49 CFR — Transportation
Appendix B to Part 195—Risk-Based Alternative to Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines
United States · 49 CFR — Transportation · Status: effective
Cite this
- Citation
- 49 CFR — Transportation, Appendix B to Part 195—Risk-Based Alternative to Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines, United States, version 1 as recorded 2026-07-09, yourstate.us, https://yourstate.us/provision/257586
- Permanent ID
ys:prov:257586@1- SHA-256
bfe2eef0d77114a5dbf0aea5307d7ffb9cb255eb30728fef6f09602dbb2a5704
The hash is SHA-256 of this version's text, with every run of whitespace collapsed to a single space and the ends trimmed. The ID always leads back here, and checking it says whether the text you cited is still the current version.
Full text
This Appendix provides guidance on how a risk-based alternative to pressure testing older hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines rule allowed by § 195.303 will work. This risk-based alternative establishes test priorities for older pipelines, not previously pressure tested, based on the inherent risk of a given pipeline segment. The first step is to determine the classification based on the type of pipe or on the pipeline segment's proximity to populated or environmentally sensitive area. Secondly, the classifications must be adjusted based on the pipeline failure history, product transported, and the release volume potential.
Tables 2-6 give definitions of risk classification A, B, and C facilities. For the purposes of this rule, pipeline segments containing high risk electric resistance-welded pipe (ERW pipe) and lapwelded pipe manufactured prior to 1970 and considered a risk classification C or B facility shall be treated as the top priority for testing because of the higher risk associated with the susceptibility of this pipe to longitudinal seam failures.
In all cases, operators shall annually, at intervals not to exceed 15 months, review their facilities to reassess the classification and shall take appropriate action within two years or operate the pipeline system at a lower pressure. Pipeline failures, changes in the characteristics of the pipeline route, or changes in service should all trigger a reassessment of the originally classification.
Table 1 explains different levels of test requirements depending on the inherent risk of a given pipeline segment. The overall risk classification is determined based on the type of pipe involved, the facility's location, the product transported, the relative volume of flow and pipeline failure history as determined from Tables 2-6.
Table 1. Test Requirements—Mainline Segments Outside of Terminals, Stations, and Tank Farms
Using LOCATION, PRODUCT, VOLUME, and FAILURE HISTORY “Indicators” from Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively, the overall risk classification of a given pipeline or pipeline segment can be established from Table 2. The LOCATION Indicator is the primary factor which determines overall risk, with the PRODUCT, VOLUME, and PROBABILITY OF FAILURE Indicators used to adjust to a higher or lower overall risk classification per the following table.
Table 2—Risk Classification
Table 3 is used to establish the LOCATION Indicator used in Table 2. Based on the population and environment characteristics associated with a pipeline facility's location, a LOCATION Indicator of H, M or L is selected.
Table 3—Location Indicators—Pipeline Segments
Tables 4, 5 and 6 are used to establish the PRODUCT, VOLUME, and PROBABILITY OF FAILURE Indicators respectively, in Table 2. The PRODUCT Indicator is selected from Table 4 as H, M, or L based on the acute and chronic hazards associated with the product transported. The VOLUME Indicator is selected from Table 5 as H, M, or L based on the nominal diameter of the pipeline. The Probability of Failure Indicator is selected from Table 6.
Table 4—Product Indicators
Considerations: The degree of acute and chronic toxicity to humans, wildlife, and aquatic life; reactivity; and, volatility, flammability, and water solubility determine the Product Indicator. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Reportable Quantity values can be used as an indication of chronic toxicity. National Fire Protection Association health factors can be used for rating acute hazards.
Table 5—Volume Indicators
Table 6 is used to establish the PROBABILITY OF FAILURE Indicator used in Table 2. The “Probability of Failure” Indicator is selected from Table 6 as H or L.
Table 6—Probability of Failure Indicators
[in each haz. location]
Legislative history
This is a federal regulation, adopted through agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act — not enacted by a recorded vote of Congress.