{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-09-0011","title":"Interstate Natural Gas Association of America — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2009-07-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-09-0011 response to Interstate Natural Gas Association of America concerning 192.939.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0011","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2009/PI-09-0011.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJUL 1 7 2009\nMr. Terry D. Boss\nSenior V.P. of Environmental Safety and Operations\nInterstate Natural Gas Association of America\nlOG Street, N .E., Suite 700\nWashington, DC 20002\nDear Mr. Boss:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nMarch 20, 2009, you requested that PHMSA interpret the statutory seven-year gas pipeline\nintegrity reassessment interval to allow reassessments to be conducted every seven calendar\nyears not to exceed 90 months. You expressed your view that the current requirement to conduct\nreassessments seven actual years from the anniversary date of a segment's last assessment did\nnot provide adequate flexibility to pipeline operators in the event of unanticipated developments\nand seasonal considerations.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 601 09(c)(3)(B), gas pipeline operators are required to periodically\nreassess the integrity of pipeline facilities covered by their integrity management\nprograms \"at a minimum of once every 7 years ... \". The implementing regulations at\n49 CFR § I 92.939(a) require that reassessments and alternative methods of reassessments\nsuch as confirmatory direct assessments be conducted within the seven-year period after\nthe previous assessment of a covered segment. This requirement is also reflected in a\nFrequently Asked Question available on PHMSA's website reprinted as FAQ 41 below:\nFAQ41\nQuestion: Does the requirement that an operator establish inspection intervals not\nto exceed a specified number of years mean calendar years (i.e., pipe assessed in\n2004 must be re-assessed during 2011) or actual years?\nAnswer: Re-assessments must be conducted within the specified number of\nactual years. For example, a pipe segment assessed on March 23, 2004, must be\nre-assessed before March 23, 2011, using at least confirmatory direct assessment.\nThis segment would need to be re-assessed using one of the methods specified in\nthe rule before March 23,2014, March 23, 2019, or March 23, 2024, depending\non its operating stress (see § I 92.939). ~\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n..\n2\nTherefore, the current requirement is seven actual years from the anniversary date of the last\nassessment of a covered segment.\nIn your letter, you contend that it would have been permissible under the statute for PHMSA to\nadopt a requirement of seven calendar years not to exceed 90 months as you have proposed\nrather than the seven actual year requirement given Congress' intent and the legislative context\nand history. You also point out that a number of other inspection intervals established by\nPHMSA in Part 192 provide for additional flexibility in the interval.\nIn implementing the statute, PHMSA adopted the seven actual year requirement and did so by\nformal rulemaking. Therefore, a change from the current seven actual year requirement to the\nseven calendar years not to exceed 90 months approach you are advocating would also have to\nbe done by rulemaking and cannot be accomplished by \"re-interpretation.\" The other intervals\nyou point out were all established by rulemaking, not by interpretation.\nAccordingly, the seven actual year requirement must remain in place unless and until a\nregulatory proceeding to fonnally amend the rule is undertaken. At that time, PHMSA would\ninvite comment on whether your approach is warranted in tenns of safety and is consistent with\nthe statute.\nI hope that this information is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me\nat (202) 366-4046.\n~\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator for\nPipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nn\nMarch 20, 2009\nJeffrey D. Wiese, Associate Administrator\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nVIA FIRST CLASS AND ELECTRONIC MAIL\nRe: Request for Reinterpretation: Required Reassessment Interval per 49 C.F.R. § 192.939\nDear Mr. Wiese:\nSection 14(a) of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (\"Section 14(a)\") established that\nintegrity management reassessments must occur \"at a minimum of once every 7 years.