{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-18-0013","title":"Michigan PSC — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2018-11-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-18-0013 response to Michigan PSC concerning 192.483.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-18-0013.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-18-0013.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-18-0013","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/69991/michigan-psc-pi-18-0013-11-05-2018-part-192483.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nUS. Department\nofTransportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington DC 20590\nN~V O 5 2018\nMr. David J. Chislea\nManager of Gas Operations\nMichigan Public Service Commission\n7109 W. Saginaw Highway\nLansing, MI 48917\nDear Mr. Chislea:\nIn a May 16, 2018, letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 192. Specifically, you requested\ninterpretation for external corrosion remedial measures to \"hot-spot\" protected pipelines under §\n192.483( c ). You provided a summary of PHMSA issued interpretations and requested response\nfor the following questions. PHMSA's responses follow each question.\nQuestion 1. An operator experiences a corrosion leak on an electrically-continuous unprotected\nsteel distribution pipeline. The operator then installs a leak clamp and an anode at this location.\nDoes the operator have to comply with the monitoring requirements in 49 CFR 192.465 and the\nlevel of cathodic protection criteria in 49 CFR 192.463?\nPHMSA Response 1. Yes, at a \"hot-spot\" location, an anode must be installed on an otherwise\ncathodically-unprotected pipeline. Installation of an anode at this spot makes it cathodically\nprotected. Therefore, as stated in§ 192.465(a), unless tests at those intervals are impractical,\neach pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once each calendar year,\nbut with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection meets\nthe requirements of§ 192.463.\nIn addition, under§ 192.465(e), after the initial evaluation required by§§ 192.455(b) and (c) and\n192.457(b), each operator must, not less than every 3 years at intervals not exceeding 39 months,\nreevaluate its unprotected pipelines (in this case, \"hot spots\") and cathodically protect them in\naccordance with this subpart in areas in which active corrosion is found.\nPHMSA prepares guidance to assist its stakeholders and the public to understand how it\ninterprets it regulations. Guidance documents describe the practices used by PHMSA pipeline\nsafety investigators and other enforcement personnel in undertaking their compliance, inspection,\nand enforcement activities. PHMSA's Corrosion Enforcement Guidance, explains that\nPHMSA's regulations require that short sections of separately protected coated and \"hot spot\"\nprotected bare (ineffectively coated) sections of pipeline be surveyed on an annual 10 percent\nbasis with a different 10 percent checked each subsequent year so that all these sections are\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49 CFR\nParts 190-199) in the fonn ofinterpretation 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\ntested in each 10-year period. If the \"hot spot\" is included in the 3-year monitoring program,\ntransmission operators who are electrically monitoring their entire bare (ineffectively coated)\nsections of pipeline on a one-third per year basis would not have to include their \"hot spot\"\nprotected sections of pipeline in a 10 percent monitoring program\n(https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Corrosion Enforcement Guidance\nPart192 12 7 2015.pdf).\nQuestion 2. An operator experiences external corrosion that did not result in a leak on an ·\nelectrically continuous unprotected steel distribution pipeline. The operator recoats the pipeline\nat this location and installs an anode. Does the operator have to comply with the monitoring\nrequirements in 49 CFR 192.465 and the level of cathodic protection criteria in 49 CFR 192.463?\nPHMSA Response 2. Yes, similar to the answer to Question 1, cathodically protected pipelines\nmust comply with§§ 192.463 and 192.465 requirements.\nQuestion 3. If so, at what interval does the operator have to monitor the \"hot-spot?\"\nPHMSA Response 3. Please refer to response to question 1.\nQuestion 4. Does the operator's threat assessment prioritization through the distribution integrity\nmanagement plan [DIMP] have an impact on how this would be enforced if these \"hot spot\"\nareas are identified and ranked as a corrosion threat? Could the operator's increased corrosion\nthreat identification in a hot spot area through the integrity management program potentially\neliminate the monitoring requirements in 49 CFR 192.465 and the level of cathodic protection\ncriteria in§ 192.463?