# Pipeline Safety: Deactivation of Threats

- **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:** Not available
- **effective on:** Not available
- **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

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 regarding documenting their rationale of analyses, justifications, determinations, and decisions related to threat deactivation.

          Effective Date: Thursday, March 16, 2017

<<<PAGE 1>>>

14106 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 50 / Thursday, March 16, 2017 / Notices
like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope.
We will consider all comments and
materials received during the comment
period. FMCSA may issue a final
determination any time after the close of
the comment period.
V. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as any
documents mentioned in this preamble,
go to http://www.regulations.gov and in
the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA–2016–0315 and click ‘‘Search.’’
Next, click ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ and
you will find all documents and
comments related to this notice.
Issued on: March 9, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017–05256 Filed 3–15–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2016–0131]
Pipeline Safety: Deactivation of
Threats
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory
bulletin.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY: 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allan Beshore by phone at (816) 329–
3811 or email at allan.beshore@dot.gov.
All materials in this docket may be
accessed electronically at http://
www.regulations.gov. Information about
PHMSA may be found at http://
www.phmsa.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A critical element in an integrity
management (IM) program is the
identification of threats to pipeline
integrity. As required by section
192.911(c), an IM program must contain
‘‘[a]n identification of threats to each
covered pipeline segment, which must
include data integration and a risk
assessment. An operator must use the
threat identification and risk assessment
to prioritize covered segments for
assessment (section 192.917) and to
evaluate the merits of additional
preventive measures and mitigative
measures (section 192.935) for each
covered segment.’’ Further requirements
detailed in section 192.921(a) state,
‘‘[a]n operator must select the
[assessment] method or methods best
suited to address the threats identified
to the covered segment.’’ The threats to
a particular pipeline segment dictate the
type of assessments the operator must
perform to fulfill the requirements of
section 192.921(a).
According to the Standard established
by the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME), ASME B31.8S–2004,
Section 2.2, an operator must consider
nine individual threat categories as part
of an IM program. As stated by ASME
B31.8S–2004, Section 5.10, an IM
program should provide criteria for
eliminating a threat from consideration
during a risk assessment; however, 49
CFR part 192—Subpart O does not
include provisions for the permanent
elimination of threats. An operator,
therefore, must continually consider all
threats in the evaluation of their IM
program through periodic reviews and
assessments, as required by section
192.937.
PHMSA acknowledges that threats
may be categorized as active, requiring
an integrity assessment, or inactive,
meaning that during a specific
assessment cycle the threat does not
trigger an integrity assessment, per
section 192.921(a). Operators, however,
must understand that threats to a
pipeline are not static, but vary over
time. Changes in threats can occur
suddenly, as in the case of catastrophic
outside forces like hurricanes,
earthquakes, or down-slope land
movements, or they can be gradual
changes, such as the introduction of
new wet-production gas sources into a
previously dry gas environment. Issues
may also develop into active threats
over time, such as coating degradation
that allows stress corrosion cracking or
external corrosion to develop. In other
cases, threats may become inactive over
time due to pipeline replacement
programs, the implementation of
effective preventative actions, or other
improvements to systems.
The periodic review required by
section 192.937 for a mature IM plan
must include the re-analysis of the nine
threat categories to determine status
changes for active or inactive threats.
An operator must continually monitor
operations and maintenance (O&M) and
other activities, integrating relevant
information during a threat analysis that
might indicate a change in the status of
a threat. Some operators inappropriately
label threats as inactive after they are
eliminated from consideration during
prior reviews and assessments, ignoring
the continuous supply of new
information provided during routine
O&M activities.
Some operators have opted to
eliminate threats from consideration
based on a lack of data, including
missing, incomplete, or unsubstantiated
data. Using insufficient data to
eliminate a threat is not technically
justified and is contrary to the guidance
in ASME B31.8S–2004, Appendices A1–
A9. Each of these appendices includes
language that states, ‘‘[w]here the
operator is missing data, conservative
assumptions shall be used when
performing the risk assessment or,
alternatively, the segment shall be
prioritized higher.’’ Additionally,
section 192.947(d) requires that
operators maintain, ‘‘[d]ocuments to
support any decision, analysis and
process developed and used to
implement and evaluate each element of
the baseline assessment plan and
integrity management program.’’ Section
192.947(d) further states, ‘‘[d]ocuments
include those developed and used in
support of any identification,
calculation, amendment, modification,
justification, deviation and
determination made, and any action
taken to implement and evaluate any of
the program elements.’’
PHMSA provides the following
guidance for determining the active or
inactive status of the nine threat
categories, with the understanding that
the status of a threat will change over
time:
Time-Dependent Threats
1. External Corrosion
For steel pipelines, the threat of
external corrosion may never be
eliminated.
2. Internal Corrosion
An operator should consider the past
operational history of the pipeline,
including, but not limited to: Upset
conditions, gas monitoring (including
partial-pressure analysis), bacterial
culture tests, flow direction and rates,
gas sources, solid and liquid analyses,
critical angles and liquid holdup points,
pigging and other cleaning history, the
presence of internal coatings, chemical
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Mar 15, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1

