{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-09-0021","title":"New Mexico Public Regulation Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2009-08-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-09-0021 response to New Mexico Public Regulation Commission concerning 192.619.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0021.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0021.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0021","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2010/PI-09-0021.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nof Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nAUG 1 1 2010\nMr. Joe M. Johnson\nActing Bureau Chief\nNew Mexico Public Regulation Commission\nPipeline Safety Bureau\n1120 Paseo de Peralta\nSanta Fe, New Mexico 87504\nDear Mr. Johnson:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nOctober 19,2009, you requested an opinion/interpretation on the requirements of § 192.619 and\nasked whether the current policy of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission's Pipeline\nSafety Bureau (PSB) on determining maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for\nintrastate gas pipelines regulated by the PSB is acceptable.\nYou stated that the PSB had recently performed compliance reviews involving older (pre-1970)\ngas pipelines for which the operators were unable to provide operating pressure records for the\nfive year period preceding July 1, 1970. These operators are suggesting that they do not believe\nthat they have to comply with the MAOP requirements of § 192.619(a)(3) on the grounds that\nthe lines are pre-code. You stated that in some cases, this had resulted in those operators\nattempting to establish MAOPs of their pre-code pipelines at a pressure higher than the pipeline\nhad ever been known to operate at without pressure testing or uprating the pipeline.\nYou correctly stated that under Part 192, gas distribution and transmission pipelines operated\nprior to July 1, 1970, that were not pressure tested after July 1, 1965, and for which the operating\npressure for the five years preceding July 1, 1970, cannot be documented, the pipeline would\nneed to be pressure tested or uprated in order to establish a MAOP for the pipeline. However,\nyou also stated that for a number of years it has been PSB's alternative practice to:\na) Accept an affidavit from a person responsible for pipeline operations during that time\nperiod, attesting to the operating pressure during that period; or\nb) Require the operator to consult with PSB and select a substitute five year period,\nacceptable to the PSB in lieu of testing or uprating pre-1970 pipelines in § 192.619( a)(3).\nYou stated that your internal policy in this regard is as follows:\n1) PSB would review available operating records. PSB would choose operating\nrecords dating back as close to the five years preceding July 1, 1970, and would\nuse operating records for the 1970' s whenever possible;\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49 CFR\nParts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts\npresented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to\nhelp the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\n2) PSB would not accept operating records after the date an operator was inspected\nor cited for an MAOP violation as a substitute for the period specified in\n§ 192.619(a)(3); and\n3) If the pipeline operator and PSB cannot agree on a substitute pressure, the\noperator is given a reasonable amount oftime to pressure test, uprate, or\notherwise provide adequate documentation to support the intended MAOP.\nWe agree with PSB that gas distribution and transmission pipelines operated prior to\nJuly 1, 1970, that were not pressure tested after July 1, 1965, and for which operating pressure\nfor the five years preceding July 1, 1970, cannot be documented, the pipeline would need to be\npressure tested or uprated in order to establish a MAOP for the pipeline in accordance with\nPart 192.\nRegarding PSB's alternative practice of accepting affidavits or other operating records in lieu of\npressure testing or uprating ofpipelines in the absence of pre-July 1, 1970 pipeline operating\npressure data, we would note that Part 192 has no regulatory language to support the allowance\nofthe PBS alternative practice. In order to establish a MAOP in a manner other than pressure\ntesting or uprating in accordance with Subpart K of Part 192, an operator would have to seek a\nwaiver and provide justification for its proposed alternative approach.\nI hope that this information is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me\nat (202) 366-4046.