\"l Ambiguity in\nthis provision prompted a question: Does the requirement mean calendar years, i.e., that pipe segments\nreceiving baseline assessments in 2004 would have to be re-assessed sometime in 20 11; or, does the\nrequirement mean actual years, i.e., each facility would have to be re-assessed no later than seven years\nfrom the day of its baseline assessment. In Frequently Asked Question (\"F AQ\") 41, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (\"PHMSA\") interpreted the requirement to mean actual years:\nReassessments must be conducted within the specified number of actual years. For\nexample, a pipe segment assessed on March 23, 2004 must be re-assessed before\nMarch 23,2011, using at least confirmatory direct assessment. This segment would need\nto be re-assessed using one of the methods specified in the rule before March 23, 2014,\nMarch 23, 2019 or March 23, 2024, depending on its operating stress.2\nThe \"anniversary approach\" reflected in FAQ 41 is one possible interpretation of Section 14(a).\nThe better (more flexible) interpretation, the interpretation which harmonizes Section 14(a), recognized\nindustry standards, operational requirements and PHMSA's own long-standing precedents, is a modified\ncalendar approach.\nFor the reasons detailed below, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America urges\nPHMSA to reinterpret Section 14(a) to mean that reassessments must be conducted every seven\ncalendar years with intervals not exceeding seven and one-half years (90 months).\nINGAA 's suggested interpretation is statutorily permissible.\nINGAA's suggested interpretation is not precluded by Section 14(a). In fact, INGAA's suggested\ninterpretation is fully consistent with the statute's broader purposes and Congress's specific reservations\nabout the proper length for the reassessment interval. Section 14(a) reflects a broader congressional\nmandate: establishing pipeline integrity management as a risk-based approach to improving pipeline\nsafety. The legislative history does not shed light on why Congress chose seven years as the reassessment\n2\nPub. L. No. 107-355, 116 Stat. 2985, 3003 (2002) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 60109(c)(3)(B)).\nAvailable online at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp/FagHome.gim?c=l. The response cites to 49\nC.F.R. § 192.939.\nINTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA\n10 G STREET, N.E., SUITE 700' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nRequest for Reinterpretation: Reassessment Interval\nMarch 20, 2009\nPage 2 of7\ninterval, but elements of Section 14 suggest Congress was not wedded to defining the interval as seven\nyears to the day.\nA provision of Section 14(a) granted the Secretary of Transportation broad authority to waive the\nreassessment interval as long as pipeline safety was not compromised.3 The statute specifically mentions\nwaivers based on potential supply disruption or tool availabiIity,4 and these specific grounds appear in\nPHMSA's regulations;5 however, the authorization granted in Section 14(a) is not limited to these cases,\nand the legislative history indicates waivers should be granted liberally:\nThe Secretary is authorized to grant waivers and modifications pursuant to [49\nU.S.c. § 60118(c)] for any requirement for reassessment of a facility for reasons that\nmay include the need to maintain local product supply or the lack of internal inspection\ndevices. The waivers or modifications shall not be inconsistent with pipeline safety. The\nSecretary is encouraged to make use of waivers and modifications where necessary and\nnot inconsistent with purposes of pipeline safety, especially if local product supply\nmaybe interrupted if a waiver or modification is not granted.6\nIf Congress intended a strictly enforced, seven-years-to-the-day reading of the reassessment requirement,\nit would not have granted the flexibility implicit in Section 14's relatively liberal waiver provision.