approve alternative procedures, methods, or equipment standards to be used by a facility operator in lieu of any requirement in this part if:
(1) Compliance with the requirement is economically or physically impractical;
(2) The alternative provides an equivalent level of safety and protection from pollution by oil or hazardous material, which is documented in the request; and
(3) The facility operator submits a written request for the alternative.
(b) The COTP takes final approval or disapproval action on the request, submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, in writing within 30 days of receipt of the request
?
Based on the rule, in most cases, the answer is yes. I say “most cases” because considering and approving alternative procedures is entirely up to the Captain of the Port (COTP). Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 06-17 lays out alternative testing for pipelines, but bear in mind that approval is needed before you can deviate from the rule. If the NVIC 06-17 guidelines are followed, approval is almost guaranteed.
?
?
The following sections from the guidance document offer essential takeaways.
4.2.1 The COTP may consider and approve alternative procedures, methods, or equipment standards proposed by the facility operator if the proposal meets the requirements set forth in 33 CFR 156.107(a)(1), (2) and (3). All testing methods, other than a static liquid test, may be considered as an alternative. If the COTP determines that a testing alternative is appropriate, then it may be approved without further review if the plan for using that method is consistent with this policy.
4.2.3 Alternatives may be approved when compliance with static liquid test requirements is economically or physically impractical and alternatives provide an equivalent level of safety and protection from pollution.
4.2.3.1 Examples of conditions when alternatives may be appropriate:
A.????? The length of the transfer piping makes the costs of conducting the liquid pressure test and/or disposing of contaminated liquid excessive;
B.????? The product medium is reactive with water and other liquid test mediums, and testing would risk harm to personnel and property; or,
C.?????? Exclusive lines used to transfer hazardous materials would be contaminated by the test medium.
4.2.3.2 Once it is determined an alternative testing procedure may be warranted, the following information should be considered in evaluating the request:
A.????? The age of the piping and dimensions of the system;
B.????? The commodities transferred and the system's operations;
C.?????? The history of the system including the system's compliance
D.????? performance and past unintentional discharges and releases;
E.?????? Access to the transfer piping: whether system is buried, elevated, insulated, etc.;
F.?????? The presence of any relief valves in the piping system and their routine maintenance schedule;
G.????? Proximity to environmentally sensitive areas;
H.????? The date of the last static liquid test; and
I.??????? The system MAWP, system operating pressure, and relief valve settings.
4.4.3 The pneumatic pressure test can be an acceptable alternative for testing pipeline facilities provided the following minimum safety precautions are taken. COTP’s should normally require:
4.4.3.1 Test pressure and duration: The pneumatic test pressure should be conducted at 110% of the design pressure. The pressure should be maintained for at least 10 minutes. (Reference (c) and (d)).
NOTE: If for some reason, the operating pressure of the system is substantially less than the design pressure of the piping, and the system operating pressure is normally limited by a relief valve, consideration may be given to limiting the pneumatic test pressure to 110% of system operating pressure or MAWP.
领英推荐
?
As noted in the guidance document, the most common approach is the use of API 570—Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems. There are other methods to be considered, but this is the most widely used and surest way to be approved by the USCG. (Click here to be directed to API’s Publications Store.)
The bolded statement below triggers the need for this alternative in most cases. The USCG has jurisdiction from the dock to the first valve in the terminal’s tank farm secondary containment system. If the facility is not on the waterfront, testing via USCG requirements, as outlined in the rule, can be costly.
Marine transportation-related facility (MTR facility) means any onshore facility or segment of a complex regulated under section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) by two or more Federal agencies, including piping and any structure used or intended to be used to transfer oil to or from a vessel, subject to regulation under this part and any deepwater port subject to regulation under part 150 of this chapter. For a facility or segment of a complex regulated by two or more Federal agencies under section 311(j) of the FWPCA, the MTR portion of the complex extends from the facility oil transfer system's connection with the vessel to the first valve inside the secondary containment surrounding tanks in the non-transportation-related portion of the facility or, in the absence of secondary containment, to the valve or manifold adjacent to the tanks comprising the non-transportation-related portion of the facility, unless another location has otherwise been agreed to by the COTP and the appropriate Federal official.
There is no unique format for this request. Generally, it is handled by an initial call to the USCG and then an email with all the requirements from the guidance document. In most cases, they will have follow-up questions, so be mindful that the process may take several days, or possibly weeks, to get approved.
To not overcomplicate today’s conversation, I will not go into more detail on jurisdiction. If you need a deeper dive into the topic, click the following link to read a previous article: Industry Eye-Opener - USCG jurisdiction at a “Complex Facility” with EPA - OPA90.
?
USCG One-Time Transfer Requests
We frequently get calls from clients with questions about one-time transfer requests. This typically happens when the company must transfer oil over water, and it is either not a function that is part of their regular operations, or it’s a one-time occurrence, or possibly an unplanned event. Subsequently, the organization does not have all of the required USCG plans in place to operate and transfer the oil. In most cases, this is a frantic call as the transfer is coming up in days.
Can a company file for a one-time transfer request with the USCG?
The short answer is yes. However, like pipe testing, the request must be approved by the COTP, and approval is not guaranteed. This type of request comes with more rejections than we see with the pipe testing. Unlike pipe testing alternatives, there is no guidance document for one-time transfers. To obtain guidance, you must contact the applicable USCG sector. (Click here to see the sector map.) Generally, you will speak with someone in the Facilities Group. You should explain the situation and determine what they need to secure approval from the COTP. Be mindful that this should only be used for one-off situations. If you foresee requiring more one-time-transfers, you must, at a minimum, develop the applicable USCG Facility Response Plan (FRP), Dock Operation Manual (DOM), and Facility Security Plan (FSP) (the latter is not required for mobile operations) – you may have other regulatory requirements, too, but today we are focusing on USCG.
In most cases, the USCG will want to know:
The rule notes the following criteria for obtaining approval, so be ready to address any questions the USCG may have.
(a) The COTP may require a facility operator to notify the COTP of the time and place of each transfer operation at least 4 hours before it begins for facilities that:
(1) Are mobile;
(2) Are in a remote location;
(3) Have a prior history of oil or hazardous material spills; or
(4) Conduct infrequent transfer operations.
(b) In the case of a vessel to vessel transfer, the COTP may require a vessel operator of a lightering or fueling vessel to notify the COTP of the time and place of each transfer operation, as specified by the COTP, at least 4 hours before it begins.
(c) No person may conduct such transfer operations until advance notice has been given as specified by the COTP.
?
Additional Reading
?
Witt O’Brien’s has navigated both scenarios for our clients numerous times. If you need help, do not hesitate to contact me.
For a complete listing of archived articles and compliance insights, click here. Past articles cover training requirements, clarification of additional unclear elements within the above rules, and more.
We are here to help solve your compliance questions and challenges. If you need compliance assistance or have questions, please email John K. Carroll III ([email protected]), Associate Managing Director – Compliance Services, or call +1 954-625-9373.
Witt O’Brien’s:
Personal Note: Struggling with suicidal thoughts or know someone who is displaying worrisome characteristics? If yes, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) has excellent resources to help: a crisis hotline (simply call/text 988), a counselor directory, resources to navigate, etc. Click here to go to their website.
?
?