\nSinc~rely,\n\" / j/( / / /~ 10\nC~///I /;--./J;(\nJo· . ale\n. Director, Office of Regulations\n/\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations\n(49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the\nspecific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and\nare provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nPHP Controlled Correspondence Sheet\nPHMSA Control Number: Action Office: PHP- 30\nPHP Control Number: 10-0016 Due Date: 12/28/2009\nWriter: Joe M. Johnson\nSubject: : New Mexico Public Regulation Commission request an\nopinion/interpretation on the requirements of Section 192.619\nAction: Opinion/interpretation\nDate Action Action by\nDate Note Note by\nFor more information please contact:\nGlenda Marshall, Glenda.marshall@dot.gov\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\norr 28 2009\nNEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION\nCOMMISSIONERS\nDISTRICT 1 JASON MARKS\nDISTRICT 2 DAVID W. KING, VICE CHAIRMAN\nDISTRICT 3 JEROME D. BLOCK\nDISTRICT 4 CAROL K. SLOAN\nDISTRICT 5 SANDY JONES, CHAIRMAN\nP.O. Box 1269\n1 120 Paseo De Peralta Room 409\nSanta Fe, NM 87504-1269\nTransportation Division Director\nLarry L. Lujan\n(505) 476-0298 Main Line\n(505) 827-4388 Fax\nCHIEF OF STAFF\nDaniel \"Danny\" Mayfield\nOctober 19, 2009\nMr. Jeff Wiese, Associate Administrator\nUS DOT/PHMSA/OPS\nPHH-1\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nEast Bldg., 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Wiese:\nI am writing to request an opinion/interpretation on the requirements of Section 192.619 and whether\nour current policy on determining maximum allowable operating pressures (MAOPs) for pipelines is\nacceptable.\nRecently we have had a couple of operators of older (pre-code) pipelines who have suggested that for\npipelines operated prior to July 1, 1970, and operating records for the 5 years preceding July 1, 1970 are\nnot available, that they do not have to comply with the requirements of Section 192.619(a,3). In some\ncases this has resulted in those operators attempting to establish MAOPs of their pre-code pipelines at a\npressure higher than the pipeline has ever been known to operate at, without pressure testing or\nuprating the pipeline.\nIn accordance with Section 192.619 What is the maximum allowable operating pressure for steel or\nplastic pipelines?, with one exception as provided in paragraph (c) of 192.619, no person may operate a\nsegment of steel or plastic gas distribution or transmission pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the\nlowest of the following:\n1\n1 888 4 ASK PRe\nwww.nmprc.state.nm.us\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n(1) The design pressure ofthe weakest element in the segment, determined in accordance with\nsubparts C and D of Part 192.\n(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment was tested after construction\nas specified in paragraph 192.619(a,2}.\n(3) The highest actual operating pressure to which the segment was subjected during the 5 years\npreceding July 1, 1970, unless the segment was tested according to the requirements in paragraph\n192.619(a,2} after July 1, 1965 or the segment was uprated according to the requirements in subpart\nK.\n(4) The pressure determined by the operator to be the maximum safe pressure after considering the\nhistory ofthe segment, particularly known corrosion and the actual operating pressure.\nIt is our understanding that for gas distribution and transmission pipelines operated prior to July I, 1970,\nthat were not pressure tested after July I, 1965, and operating pressure for the 5 years preceding July I,\n1970, is unknown the pipeline would need to be pressure tested or uprated in order to establish the\nMaximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) for the pipeline.\nHowever, for a number of years it has been our practice to:\na} Accept an affidavit from a person responsible for pipeline operations during that time period,\nattesting to the operating pressure during that period, or\nb} The operator must consult with the Pipeline Safety Bureau and may select a substitute 5 year\nperiod, acceptable to the Pipeline Safety Bureau, in lieu of testing or uprating pipelines that\nwere operated prior to July I, 1970, and the operator cannot document the highest operating\npressure for the 5 years preceding July 1,1970, as specified in Section 192.619(a,3}. Our internal\npolicy in this regard is as follows:\nI} Review available operating records. We will choose operating records dating back as close to\nthe 5 years preceding July I, 1970, and will try to find operating records for the 1970s, whenever\npossible. Those records have a higher probability of reflecting operating pressures for the period\nspecified in Section 192.619(a,3}.\n2} We will not accept operating records after the date an operator was inspected or cited for an\nMAOP violation as a substitute for the period specified in 192.619(a,3}.\n3} If the pipeline operator and the Pipeline Safety Bureau cannot agree on a substitute pressure,\nthe operator is given a reasonable amount of time to:\n(a) pressure test,\n(b) uprate, or\n(c) provide adequate documentation to support the intended MAOP.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nIs the above policy acceptable as an alternative to pressure testing or uprating, when records needed to\ndemonstrate compliance with Section 192.619(a,3) are not available.\nSincerely,\n~P)J1.~\nJoe M. Johnson,\nActing Bureau Chief\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":9979}