\nOne can reasonably interpret the waiver provision as betraying congressional unease about the\npropriety of selecting seven years instead of some other reassessment interval. Such unease is further\nevidenced by Section 14(d) of the 2002 Pipeline Safety Act, which directed the Comptroller General to\nevaluate the seven year interval and issue a report.7 The report concluded that the seven year interval was\nneedlessly conservative, and the preferred course would be to adopt industry consensus standards that\nestablish a range of reassessment periods (generally longer than seven years) based on a set of risk\nfactors, technical data and engineering analyses.8 INGAA is not mentioning this report to re-argue the\nmerits of risk-based reassessment intervals. It is sufficient to note that Congress would not have\nrequested this evaluation if it was certain that a seven year reassessment level was precisely right.9\nPub. L. No. 107-355, 116 Stat. 2985, 3005 (2002) (codified at 49 U.S.c. § 60109(c)(5».\n4\n6\n7\n9\nId.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.943(a)(l), (2).\nH.R. Rep. No. 107-605, pt. 2, at 27-28 (2002) (emphasis supplied).\nPub. L. No. 107-355, 116 Stat. 2985, 3005 (2002).\nGovernment Accountability Office, Pub. GAO-06-945, Natural Gas Pipeline Safety: Risk-Based Standards\nShould Allow Operators to Better Tailor Reassessments to Pipeline Threats 5-6 (Sep. 2006) (\"GAO\nReassessment Report\"). The report notes that the Department of Transportation generally agreed with\nthese findings. Id. at 6.\nIt could also be argued that when Congress adopted Section 14 it was not writing on a clean slate. As\ndetailed later in this letter, by 2002 PHMSA's predecessors had adopted over 20 different natural gas\nregulations using flexible scheduling instead of rigid, recurring intervals. Viewed from this perspective,\nCongress could well have assumed PHMSA would apply similar flexibility to the seven year reassessment\ninterval.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nRequest for Reinterpretation: Reassessment Interval\nMarch 20, 2009\nPage 3 of7\nINGAA 's suggested interpretation is operationally necessary.\nThe GAO Reassessment Report correctly noted that integrity assessments and reassessments are\nnot spread evenly throughout the year:\nIn early 2006, INGAA and [the American Gas Association (\"AGA\")] polled their\nmembers about their experiences with and plans for conducting assessments and\nreassessments during off-peak and peak months. Overall, INGAA and AGA found that,\nfrom 2003 to 2012, members plan to conduct 76 percent of their baseline assessments and\nreassessments on their gas transmission pipelines (measured in miles) during the off-peak\nspring and summer months, 18 percent in the fall, and 6 percent in the winter. lo\nFAQ 41 's anniversary approach will force operators to schedule reassessments a month or two before a\npipeline segment's anniversary date, simply to create a cushion that will ensure compliance in the event\nof unanticipated developments. For segments with anniversary dates early in the reassessment season\nthere are only two ways to maintain this cushion: schedule the reassessment during the peak season or,\nmore likely, schedule the reassessment close to a year early. Even segments with anniversary dates late in\nthe off-peak season are only a few reassessment cycles away from this dilemma, as cushioning will tend\nto cause scheduled inspections to drift closer and closer to the beginning of the off-peak season.\nMoreover, a strict anniversary approach gives operators no flexibility to schedule reassessment\nactivities within a given off-peak season. Segments must be re-assessed in the order of their baseline\nassessments, even if developments during the intervening seven years would make a different order more\nefficient or preferable based on risk factors.\nINGAA's suggested interpretation addresses these problems by giving operators the flexibility to\nschedule reassessments efficiently within a peak season. This approach enhances pipeline operations and\navoids waiver requests that would otherwise impose regulatory costs on operators and PHMSA. These\nbenefits would be achieved without compromising pipeline safety, as all pipeline segments would have to\nbe reassessed within seven calendar years.\nINGAA 's suggested interpretation not only accords with industry standards, it exceeds them.\nAs noted in the GAO report, the industry consensus standard for integrity reassessment is\nStandard ASME B31.8S-2004,1l approved and issued by the American Society of Mechanical\nEngineers.12 Under B31.8S, the generally applicable reassessment interval for pipelines operating above\n50% of specified minimum yield strength is 10 years. 13\n10\nII\n12\n13\nId. at 34.\nId. at 14.\nAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pub. ASME 831.8S-2004, Managing System Integrity of Gas\nPipelines (Jan. 2005) (\"8312.8S\").