{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-71-007","title":"Arkansas Western Gas Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1971-01-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-71-007 response to Arkansas Western Gas Company concerning 192.309, 192.715.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-007","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1971/PI71007.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJanuary 15, 1971\nMr. Lloyd W. Stephens\nChief Operating Engineer\nArkansas Western Gas Company\n28 East Center Street\nFayetteville, Arkansas 72701\nDear Mr. Stephens:\nThis is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1970, stating several questions with regard to gas\npipelines.\nQuestion: We currently file two copies of Form DOT-F-7100.1-1 with the Arkansas Public\nService Commission, and whenever telephone reporting is required, we call both their and your\noffice. Is this correct? We understand we must also file Forms DOT-F-7100.2 and 7100.2-1, but\nwe have not received any of these forms. We have already filed copies of our operating and\nmaintenance plan with your office and the State office. Please advise if changes in this plan\nshould be filed with both offices.\nAnswer: We have been notified by the Arkansas Public Service Commission that it does not, at\nthis time, intend to certify under Section 5(a) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 or\nreach an agreement with this Office under Section 5(b) of that Act. Therefore, after January 11,\n1971, any reports required under the\nDepartment of Transportation must be telephoned to, or filed with, this Office. The annual report\nforms to which you referred were mailed subsequent to the date of your letter and should have\nbeen received by you by this time.\nQuestion: I find no other reports that we are required to file. Please advise if this is correct.\nAnswer: No other reports are required to be filed at this time. Plans of inspection and\nmaintenance are required to be filed under the requirements of 49 CFR, Section 192.17 not later\nthan February 1, 1971.\nQuestion: Please advise how extra copies of Title 49, Part 192, may be obtained.\nAnswer: We are enclosing 5 copies of Title 49 CFR, Part 192. Additional copies may be\nreproduced by you.\ndal\\192\\309\\71-01-15\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQuestion: 192.715(c) states a defective weld, which cannot be repaired by other stated methods,\nmust be repaired by installing a full encirclement welded split sleeve of appropriate design. My\nquestion is whether it would be permissible to use these welded split sleeves and not X-ray welds\nwhenever the expense or time delay of X-ray in short sections or tie-ins would be excessively\nexpensive. Our problem is an X-ray truck is always over 100 miles and often 200 miles or more\nfrom the location. We must pay at least $125.00 a day for a truck and generally must pay at least\ntwo days for any work. We can often make an emergency repair and have the line back in service\nbefore we could hope to obtain an X-ray truck.\nAnswer: The use of a welded full encirclement split sleeve for repair of a defective weld is limited\nto situations in which a repair cannot be made in accordance with paragraph (a) of (b) of\n§192.715. Paragraph (a) of §192.715 states that when it is feasible to take the segment out of\nservice, repairs must be made in accordance with the requirements of §192.245. Paragraph (b) of\n§192.715 states that a repair may be made in accordance with §192.245 while the segment is in\nservice, under certain tested conditions.\nSince you refer to having \"the line back in service\" after making the emergency repair, we assume\nyou refer to a situation in which it is feasible to take the segment out of service. Such a situation\nis covered by paragraph (a) of §192.715, and the provisions of §192.245 requiring inspection of\nthe repair to ensure acceptability, apply.\nQuestion: 192.309(b)(2)(ii) states more than 20 percent of nominal pipe diameter. I wonder if\nthis is intended to be 2 percent?\nAnswer: The statement contained in this question is correct. A correction has been made to this\nsection of Part 192 changing 20% to 2%.\nIf you have further questions, do not hesitate to ask.\nSincerely,\n/signed/\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector, Acting\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ndal\\192\\309\\71-01-15\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":3861}