{"operation":"document","citation":"PHMSA Guidance, Pipeline Safety: Deactivation of Threats","title":"Pipeline Safety: Deactivation of Threats","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"Pipeline Safety: Deactivation of Threats Document 2017-05262.pdf (177.33 KB) PHMSA is issuing this Advisory Bulletin to inform owners and operators of gas transmission pipelines that PHMSA has developed guidance on threat identification and the minimum criteria for deactivation of threats, as established by a previously issued rule. This Advisory Bulletin also provides guidance to gas transmission pipeline operators ","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-deactivation-threats-626ad2f7.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-deactivation-threats-626ad2f7.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-deactivation-threats-626ad2f7","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulatory-compliance/phmsa-guidance/pipeline-safety-deactivation-threats","body":"Pipeline Safety: Deactivation of Threats\n\nDocument\n\n 2017-05262.pdf (177.33 KB)\n\n        PHMSA is issuing this Advisory Bulletin to inform owners and operators of gas transmission pipelines that PHMSA has developed guidance on threat identification and the minimum criteria for deactivation of threats, as established by a previously issued rule. This Advisory Bulletin also provides guidance to gas transmission pipeline operators regarding documenting their rationale of analyses, justifications, determinations, and decisions related to threat deactivation.\n\n          Effective Date: Thursday, March 16, 2017\n\n<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n14106 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 50 / Thursday, March 16, 2017 / Notices\nlike to know that they reached the\nfacility, please enclose a stamped, self-\naddressed postcard or envelope.\nWe will consider all comments and\nmaterials received during the comment\nperiod. FMCSA may issue a final\ndetermination any time after the close of\nthe comment period.\nV. Viewing Comments and Documents\nTo view comments, as well as any\ndocuments mentioned in this preamble,\ngo to http://www.regulations.gov and in\nthe search box insert the docket number\nFMCSA–2016–0315 and click ‘‘Search.’’\nNext, click ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ and\nyou will find all documents and\ncomments related to this notice.\nIssued on: March 9, 2017.\nLarry W. Minor,\nAssociate Administrator for Policy.\n[FR Doc. 2017–05256 Filed 3–15–17; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–EX–P\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n[Docket No. PHMSA–2016–0131]\nPipeline Safety: Deactivation of\nThreats\nAGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), DOT.\nACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory\nbulletin.\nmstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES\nSUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this\nAdvisory Bulletin to inform owners and\noperators of gas transmission pipelines\nthat PHMSA has developed guidance on\nthreat identification and the minimum\ncriteria for deactivation of threats, as\nestablished by a previously issued rule.\nThis Advisory Bulletin also provides\nguidance to gas transmission pipeline\noperators regarding documenting their\nrationale of analyses, justifications,\ndeterminations, and decisions related to\nthreat deactivation.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\nAllan Beshore by phone at (816) 329–\n3811 or email at allan.beshore@dot.gov.\nAll materials in this docket may be\naccessed electronically at http://\nwww.regulations.gov. Information about\nPHMSA may be found at http://\nwww.phmsa.dot.gov.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nI. Background\nA critical element in an integrity\nmanagement (IM) program is the\nidentification of threats to pipeline\nintegrity. As required by section\n192.911(c), an IM program must contain\n‘‘[a]n identification of threats to each\ncovered pipeline segment, which must\ninclude data integration and a risk\nassessment. An operator must use the\nthreat identification and risk assessment\nto prioritize covered segments for\nassessment (section 192.917) and to\nevaluate the merits of additional\npreventive measures and mitigative\nmeasures (section 192.935) for each\ncovered segment.’’ Further requirements\ndetailed in section 192.921(a) state,\n‘‘[a]n operator must select the\n[assessment] method or methods best\nsuited to address the threats identified\nto the covered segment.’’ The threats to\na particular pipeline segment dictate the\ntype of assessments the operator must\nperform to fulfill the requirements of\nsection 192.921(a).