<<<PAGE 2>>>

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 50 / Thursday, March 16, 2017 / Notices
14107
treatments, and internal pipeline
inspection reports.
After consideration of operational
history and supporting documentation,
the threat of internal corrosion may be
deemed inactive if:
i. It can be demonstrated that a
corrosive gas is not being transported,
per section 192.475(a);
ii. In-line inspection data confirms
that a corrosive environment does not
exist within the pipeline; or
iii. Application of internal corrosion
direct assessment (ICDA) demonstrates
that there is no internal corrosion
occurring at the most likely locations,
and is accompanied by sufficient
documentation to demonstrate the
assumptions used with the ICDA model
(normally dry gas with occasional
upsets) are valid for the pipeline’s entire
operating history.
The threat of internal corrosion
should be considered active if:
i. Production, storage, or non-
pipeline-quality gas was transported at
any time during the history of the
pipeline;
ii. The pipeline has been converted
from another type of service that is
susceptible to internal corrosion;
iii. Unmonitored or inoperative drips,
siphons, dead legs, or other liquid
holdup points are present anywhere in
the pipeline;
iv. There is evidence that liquids from
drips, siphons, dead legs, or other liquid
holdup points are present anywhere in
the pipeline;
v. Pipe inspection reports, as required
by section 192.475(b), indicate evidence
of internal corrosion; or
vi. The operator does not have a
complete pipeline operating history.
3. Stress Corrosion Cracking
The threat of stress corrosion cracking
(SCC) should always be considered
active. The operator must continually
inspect the pipeline for the presence of
SCC during pipeline examination, as
required by section 192.459.
Static or Stable Threats
4. Manufacturing
There is substantial guidance
provided in the original Gas
Transmission IM protocols (e.g. Protocol
C.01 Threat Identification), part 192—
subpart O, ASME B31.8S–2004, and the
PHMSA Gas Transmission IM FAQs
(e.g., 219, 220, 221, and 231) regarding
the deactivation of manufacturing
threats for a segment for any given
assessment cycle. Some of this guidance
includes FAQ 219 (manufacturing and
construction (M&C) defects when
subpart J tested), FAQ 220 (M&C defects
when never subpart J tested), and FAQ
231 (5-year operating history).
Additionally, section 192.917(e)(3)
provides guidance for determining
when a manufacturing threat is active.
Section 192.917(e)(3) states, ‘‘[i]f any of
the following changes occur in the
covered segment, an operator must
prioritize the covered segment as a high-
risk segment for the baseline assessment
or a subsequent reassessment.
i. Operating pressure increases above
the maximum operating pressure
experienced during the preceding five
years;
ii. MAOP increases; or
iii. The stresses leading to cyclic
fatigue increase.’’
5. Construction
There is substantial guidance
provided in the original Gas
Transmission IM protocols, part 192—
subpart O, ASME B31.8S–2004, and the
PHMSA Gas Transmission IM FAQs
regarding deactivation of construction
threats for a segment for any given
assessment cycle. Some of this guidance
includes FAQ 219 (M&C defects when
subpart J tested), FAQ 220 (M&C defects
when never subpart J tested), and FAQ
231 (5-year operating history).
Section 192.917(e)(3) provides
guidance for determining when a
construction threat is active, stating,