\nPHMSA Response 4. While these requirements are complimentary, an operator is required to\ncomply with both regulations. It is a pipeline operator's responsibility to prioritize its pipeline\nsystem assessment for safety threats. However, the operator must comply with these sections as\nwell as the DIMP requirements.\nAs to your second question, integrity management cannot be used to eliminate the requirements\nin§§ 192.465 and 192.463. Relief from those regulations may only be granted under a\nwaiver/special permit according to§ 190.341, and would involve alternative safety measures. In\n49 CFR, Part i 92, subpart P, Gas Distribution Integrity Management outlines in § 192.1007 how\nto identify, evaluate and implement measures to address risks. Implementation of additional\nmeasures to eliminate threats and risks from unprotected \"hot spot\" areas would not allow the\noperator to avoid complying with the monitoring requirements in 49 CFR § 192.465 and the\nlevel of cathodic protection in 49 CFR § 192.463.\nQuestion 5. Are \"hot-spot\" protected areas on electrically continuous pipeline considered\n\"separately protected?\"\nPHMSA Response 5. Yes, a \"hot-spot\" is a location where a leak clamp and an anode has been\ninstalled on an otherwise cathodically-unprotected pipeline and the \"hot spot\" must comply with\n§§ 192.463 and 192.465 requirements. Other examples of pipelines considered separately\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\n3\nprotected would be steel pipelines connected to other pipe materials such as cast iron and a\nplastic.\nQuestion 6. Why were the interpretations in Numbers 4, 5, and 6 removed from PHMSA's\nwebsite?\nPHMSA Response 6. The October 28, 1996, PHMSA interpretation was removed because of a\nregulatory change to§ 192.465(e). The September 17, 1976, letter may have been removed\nduring changes to the PHMSA public website. We are looking into the status of this\ninterpretation. The July 15, 1993, letter (Pl-93-035) is posted on the PHMSA website, available\nat https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/b/2/1/list?filter=Pipelines.\nIfwe can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523.\nSincerely,\nDirector, Office of Standards\nand Rulemaking\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 4>>>\n\nNAY 2 5 2018\nMichigan Public Service Commission\n7109 W. Saginaw Highway\nLansing, MI 48917\nMay 16, 2018\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (PHP-30)\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nSubject: Request for Interpretation of CFR 49 Part § 192.483\nDear Sir or Madam,\nThe Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) is formally requesting an interpretation of 49\nCFR 192.483 entitled \"Remedial measures: General.\"\n49 CFR 192.483(c) states \"Except for cast iron or ductile iron pipe, each segment of buried or\nsubmerged pipe that is required to be repaired because of external corrosion must be cathodically\nprotected in accordance with this subpart.\"\nSpecifically, the MPSC is requesting clarification of the applicability of 49 CFR 192.483(c) to\n\"hot-spot\" protected pipelines. A \"hot-spot\" is a location where an anode has been installed on\nan otherwise cathodically-unprotected pipeline. The phrase \"must be cathodically protected in\naccordance with this subpart\" implies that the monitoring requirements in 49 CFR 192.465 apply\nto \"hot-spots\" if the anodes were installed because of external corrosion.\nListed below are interpretations publicly available on PHMSA's website.\n1. Interpretation PI-71-088\nIssued December 20, 1971\nRule 192.463\nInterpretation states in part \" ... we wish to point out that the 10% resurvey per year\napplies only to separately protected service lines or to separately protected short sections\nof mains not in excess of 100 feet (Section 192.465). The 10% resurvey does not apply\nto \"hot spot\" protection. Monitoring tests of \"hot spot\" protected sections of electrically\ncontinuous pipelines must be made each year. (After all, this would require less work\nthan checking a bare pipeline that is cathodically protected in its entirety using galvanic\nanodes as described in your statement (b).)\"\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n2. Interpretation PI-75-001\nIssued January 9, 1975\nRule 192.457\nInterpretation states in part \"You ask whether installing anodes when leaks detected on\nthe lines are repaired satisfies section 192.457(b)(l) ... the method proposed for\ncompliance with section 192.457(b)(l) would be satisfactory only where it is impractical\nto find areas of active corrosion by electrical survey and instead leak surveys are utilized,\nand the cathodic protection installed complies with Subpart I, specifically section\n192.463.