\nAccording to the Standard established\nby the American Society of Mechanical\nEngineers (ASME), ASME B31.8S–2004,\nSection 2.2, an operator must consider\nnine individual threat categories as part\nof an IM program. As stated by ASME\nB31.8S–2004, Section 5.10, an IM\nprogram should provide criteria for\neliminating a threat from consideration\nduring a risk assessment; however, 49\nCFR part 192—Subpart O does not\ninclude provisions for the permanent\nelimination of threats. An operator,\ntherefore, must continually consider all\nthreats in the evaluation of their IM\nprogram through periodic reviews and\nassessments, as required by section\n192.937.\nPHMSA acknowledges that threats\nmay be categorized as active, requiring\nan integrity assessment, or inactive,\nmeaning that during a specific\nassessment cycle the threat does not\ntrigger an integrity assessment, per\nsection 192.921(a). Operators, however,\nmust understand that threats to a\npipeline are not static, but vary over\ntime. Changes in threats can occur\nsuddenly, as in the case of catastrophic\noutside forces like hurricanes,\nearthquakes, or down-slope land\nmovements, or they can be gradual\nchanges, such as the introduction of\nnew wet-production gas sources into a\npreviously dry gas environment. Issues\nmay also develop into active threats\nover time, such as coating degradation\nthat allows stress corrosion cracking or\nexternal corrosion to develop. In other\ncases, threats may become inactive over\ntime due to pipeline replacement\nprograms, the implementation of\neffective preventative actions, or other\nimprovements to systems.\nThe periodic review required by\nsection 192.937 for a mature IM plan\nmust include the re-analysis of the nine\nthreat categories to determine status\nchanges for active or inactive threats.\nAn operator must continually monitor\noperations and maintenance (O&M) and\nother activities, integrating relevant\ninformation during a threat analysis that\nmight indicate a change in the status of\na threat. Some operators inappropriately\nlabel threats as inactive after they are\neliminated from consideration during\nprior reviews and assessments, ignoring\nthe continuous supply of new\ninformation provided during routine\nO&M activities.\nSome operators have opted to\neliminate threats from consideration\nbased on a lack of data, including\nmissing, incomplete, or unsubstantiated\ndata. Using insufficient data to\neliminate a threat is not technically\njustified and is contrary to the guidance\nin ASME B31.8S–2004, Appendices A1–\nA9. Each of these appendices includes\nlanguage that states, ‘‘[w]here the\noperator is missing data, conservative\nassumptions shall be used when\nperforming the risk assessment or,\nalternatively, the segment shall be\nprioritized higher.’’ Additionally,\nsection 192.947(d) requires that\noperators maintain, ‘‘[d]ocuments to\nsupport any decision, analysis and\nprocess developed and used to\nimplement and evaluate each element of\nthe baseline assessment plan and\nintegrity management program.’’ Section\n192.947(d) further states, ‘‘[d]ocuments\ninclude those developed and used in\nsupport of any identification,\ncalculation, amendment, modification,\njustification, deviation and\ndetermination made, and any action\ntaken to implement and evaluate any of\nthe program elements.’’\nPHMSA provides the following\nguidance for determining the active or\ninactive status of the nine threat\ncategories, with the understanding that\nthe status of a threat will change over\ntime:\nTime-Dependent Threats\n1. External Corrosion\nFor steel pipelines, the threat of\nexternal corrosion may never be\neliminated.\n2. Internal Corrosion\nAn operator should consider the past\noperational history of the pipeline,\nincluding, but not limited to: Upset\nconditions, gas monitoring (including\npartial-pressure analysis), bacterial\nculture tests, flow direction and rates,\ngas sources, solid and liquid analyses,\ncritical angles and liquid holdup points,\npigging and other cleaning history, the\npresence of internal coatings, chemical\nVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Mar 15, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nmstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES\nFederal Register / Vol. 82, No. 50 / Thursday, March 16, 2017 / Notices\n14107\ntreatments, and internal pipeline\ninspection reports.\nAfter consideration of operational\nhistory and supporting documentation,\nthe threat of internal corrosion may be\ndeemed inactive if:\ni. It can be demonstrated that a\ncorrosive gas is not being transported,\nper section 192.475(a);\nii. In-line inspection data confirms\nthat a corrosive environment does not\nexist within the pipeline; or\niii. Application of internal corrosion\ndirect assessment (ICDA) demonstrates\nthat there is no internal corrosion\noccurring at the most likely locations,\nand is accompanied by sufficient\ndocumentation to demonstrate the\nassumptions used with the ICDA model\n(normally dry gas with occasional\nupsets) are valid for the pipeline’s entire\noperating history.