‘‘[i]f any of the following changes occur
in the covered segment, an operator
must prioritize the covered segment as
a high-risk segment for the baseline
assessment or a subsequent
reassessment:
i. Operating pressure increases above
the maximum operating pressure
experienced during the preceding five
years;
ii. MAOP increases; or
iii. The stresses leading to cyclic
fatigue increase.’’
6. Equipment
An equipment threat is defined in
ASME B31.8S–2004, Appendix A6.1, as
pressure control equipment, relief
equipment, gaskets, O-rings, seal/pump
packing, or any equipment other than
pipe and pipe components. The
equipment threat may be inactive
depending on an operator’s history and
review of the records, as required by
sections 192.613, 192.617, 192.603,
192.605, 192.739, and 192.743.
Operating history, failures, and
abnormal operations records should be
evaluated by integrity personnel to
assist in determining trends and issues
that may not be recognized by local or
other operations personnel.
As identified in ASME B31.8S–2004,
Appendix A6.4, assessments for
equipment threats are normally
conducted during maintenance
activities, per the requirements of the
O&M procedures. Monitoring the data
from operating history and failures is
essential for identifying trends related to
this threat. Communication between
O&M and integrity personnel is a key
component to integrating this threat, as
well as the potential increased risk that
it poses to pipeline segments, into risk
assessments.
Preventative measures and mitigative
measures are an important factor in
maintaining the inactive status of
equipment threats. For example,
recognizing a system-wide problem with
set point drift in a particular regulator
may necessitate a shorter maintenance
cycle or the replacement of the in-
service regulators impacted by this
problem.
Time Independent Threats
7. Third-Party Damage
The third-party threat should never be
considered inactive.
8. Incorrect Operations
Incorrect operations are defined in
ASME B31.8S–2004, Appendix A8.1, as
incorrect operating procedures or failure
to follow a procedure. This threat
should always be considered active.
9. Weather-Related and Outside Forces
Weather-related and outside forces are
defined in ASME B31.8S–2004,
Appendix A9.1, as earth movement,
heavy rains or floods, cold weather and
lightning, or events that may cause pipe
to be susceptible to extreme loading.
This threat should always be considered
active.
Cyclic Fatigue
In addition to the nine threats
referenced in ASME B31.8S–2004,
§ 192.917(e)(2) states, ‘‘[a]n operator
must evaluate whether cyclic fatigue or
other loading condition (including
ground movement, suspension bridge
condition) could lead to a failure or a
deformation, including a dent or gouge,
or other defect in the covered segment.
An evaluation must assume the
presence of threats in the covered
segment that could be exacerbated by
cyclic fatigue. An operator must use the
results from the evaluation together
with the criteria used to evaluate the
significance of this threat to the covered
segment to prioritize the integrity
baseline assessment or reassessment.’’
Cyclic fatigue is a concern because it
is a threat that interacts with all other
threats. Interactive threats are two or
more threats acting on a pipeline or
pipeline segment that increase the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Mar 15, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1