\nId at 23, Figure 4 - Timing for Scheduled Responses: Time-Dependent Threats, Prescriptive Integrity\nManagement Plan (Jan. 2005). This request for reinterpretation is not intended to apply to cases where a\nshorter reassessment period is warranted by the 22-point threat assessment detailed in 831.8S section 2,\nwhich is incorporated into PHMSA's regulations. 49 C.F .R. § 192. 7( c )(2)(D)(5) (incorporating 8312.8S by\nreference); 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(a) (imposing 831.8S section 2 as substantive regulation).\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nRequest for Reinterpretation: Reassessment Interval\nMarch 20, 2009\nPage 4 of7\nUnder INGAA's suggested interpretation, the maximum reassessment interval would be seven\nand one half years, 14 still far more conservative than B31.8S.\nINGAA 's suggested interpretation is in line with long-standing P HMSA precedent.\nOver 30 years ago, PHMSA's predecessor recognized that rigid compliance schedules do not\nsufficiently allow operators sufficient operational flexibility .15 The agency responded by amending a\nseries of Part 192 regulations to redefine rigid compliance schedules more flexibly:\nRegulation (49 C.F.R.) Subject Original Compliance Schedule Amended Compliance\nSchedule\n192.465(b) Inspection of cathodic protection rectifiers Inspect at intervals not exceeding two months. Inspect six times annually at\nintervals not exceeding two\nand one-half months.\n192.465(c) Inspection of reverse current switches, diodes and interference bonds Inspect at intervals not exceeding two months. Inspect six times annually at\nintervals not exceeding two\nand one-half months.\n192.477 Inspection of coupons or other means of monitoring internal corrosion Inspect at intervals not exceeding six months. Inspect twice annually at\nintervals not exceeding seven\nand one-half months.\n192.481 Evaluation of offshore pipelines exposed to the atmosphere Evaluate at intervals not exceeding one year. Evaluate once each calendar\nyear but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months.\nThe agency expanded flexible compliance scheduling in 1982, noting the operational justification for this\napproach and confirming the absence of any reduction in pipeline safety:\nPetitioners . . . have argued that such recurring time intervals do not permit\nsufficient flexibility in scheduling personnel. They stated that the extremes of weather\nand unexpected delays in scheduled work unavoidably conflict with the specified\nintervals, but that restating the periodic requirements on a calendar year basis, with\nlonger intervals, would provide the flexibility needed to schedule personnel to meet the\nrequirements without reducing public safety.\nExperience shows that requirements for periodic action on a fixed recurring\ninterval do not allow sufficient flexibility in scheduling personnel. However, minor\nmodifications which extend the intervals without reducing the number of inspections,\ntests, or other activities that must be performed each year will allow operators more\ndiscretion in scheduling. 16\nAs shown below, the 1982 amendments affected 18 substantive provisions within Part 192:\n14\n15\n16\nEven this is an overstatement. Requiring reassessment every seven calendar years ensures that seven and\none half year reassessments could not be stacked one on top of another.\nCorrosion Control Requirements, 43 Fed. Reg. 39839 (1978).\nTransportation of Natural and Other Gas and Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline; Inspection and Test\nIntervals, 47 Fed. Reg. 46850 (1982) (emphasis supplied).\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nRequest for Reinterpretation: Reassessment Interval\nMarch 20, 2009\nPage 5 of7\nRegulation (49 C.F.R.) Subject Original Compliance\nSchedule\nI 92.227( d)(l)' Welder requalification Requalify every twelve\nmonths.\nI 92.227(d)(2)b Welder qualification by destructive testing Destructive test every six\nmonths.\nI 92.705(b) Patrolling: Class I and Class 2 - highway and railroad crossings\nPatrol every six months.\nI 92.705(b) Patrolling: Class 3 and Class 4 - highway and railroad crossings\nPatrol every three months.\n192.705(b) Patrolling: Class 1 and Class 2 - general\nPatrol every twelve months.\nI 92.705(b) Patrolling: Class 3 - general Patrol every six months.\n192.705(b) Patrolling: Class 4 - general Patrol every three months.\n192.706 Leakage survey - general Survey every twelve months.