{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-19-0019","title":"Arizona Corporation Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2021-07-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-19-0019 response to Arizona Corporation Commission concerning 192.739.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-19-0019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-19-0019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-19-0019","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/75661/arizona-cc-pi-19-0019-07-13-2021-part192739.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration July 13, 2021\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. Eric Villa\nProgram Manager\nPipeline Safety Section\nArizona Corporation Commission\n1300 W. Washington Street\nPhoenix, AZ 85007-2996\nDear Mr. Villa:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nOctober 22, 2019, the Arizona Corporation Commission’s Office of Pipeline Safety (AZOPS)\nrequested an interpretation of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 192. Specifically, you\nrequested an interpretation of the requirements of § 192.739 regarding the inspection and testing\nof pressure limiting and regulating stations, including relief devices, for high pressure pipeline\ndistribution systems.\n1\nYou stated that during an annual audit of an operator of a high-pressure gas distribution system,\nrecords of relief device inspections revealed that the set pressure at which the relief device starts\nto open was in excess of the system’s maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP). You\nalso observed that the set point of the monitor regulator was higher than the downstream\nsystem’s MAOP at numerous worker/monitor stations.2\nYour letter raised the concern that, during an emergency pressure-control occurrence, should the\nworker regulator fail and the monitor regulator activate and take-over pressure control, there\nwould be no remaining overpressure protection as required by § 192.195 for the duration of these\noperating conditions.3 You referenced an earlier PHMSA interpretation (PI-14-0016) that stated\nthat overpressure conditions are only allowed for the time taken to activate the overpressure\nprotection device and not for long-term or frequently-occurring normal operating conditions.\n1 On February 20, 2020, AZOPS clarified that its inquiry related to a high-pressure distribution system.\n2 The operator’s written procedures state that the monitor regulator shall achieve a lockup pressure that shall not\nexceed the MAOP plus allowable buildup as defined in § 192.201(a)(2). The operator’s procedures further noted that,\n“[t]he allowance above MAOP is necessary for the safe and reliable operation of the station, recognizing that a monitor\nregulator, if set at a pressure too close to the worker regulator set point, may interfere with the normal operation of the\nworker regulator. Without the allowance, a worker regulator would be unable to operate at its set point(MAOP).”\n3 49 C.F.R. § 192.195 requires protection against accidental overpressuring.\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 are not generally applicable, do not create legally-enforceable rights or\nobligations, and are provided to help the specific requestor understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nTherefore, immediate response by the operator either to shut down or reduce the operating\npressure to normal operating conditions is required under Part 192.\nYou stated that in the case of the worker/monitor stations that supply a distribution system with\nmore than one source of supply, the electronic pressure recording (EPR) device at each\nregulating station is read once each month, so if there are any indications that the worker\nregulator failed, then the overpressure condition may continue for up to 30 days before corrective\naction is taken. When EPR units are not required under § 192.741, then a failed worker regulator\nmay not be discovered for up to 15 months.\n4\nYou believe that any activation of an overpressure protection device requires an immediate\nresponse at the time of occurrence, not the time of discovery. You request clarification on the\nfollowing questions for a high-pressure distribution pipeline system:\nQuestion 1 - Does the relief valve set point at a pressure above the MAOP violate\n§§ 192.739(a)(3) and 192.619?\nPHMSA Response – No, setting a relief valve set-point at a pressure higher than MAOP\ndoes not violate §§ 192.619 or 192.739(a)(3) if the operator meets the applicable relief\nvalve set pressures for MAOP, as defined in either §§ 192.201 or 192.739, for the\nmaximum relief valve set pressures above MAOP. Note that § 192.619 prohibits\noperating a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds a pipeline’s\nMAOP during normal operation.\nQuestion 2 - Does a monitor regulator set-point above the downstream MAOP violate\n§§ 192.739(a)(3) and 192.619?\nPHMSA Response – No, a monitor regulator set-point above the downstream MAOP\ndoes not violate §§ 192.739(a)(3) and 192.619 if the operator installs and operates\npressure-relieving or pressure-limiting devices that meet the requirements of §§ 192.195,\n192.197, 192.199, 192.201 and 192.739, and does not exceed the pipeline’s MAOP\nduring normal operation.\nQuestion 3 - Does the activation of an overpressure protection device require an\nimmediate response at the time of occurrence or at the time of discovery?\nPHMSA Response –Overpressure control devices must be designed, operated and\nmaintained in accordance with all the applicable sections of Part 192, including\n§§ 192.195, 192.197, 192.199, 192.201, and 192.739, as they relate to high-pressure gas\ndistribution systems. For example, operators must determine that these pressure-limiting\ndevices are in good mechanical condition and are adequate from the standpoint of\ncapacity and reliability of operation for the service in which they are employed.