<<<PAGE 3>>>

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
14108 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 50 / Thursday, March 16, 2017 / Notices
probability of failure to a level
significantly greater than the effects of
the individual threats acting alone. In
order to manage cyclic fatigue,
therefore, operators must have system-
specific data applicable to their unique
operating environment to justify the
inactive status of the cyclic fatigue
threat. A system-wide or generic study
of cyclic fatigue may be used by an
operator as long as the operator
documents why the study is applicable
to the segment-specific conditions.
II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB–2017–01)
To: Owners and Operators of Natural
Gas Transmission Pipelines
Subject: Deactivation of Threats
Advisory: The threats identified in
ASME B31.8S–2004 may be considered
active or inactive, but are never
permanently eliminated. ASME B31.8S–
2004, Appendix A, identifies the
information an operator must collect
and analyze for threats, which must
demonstrate an individual threat is not
acting on the pipe before an operator
can properly declare the threat inactive
for each assessment period. A threat
must be considered active if any data
required by Appendix A is missing, as
lack of data indicating the existence of
a threat is not acceptable justification
for considering the threat inactive.
Documents to support the determination
of an inactive threat status must be
maintained, as per the requirements of
§ 192.947(d). An operator does not need
to assess a threat for the current
assessment cycle if that threat is
properly deemed inactive. When
conditions warrant a review or new
information becomes available during
the required § 192.937 evaluation
operators are required to examine each
applicable threat to determine its active
or inactive status.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9,
2017, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2017–05262 Filed 3–15–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Comptroller of the Currency
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Information Collection
Renewal; Submission for OMB Review;
Financial Management Policies—
Interest Rate Risk
AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC), Treasury.
SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent burden, invites the
general public and other Federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on a continuing information
collection as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements
of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct
or sponsor, and the respondent is not
required to respond to, an information
collection unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment
concerning renewal of its information
collection titled, ‘‘Financial
Management Policies—Interest Rate
Risk.’’ The OCC also is giving notice
that it has sent the collection to OMB for
review.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before April 17, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Because paper mail in the
Washington, DC area and at the OCC is
subject to delay, commenters are
encouraged to submit comments by
email, if possible. Comments may be
sent to: Legislative and Regulatory
Activities Division, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Attention:
1557–0299, 400 7th Street SW., Suite
3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington,
DC 20219. In addition, comments may
be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by
electronic mail to prainfo@occ.treas.gov.
You may personally inspect and
photocopy comments at the OCC, 400
7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
For security reasons, the OCC requires
that visitors make an appointment to
inspect comments. You may do so by
calling (202) 649–6700 or, for persons
who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY,
(202) 649–5597. Upon arrival, visitors
will be required to present valid
government-issued photo identification
and submit to security screening in
order to inspect and photocopy
comments.
All comments received, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record
and subject to public disclosure. Do not
include any information in your
comment or supporting materials that
you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of
your comments by mail to: OCC Desk
Officer, 1557–0299, U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC
20503 or by email to oira submission@
omb.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance
Officer, (202) 649–5490 or, for persons
who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY,
(202) 649–5597, Legislative and
Regulatory Activities Division, Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from
OMB for each collection of information
that they conduct or sponsor. The term
‘‘collection of information’’ is defined in
44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c)
and includes agency requests or
requirements that members of the public
submit reports, keep records, or provide
information to a third party. The OCC
requests that OMB extend approval of
the following information collection.
Title: Financial Management
Policies—Interest Rate Risk.
OMB Control No.: 1557–0299.
Type of Review: Regular.
Affected Public: Businesses or other
for-profit.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Burden Estimate:
Estimated Number of Respondents:
372.
Estimated Annual Burden: 14,880.
Description: This information
collection covers the recordkeeping
burden for maintaining data in
accordance with OCC’s regulation on
interest rate risk procedures for Federal
savings associations, 12 CFR 163.176.
The purpose of the regulation is to
ensure that Federal savings associations
are managing their exposure to interest
rate risk appropriately. To comply with
this reporting requirement, institutions
need to maintain sufficient records to
document how their interest rate risk
exposure is monitored and managed
internally.
Comments: The OCC issued a notice
for 60 days of comment on December
27, 2016, 81 FR 95302. The OCC
received one comment from an
individual. The commenter stated that
the OCC should rescind 12 CFR 163.176
or, if the OCC determines that it is
important and should not be removed,
it should be amended to also apply to
national banks. The commenter stated
that, while interest rate risk exposure at
one time was different for savings
associations and commercial banks,
today there is no difference and the two
charter types should be subject to
similar regulation. The commenter also
stated that the regulation is outdated
and unnecessary and should be
rescinded, citing several OCC bulletins
that the commenter claims state
expectations for interest rate risk
VerDate 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