\n192.706(a) Leakage survey - no odorant in Class 3\nSurvey every six months.\n192.706(b) Leakage survey - no odorant in Class 4\nSurvey every three months.\n192.721(b)(I Y Patrolling: distribution mains Patrol every three months.\n1 92.723(b)(l) Leakage survey - distribution systems\nSurvey every twelve months.\n192.731(c) Inspection and testing: remote control shutdown devices Inspect and test every twelve\nmonths.\n192.739 Inspection and testing: pressure limiting and regulating stations Inspect and test every twelve\nmonths.\nAmended Compliance\nSchedule\nRequaJify within the\npreceding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year.\nDestructive test within the\nlast seven and one-half\nmonths, but at least twice\neach calendar year.\nPatrol within the last seven\nand one-half months, but at\nleast twice each calendar\nyear.\nPatrol within the last four and\none-half months, but at least\nfour times each calendar\nyear.\nPatrol within the last 15\nmonths, but at least once each\ncalendar year.\nPatrol within the last seven\nand one-half months, but at\nleast twice each calendar\nyear.\nPatrol within the last four and\none-half months, but at least\nfour times each calendar\nyear.\nSurvey within the preceding\n15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year.\nSurvey within the last seven\nand one-half months, but at\nleast twice each calendar\nyear.\nSurvey within the last four\nand one-half months, but at\nleast four times each calendar\nyear.\nPatrol within the last four and\none-half months, but at least\nfour times each calendar\nyear.\nSurvey within the preceding\n15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year.\nInspect and test within the\npreceding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year.\nInspect and test within the\npreceding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year.\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nRequest for Reinterpretation: Reassessment Interval\nMarch 20, 2009\nPage 6 of7\nRegulation (49 C.F.R.) Subject Original Compliance Schedule Amended Compliance\nSchedule\n192.743 Testing: relief devices Test every twelve months. Test within the preceding 15\nmonths, but at least once each\ncalendar year.\n192.745 Inspection and operation: transmission line valves Inspect and operate every twelve months. Inspect and operate within\nthe preceding IS months, but\nat least once each calendar\nyear.\n192.747 Inspection and servicing: distribution line valves Inspect and service every twelve months. Inspect and service within the\npreceding IS months, but at\nleast once each calendar year.\n192.749(a) Inspection: vaults housing pressure regulating or limiting\nequipment\nInspect and service every twelve months. Inspect and service within the\npreceding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year.\nOriginally 192.227(c)(I).\nOriginally 192.227(c)(2).\nOriginally 192. 721 (b).\nFinally, in the closely analogous area of external corrosion control, PHMSA regulations call for\nre-evaluations \"not less than every 3 years at intervals not exceeding 39 months.,,]7\nINGAA asks only that PHMSA take the regulatory philosophy it adopted in all of these other\ncontexts and apply it to integrity assessment. 18\nPlease contact me, tboss@ingaa.org or (202) 216-5930, if you have any questions.\nRespectfully submitted,\n~~~\nTerry D. Boss\nSenior Vice President of\nEnvironment, Safety and Operations\nDan Regan\nRegulatory Attorney\nInterstate Natural Gas Association of America\n10 G Street, N.W., Suite 700\nWashington, DC 20002\n(202) 216-5900\n17\n18\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(e).\nBy some measures, the flexibility INGAA is requesting today is far more modest than that granted in these\nother regulations. Consider the change associated with amending a regulation so a task that used to be\nperformed every three months can now be performed at intervals not exceeding four and one half months,\nbut at least four times per year. The maximum departure from the original schedule is 50% (three months\nvs. four and one-half months). This letter is requesting a change from seven years to at most seven and\none-half years, a maximum departure of less than 8%.\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nRequest for Reinterpretation: Reassessment Interval\nMarch 20, 2009\nPage 70f7\ncc: James M. Pates\nAssistant Chief Counsel\nPipeline Safety Law Division\nBill Gute\nDeputy Associate Administrator","truncated":false,"body_characters":21497}