{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-70-0102","title":"Equitable Gas Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1970-09-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-70-0102 response to Equitable Gas Company concerning 192.467.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-70-0102.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-70-0102.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-70-0102","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1970/g70-09-24_Rutter_192.467-lmxs.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-70-0102\nSeptember 24, 1970\nMr. Charles M. Rutter\n111 South Commons\nPittsburg, Pennsylvanis 15212\nDear Charles:\nIn reply to your letter of July 27, 1970, Department of Transportation's jurisdiction would stop at the downstream side of\nthe customers meter, if the meter is next to the customer’s house. However, since our jurisdiction covers the\ndistribution of gas, it is difficult to say just where it would stop if the meter should be at the property or curb line. Our\nGeneral Counsel is currently studying this problem to determine just where our jurisdiction should end. As stated at\nHarco’s Seminar, the gas company is really the only one that is in a position to know whether or not the service line from\na meter at the property line to a house is protected. Obviously, the property owner ordinarily does not have the know-\nhow or measuring equipment to check the corrosion condition of his service line.\nAs an example of the recognition of the seriousness of this situation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, has a City ordinance whereby a\nservice line belonging to the customer has to be coated, electrically isolated at the house and separately cathodically\nprotected. The work is done by a licensed plumber who has to make the installation in accordance with this city\nordinance. However, it is the gas company, Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, that routinely checks the customer's\nservice line and if the company finds that the service line is not protected,\nit reports its findings to the city inspector. You\nmay wish to get in touch with Orville W. Everett, Chief Corrosion Engineer for Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, for\nfurther details.\nSo as to clarify paragraph 192.491, Control of Interference Currents, what would you think of adding a couple of\nsentences to paragraph (b) along the following lines:\n\"Joint interference testing either individually or through local electrolysis committees, must be made to determine if\nadjacent underground metallic structures are subjected to adverse interference currents. If adverse interference is\nfound, appropriate measures must be taken to minimize such inference; yet maintain protection on the operator’s\nstructure in compliance with the protective criteria contained in paragraph 6.3 of the 1969 edition of NACE Standard RP-\n01-69.\"\nAutomatic potential control (APC) rectifiers, that is, solid state silicon controlled rectifiers (SCR), have immediate\nresponse (1/2 cycle) and are especially good in areas where a pipeline is subjected to rapid stray current fluctuations. If I\nremember correctly, the way to estimate the cost of APC rectifiers is 1.25 x base price of standard rectifier unit + $300.\nYou may wish to get in touch with Tom P. Wilkinson, Marketing Manager, Good-All Electric, Incorporated, 201 S. Spruce\nStreet, Ogallala, Nebraska 69153, for information on APC type rectifiers.\nSincerely,\nLance P. Heverly\nAssistant Chief, Technical Div\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nEquitable Gas Company\nJuly 27, 1970\nMr. Lance F. Heverly\nAssistant Chief\nTechnical Division\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Lance:\nAt the Harco Seminar held on June 23, 1970, at Cleveland, Ohio, it was stated that the gas servicing companies would be\nresponsible for applying and maintaining cathodic protection to gas service lines, including those lengths of such service\nlines not installed and/or owned by the servicing companies. Please advise if this statement is still true and if the\nstatement also includes other buried gas lines such as \"house lines\" that are installed and owned by the customer and\nare defined as such lines extending beyond the gas meter?\nSince both the National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard RP-01-69 and the office of Pipeline Safety's\nproposed Requirements for Corrosion Control (Notice 70-8: Docket No.OPS-5) do not satisfactorily discuss or define the\neffects of stray direct currents imposed upon gas pipe lines, will the Office of Pipeline Safety accept the controlled\nremoval of such currents from effected pipe lines as a method of affording cathodic protection to these lines wherein\nsuch protection is being afforded only when such currents are being removed from the lines? As you know, there are\nlocations where large amounts of such currents influence pipe lines wherein the requirement to provide continuous\ncathodic protection to such lines could be technically impossible, as related to the present manners and devices used\ntoday to provide continuous cathodic protection measures to pipe structures located in certain stray direct current area.\nVery truly yours,\nC. M. Rutter\n111 South Commons\nPgh., Pa. 1521","truncated":false,"body_characters":4670}