\nThe threat of internal corrosion\nshould be considered active if:\ni. Production, storage, or non-\npipeline-quality gas was transported at\nany time during the history of the\npipeline;\nii. The pipeline has been converted\nfrom another type of service that is\nsusceptible to internal corrosion;\niii. Unmonitored or inoperative drips,\nsiphons, dead legs, or other liquid\nholdup points are present anywhere in\nthe pipeline;\niv. There is evidence that liquids from\ndrips, siphons, dead legs, or other liquid\nholdup points are present anywhere in\nthe pipeline;\nv. Pipe inspection reports, as required\nby section 192.475(b), indicate evidence\nof internal corrosion; or\nvi. The operator does not have a\ncomplete pipeline operating history.\n3. Stress Corrosion Cracking\nThe threat of stress corrosion cracking\n(SCC) should always be considered\nactive. The operator must continually\ninspect the pipeline for the presence of\nSCC during pipeline examination, as\nrequired by section 192.459.\nStatic or Stable Threats\n4. Manufacturing\nThere is substantial guidance\nprovided in the original Gas\nTransmission IM protocols (e.g. Protocol\nC.01 Threat Identification), part 192—\nsubpart O, ASME B31.8S–2004, and the\nPHMSA Gas Transmission IM FAQs\n(e.g., 219, 220, 221, and 231) regarding\nthe deactivation of manufacturing\nthreats for a segment for any given\nassessment cycle. Some of this guidance\nincludes FAQ 219 (manufacturing and\nconstruction (M&C) defects when\nsubpart J tested), FAQ 220 (M&C defects\nwhen never subpart J tested), and FAQ\n231 (5-year operating history).\nAdditionally, section 192.917(e)(3)\nprovides guidance for determining\nwhen a manufacturing threat is active.\nSection 192.917(e)(3) states, ‘‘[i]f any of\nthe following changes occur in the\ncovered segment, an operator must\nprioritize the covered segment as a high-\nrisk segment for the baseline assessment\nor a subsequent reassessment.\ni. Operating pressure increases above\nthe maximum operating pressure\nexperienced during the preceding five\nyears;\nii. MAOP increases; or\niii. The stresses leading to cyclic\nfatigue increase.’’\n5. Construction\nThere is substantial guidance\nprovided in the original Gas\nTransmission IM protocols, part 192—\nsubpart O, ASME B31.8S–2004, and the\nPHMSA Gas Transmission IM FAQs\nregarding deactivation of construction\nthreats for a segment for any given\nassessment cycle. Some of this guidance\nincludes FAQ 219 (M&C defects when\nsubpart J tested), FAQ 220 (M&C defects\nwhen never subpart J tested), and FAQ\n231 (5-year operating history).\nSection 192.917(e)(3) provides\nguidance for determining when a\nconstruction threat is active, stating,\n‘‘[i]f any of the following changes occur\nin the covered segment, an operator\nmust prioritize the covered segment as\na high-risk segment for the baseline\nassessment or a subsequent\nreassessment:\ni. Operating pressure increases above\nthe maximum operating pressure\nexperienced during the preceding five\nyears;\nii. MAOP increases; or\niii. The stresses leading to cyclic\nfatigue increase.’’\n6. Equipment\nAn equipment threat is defined in\nASME B31.8S–2004, Appendix A6.1, as\npressure control equipment, relief\nequipment, gaskets, O-rings, seal/pump\npacking, or any equipment other than\npipe and pipe components. The\nequipment threat may be inactive\ndepending on an operator’s history and\nreview of the records, as required by\nsections 192.613, 192.617, 192.603,\n192.605, 192.739, and 192.743.\nOperating history, failures, and\nabnormal operations records should be\nevaluated by integrity personnel to\nassist in determining trends and issues\nthat may not be recognized by local or\nother operations personnel.\nAs identified in ASME B31.8S–2004,\nAppendix A6.4, assessments for\nequipment threats are normally\nconducted during maintenance\nactivities, per the requirements of the\nO&M procedures. Monitoring the data\nfrom operating history and failures is\nessential for identifying trends related to\nthis threat. Communication between\nO&M and integrity personnel is a key\ncomponent to integrating this threat, as\nwell as the potential increased risk that\nit poses to pipeline segments, into risk\nassessments.\nPreventative measures and mitigative\nmeasures are an important factor in\nmaintaining the inactive status of\nequipment threats. For example,\nrecognizing a system-wide problem with\nset point drift in a particular regulator\nmay necessitate a shorter maintenance\ncycle or the replacement of the in-\nservice regulators impacted by this\nproblem.