\n4 See 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) (requiring operators to conduct inspections of each pressure limiting station, relief device\nand pressure regulating station and its equipment at least once each calendar year, with intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths).\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49\nCFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific\nfacts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided\nto help the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n3\nSection 192.739(a)(1) & (2); see also § 192.605(b)(10)(iii) (requiring operators to\nprepare and follow written procedures for systemic and routine testing and inspection of\npressure limiting equipment to determine that it is in safe operating condition and has\nadequate capacity); see also § 192.615 (requiring written emergency plans for immediate\nresponse to gas pipeline emergencies). In order to fulfill these regulatory obligations,\noperators must respond to these overpressure events at the time of discovery. If operators\nare not timely responding to these events, then it is unclear how they can confirm that this\ncritical equipment is operating as intended, pursuant to the various regulatory\nrequirements set forth above.\nQuestion 4 - Are operators required to provide overpressure protection that includes a\nmeans whereby the operator is alerted to the emergency operating conditions at the time\nthey occur?\nPHMSA Response – Section 192.741 sets forth requirements for the installation of\ntelemetering or recording gauges at pressure limiting and regulating stations for gas\npipeline distribution systems. Pressure limiting or regulating stations with indications of\nabnormally high or low pressure must be inspected and measures necessary to correct any\nunsatisfactory condition must be employed. This would include safety measures to\nensure that overpressure protection equipment malfunctions are identified and remediated\nin a timely manner. Further, overpressure regulation devices with a history of operational\npressure exceedance do not meet the requirements set forth in § 192.739(a)(2) and may\nrequire repair, replacement or additional monitoring, including monitoring pursuant to\n§ 192.613. Finally, pursuant to § 192.605(b)(10)(iii), operators must prepare and follow\nwritten procedures governing the systemic and route testing and periodic inspection of\npressure limiting equipment to determine that it is in a safe operating condition. Also, for\noperators that have a control room, § 192.631 requires monitoring of pipeline systems for\nabnormal and emergency operating conditions.\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49\nCFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific\nfacts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided\nto help the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nQuestion 5 - Is within 30 days or up to a period of 15 months considered by PHMSA an\nimmediate response?\nPHMSA Response – Section 192.613 requires a procedure for “continuing surveillance”\nfor facilities with “unusual operating and maintenance conditions.” A pressure limiting\nor regulating station with a history of operational and maintenance failures that cause the\nMAOP to be exceeded, where a monitoring regulator is being used, would require a\nmeans of “continuing surveillance” to meet the requirements of § 192.613. PHMSA does\nnot consider within 30 days or up to a period of 15 months (which is a period for\ninspection) an immediate response nor does the agency consider this period of time to\ncomport with continuing surveillance requirements under § 192.613.\nIf we can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523.\nSincerely,\nJohn A. Gale\nDirector, Office of Standards\nand Rulemaking\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 are not generally applicable, do not create legally-enforceable rights or\nobligations, and are provided to help the specific requestor understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nCOMMISSIONERS\nRobert \"Bob\" Burns - Chairman\nBoyd Dunn\nSandra D. Kennedy\nJustin Olson\nLea Marquez Peterson\nMatthew J. Neubert\nExecutive Director\nChris B. Watson\nSafety Division Director\nARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION\nOctober 22, 2019\nCERTIFIED MAIL\nNOV - 4 201 9\nMr. John Gale\nDirector, Office of Standards and Rulemaking\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nUnited States Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20950\nRE: REQUEST FOR INTREPRETATION OF CFR PART 192.739(a)(3)\nDear Mr. Gale:\nThe Arizona Corporation Commission's Office of Pipeline Safety (AZOPS) is hereby\nrequesting an interpretation of Title 49 CFR Part 192.739(a)(3), which requires relief devices,\npressure control equipment, and pressure regulating stations to be set to function at the proper\npressure.\nThe question was noted during an annual Audit that this office conducted. Records of\nprevipus inspections done on relief devices indicated that the set pressure at which the relief ~evice\nstarts to open, is in exceedance of system's maximum allowable operating pressur~ (Ivi~OP).\n' .\n~ ' ';\nIn addit~on to the issue involving relief devices, it was also observed that at numerous\nworker I monitor stations the set point of the monitor regulator is higher than the downstream\nsystem's MAOP. AZOPS believes that this setup violates the requirements of both Part\n192.739(a)(3) as well as Part 192.619. If the worker regulator fails, and the monitor regulator takes\nover the overpressure protection duties, then the system is being operated at a pressure that exceeds\nthe system's MAOP. Also, in the present over pressure protection scheme, during an emergency\npressure control occurrence, should the worker regulator fail and the monitor regulator activate\nand take over pressure control, there would be no remaining over pressure protection as required\nby Part 192.195 for the duration of these operating conditions.