\"\n3. Interpretation PI-76-035\nIssued July 8, 1976\nRule 192.457\nInterpretation states in part \"How often must a pipeline that is cathodically protected only\nin areas of active corrosion be monitored under Section 192.465? Such a pipeline may be\ndivided into protected and unprotected sections. Section 192.465(a) requires that the\nprotected sections must be tested at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection meets the\nrequirements of Section 192.463. However, Section 192.465(a) further provides that if\ntests at those intervals are impractical for separately protected service lines and short\nsections of protected mains, not in excess of 100 feet, these service lines and mains may\nbe surveyed on a sampling basis as set forth in the section. Section 192.465(e) requires\nthat at intervals not exceeding 3 years, unprotected sections must be reevaluated and\ncathodically protected in areas in which active corrosion is found.\"\nAdditionally, there are PHMSA interpretations that are no longer available on PHMSA's\nwebsite.\n4. Issued October 28, 1996\nRule 192.457\nInterpretation states in part \"Hot spot protected areas are subject to the monitoring\nrequirements of§ 192.465(a) if the anodes were installed to meet the corrosion control\nrequirements of Subpart I of Part 192. The 3-year evaluation required by §192.465(e)\napplies to the unprotected segments of a hot spot protected pipeline and to any segments\nprotected by voluntarily installed anodes.\"\n5. Issued September 17, 1976\nRule 192.465\nInterpretation states in part \"Your memo of 8/31/76 asks whether, in accordance with\nQuestion 6 of the July 1976 Advisory Bulletin, each of 14,747 \"hot spot\" protected areas\non a transmission line must be tested annually. Under 49 CFR 192.465(a), each\ncathodically protected section of a transmission line must be tested annually.\"\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n6. Issued July 15, 1993\nRule 192.483\nInterpretation states in part \"In contrast, § § 192.4 79(b ), 192.481, and 192.483 do not\nallow operators to exercise discretion in applying protection against corrosion. Operators\nmust apply the prescribed protective measures to all corrosion covered by these\nstandards.\"\nBased on what is written in Subpart I and the content in the interpretations, the MPSC believes\nthat \"hot-spots\" on electrically-continuous pipelines are required to be tested annually in\naccordance with 49 CFR 192.465(a). However, based on responses levied from other states, it\nappears enforcement on this subject varies from strict adherence to annual monitoring to not\nrequiring monitoring of hot-spots at all.\nIn response to what is written in 49 CFR 192.483 and the listed interpretations, the MPSC is\nrequesting a formal response to the following:\n1. An operator experiences a corrosion leak on an electrically-continuous unprotected steel\ndistribution pipeline. The operator then installs a leak clamp and an anode at this\nlocation. Does the operator have to comply with the monitoring requirements in 49 CFR\n192.465 and the level of cathodic protection criteria in 49 CFR 192.463?\n2. An operator experiences external corrosion that did not result in a leak on an electrically-\ncontinuous unprotected steel distribution pipeline. The operator recoats the pipeline at\nthis location and installs an anode. Does the operator have to comply with the monitoring\nrequirements in 49 CFR 192.465 and the level of cathodic protection criteria in 49 CFR\n192.463?\n3. If so, at what interval does the operator have to monitor the \"hot-spot?\"\n4. Does the operator's threat assessment prioritization through the distribution integrity\nmanagement plan have an impact on how this would be enforced if these \"hot spot\" areas\nare identified and ranked as a corrosion threat? Could the operator's increased corrosion\nthreat identification in a hot spot area through the integrity management program\npotentially eliminate the monitoring requirements in 49 CFR 192.465 and the level of\ncathodic protection criteria in Rule 192.463?\n5. Are \"hot-spot\" protected areas on electrically continuous pipeline considered \"separately\nprotected?\"\n6. Why were the interpretations in Numbers 4, 5, and 6 removed from PHMSA's website?\nYour attention to these matters is appreciated.\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nSincerely,\nDavid J. Chislea\nManager of Gas Operations\nMichigan Public Service Commission\n(517) 241-6132","truncated":false,"body_characters":14802}