\nTime Independent Threats\n7. Third-Party Damage\nThe third-party threat should never be\nconsidered inactive.\n8. Incorrect Operations\nIncorrect operations are defined in\nASME B31.8S–2004, Appendix A8.1, as\nincorrect operating procedures or failure\nto follow a procedure. This threat\nshould always be considered active.\n9. Weather-Related and Outside Forces\nWeather-related and outside forces are\ndefined in ASME B31.8S–2004,\nAppendix A9.1, as earth movement,\nheavy rains or floods, cold weather and\nlightning, or events that may cause pipe\nto be susceptible to extreme loading.\nThis threat should always be considered\nactive.\nCyclic Fatigue\nIn addition to the nine threats\nreferenced in ASME B31.8S–2004,\n§ 192.917(e)(2) states, ‘‘[a]n operator\nmust evaluate whether cyclic fatigue or\nother loading condition (including\nground movement, suspension bridge\ncondition) could lead to a failure or a\ndeformation, including a dent or gouge,\nor other defect in the covered segment.\nAn evaluation must assume the\npresence of threats in the covered\nsegment that could be exacerbated by\ncyclic fatigue. An operator must use the\nresults from the evaluation together\nwith the criteria used to evaluate the\nsignificance of this threat to the covered\nsegment to prioritize the integrity\nbaseline assessment or reassessment.’’\nCyclic fatigue is a concern because it\nis a threat that interacts with all other\nthreats. Interactive threats are two or\nmore threats acting on a pipeline or\npipeline segment that increase the\nVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Mar 15, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nmstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES\n14108 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 50 / Thursday, March 16, 2017 / Notices\nprobability of failure to a level\nsignificantly greater than the effects of\nthe individual threats acting alone. In\norder to manage cyclic fatigue,\ntherefore, operators must have system-\nspecific data applicable to their unique\noperating environment to justify the\ninactive status of the cyclic fatigue\nthreat. A system-wide or generic study\nof cyclic fatigue may be used by an\noperator as long as the operator\ndocuments why the study is applicable\nto the segment-specific conditions.\nII. Advisory Bulletin (ADB–2017–01)\nTo: Owners and Operators of Natural\nGas Transmission Pipelines\nSubject: Deactivation of Threats\nAdvisory: The threats identified in\nASME B31.8S–2004 may be considered\nactive or inactive, but are never\npermanently eliminated. ASME B31.8S–\n2004, Appendix A, identifies the\ninformation an operator must collect\nand analyze for threats, which must\ndemonstrate an individual threat is not\nacting on the pipe before an operator\ncan properly declare the threat inactive\nfor each assessment period. A threat\nmust be considered active if any data\nrequired by Appendix A is missing, as\nlack of data indicating the existence of\na threat is not acceptable justification\nfor considering the threat inactive.\nDocuments to support the determination\nof an inactive threat status must be\nmaintained, as per the requirements of\n§ 192.947(d). An operator does not need\nto assess a threat for the current\nassessment cycle if that threat is\nproperly deemed inactive. When\nconditions warrant a review or new\ninformation becomes available during\nthe required § 192.937 evaluation\noperators are required to examine each\napplicable threat to determine its active\nor inactive status.\nIssued in Washington, DC, on March 9,\n2017, under authority delegated in 49 CFR\n1.97.\nAlan K. Mayberry,\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.\n[FR Doc. 2017–05262 Filed 3–15–17; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–60–P\nACTION: Notice and request for comment.\nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\nComptroller of the Currency\nAgency Information Collection\nActivities: Information Collection\nRenewal; Submission for OMB Review;\nFinancial Management Policies—\nInterest Rate Risk\nAGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the\nCurrency (OCC), Treasury.\nSUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its\ncontinuing effort to reduce paperwork\nand respondent burden, invites the\ngeneral public and other Federal\nagencies to take this opportunity to\ncomment on a continuing information\ncollection as required by the Paperwork\nReduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\nIn accordance with the requirements\nof the PRA, the OCC may not conduct\nor sponsor, and the respondent is not\nrequired to respond to, an information\ncollection unless it displays a currently\nvalid Office of Management and Budget\n(OMB) control number.