\nAn earlier interpretation of Part 192.621 (PI-14-0016) dated on April 21, 2015 stated that\nthe system's overpressure conditions are only allowed for the time taken to activate the\noverpressure protection device and not for long term or frequently occurring normal operating\nconditons. Therefore, immediate response by the operator either to shutdown or reduce the\noperating pressure to normal operating · conditions is required.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nMr. John Gale\nOctober 22, 2019\nPage 2 of 3\nIn the case of the worker I monitor stations that supply a distribution system with more\nthan one source of supply, the electronic pressure recording device (EPR) at each station is read\nonce each month, so if there are any indications that the worker regulator has failed, then the\ncondition would be observed on EPR and immediate corrective action would be taken. However,\nthe EPR is only read once per month, so the overpressure condition may have been in effect for up\nto 30 days before corrective action is taken.\nThe AZOPS concern is regard to the worker/ monitor stations that supply a single sourced\ndistribution system where EPR units are not required per Part 192.741. If the worker regulator\nfailed in this situation, then the condition may not be noted until the next scheduled annual\nmaintenance inspection of the station, so the condition may continue for up to 15 months.\nThe AZOPS interprets that any activation of an over pressure protection device requires an\nimmediate response at the time of occurrence, not the time of discovery.\nThe operator's written procedures state that the monitor regulator shall achieve a lockup\npressure that shall not exceed the MAOP plus allowable buildup as defined in Part 192.201.\nIn the Audit report response, the operator has stated the following:\n\"The Company respectfully disagrees that a violation of 49 CFR 192.201(a)\noccurred. The Company's policies and procedures, as contained within its\nOperations Manual, require the establishment of set pressures on its regulators\nto ensure the pressure within the pipeline will not exceed the Maximum\nAllowable Operations Pressure (MAOP) plus allowable buildup consistent with\nthe application of 49 CFR Part 192.20l(a)(2). The allowance above MAOP is\nnecessary for the safe and reliable operation of the station, recognizing that a\nmonitor regulator, if set at a pressure too close to the worker regulator set point,\nmay interfere with the normal operation of the worker regulator. Without the\nallowance, a worker regulator would be unable to operate at its set point\n(MAOP). The records observed during the audit pertaining to regulator set\npoints were consistent with both Federal regulations and the Company's\nprocedural requirements.\nNotwithstanding, the Company appreciated the opportunity to discuss over-\npressure protection (OPP) set points in more detail with Staff on August 20,\n2019, as well as during the quarterly pipeline safety meeting held on September\n17, 2019. The Company understands that the focus of Staffs concern is the\npotential that a single-fed system could operate above MAOP, but below\nMAOP plus the allowable buildup, for a period exceeding 30 days1 up to the 15-\nmonth maximum duration allowed under 49 CFR Part 192.739(a) for\ncompleting the next scheduled inspection should the worker regulator\nexperience a malfunction and the OPP device assume control.\n1 The 30-day period is reflective of the inspection interval ofan Electronic Pressure Recorder\n(EPR) that could detect a situation where the worker regulator has failed, and the monitor\nregulator has assumed control.\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nMr. John Gale\nOctober 22, 2019\nPage 3 of 3\nIn an effort to exceed the current minimum standards established in 49 CFR\nPart 192, the Company is requesting an additional 60 days to fully evaluate\nthose affected systems in Arizona where a single regulator station facility serves\na downstream system. The Company currently has 952 regulator stations in the\nState of Arizona that provide the single source of supply or feed to a\ndownstream system and do not currently have any downstream pressure\nmonitoring devices such as an Electronic Pressure Recorder (EPR). The\nadditional time will allow the Company to identify and fully assess potential\nactions including, but not limited to, additional pressure monitoring on single-\nfed systems, the applicability of remote pressure detection alerting devices, or\nadjusting the set points on the affected OPP devices to MAOP or below to\nensure system reliability is maintained throughout the forthcoming winter\nheating season. By Friday, December 6, the Company will present this plan to\nStaff including a timeline of expected actions.\"\nTherefore, the AZOPS requests clarification of the following:\n1. Does the relief valve set point at a pressure above the MAOP violate Part\n192.739(a)(3) and Part 192.619?\n2. Does monitor regulator set point above the downstream MAOP violate Part\n192.739(a)(3) and Part 192.619?\n3. Does the activation of an over pressure protection device require an\nimmediate response at the time of occurrence or at the time of discovery?\n4. Are operators required to provide overpressure protection that includes a\nmeans where by the operator is alerted to the emergency operating\nconditions at the time they occur?\n5. Is within 30 days or up to a period of 15 months considered by PHMSA an\nimmediate response?\nThank you for your attention in this manner. Should you have any questions, please contact\nme at (602) 262-5601.\nric Villa\nProgram Manager\nPipeline Safety Section\nEV:AB:RW:jy","truncated":false,"body_characters":18120}