\nThe OCC is soliciting comment\nconcerning renewal of its information\ncollection titled, ‘‘Financial\nManagement Policies—Interest Rate\nRisk.’’ The OCC also is giving notice\nthat it has sent the collection to OMB for\nreview.\nDATES: Comments must be submitted on\nor before April 17, 2017.\nADDRESSES: Because paper mail in the\nWashington, DC area and at the OCC is\nsubject to delay, commenters are\nencouraged to submit comments by\nemail, if possible. Comments may be\nsent to: Legislative and Regulatory\nActivities Division, Office of the\nComptroller of the Currency, Attention:\n1557–0299, 400 7th Street SW., Suite\n3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington,\nDC 20219. In addition, comments may\nbe sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by\nelectronic mail to prainfo@occ.treas.gov.\nYou may personally inspect and\nphotocopy comments at the OCC, 400\n7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.\nFor security reasons, the OCC requires\nthat visitors make an appointment to\ninspect comments. You may do so by\ncalling (202) 649–6700 or, for persons\nwho are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY,\n(202) 649–5597. Upon arrival, visitors\nwill be required to present valid\ngovernment-issued photo identification\nand submit to security screening in\norder to inspect and photocopy\ncomments.\nAll comments received, including\nattachments and other supporting\nmaterials, are part of the public record\nand subject to public disclosure. Do not\ninclude any information in your\ncomment or supporting materials that\nyou consider confidential or\ninappropriate for public disclosure.\nAdditionally, please send a copy of\nyour comments by mail to: OCC Desk\nOfficer, 1557–0299, U.S. Office of\nManagement and Budget, 725 17th\nStreet NW., #10235, Washington, DC\n20503 or by email to oira submission@\nomb.eop.gov.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\nShaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance\nOfficer, (202) 649–5490 or, for persons\nwho are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY,\n(202) 649–5597, Legislative and\nRegulatory Activities Division, Office of\nthe Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th\nStreet SW., Washington, DC 20219.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the\nPRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal\nagencies must obtain approval from\nOMB for each collection of information\nthat they conduct or sponsor. The term\n‘‘collection of information’’ is defined in\n44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c)\nand includes agency requests or\nrequirements that members of the public\nsubmit reports, keep records, or provide\ninformation to a third party. The OCC\nrequests that OMB extend approval of\nthe following information collection.\nTitle: Financial Management\nPolicies—Interest Rate Risk.\nOMB Control No.: 1557–0299.\nType of Review: Regular.\nAffected Public: Businesses or other\nfor-profit.\nFrequency of Response: On occasion.\nBurden Estimate:\nEstimated Number of Respondents:\n372.\nEstimated Annual Burden: 14,880.\nDescription: This information\ncollection covers the recordkeeping\nburden for maintaining data in\naccordance with OCC’s regulation on\ninterest rate risk procedures for Federal\nsavings associations, 12 CFR 163.176.\nThe purpose of the regulation is to\nensure that Federal savings associations\nare managing their exposure to interest\nrate risk appropriately. To comply with\nthis reporting requirement, institutions\nneed to maintain sufficient records to\ndocument how their interest rate risk\nexposure is monitored and managed\ninternally.\nComments: The OCC issued a notice\nfor 60 days of comment on December\n27, 2016, 81 FR 95302. The OCC\nreceived one comment from an\nindividual. The commenter stated that\nthe OCC should rescind 12 CFR 163.176\nor, if the OCC determines that it is\nimportant and should not be removed,\nit should be amended to also apply to\nnational banks. The commenter stated\nthat, while interest rate risk exposure at\none time was different for savings\nassociations and commercial banks,\ntoday there is no difference and the two\ncharter types should be subject to\nsimilar regulation. The commenter also\nstated that the regulation is outdated\nand unnecessary and should be\nrescinded, citing several OCC bulletins\nthat the commenter claims state\nexpectations for interest rate risk\nVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Mar 15, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1","truncated":false,"body_characters":21650}