{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-72-016","title":"CONAM Inspection, Inc. — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1972-04-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-72-016 response to CONAM Inspection, Inc. concerning 192.105.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-72-016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-72-016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-72-016","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1972/PI72016.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nApril 20, 1972\nMr. David A. Warren\nCONAM Inspection, Inc.\n1115 West 41st Street\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74105\nDear Mr. Warren:\nThis is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1972, to Mr. Lance Heverly.\nWith regard to your question on general corrosion, if the transmission line's operating pressure is\nequal to the pipeline design pressure in accordance with the design formula contained in Section\n192.105, Section 192.485 gives the operator two choices when an area of general corrosion\ncauses reduced wall thickness:\n1. Replace the generally corroded segment of pipe; or\n2. Reduce the operating pressure commensurate with the strength of the remaining pipe\nwall thickness.\nIn the case of localized corrosion pitting, it is the operator's responsibility to determine if the\nremaining wall thickness, taking into account the reinforcing strength provided by the pipe wall\nsurrounding the pit, will withstand his maximum operating pressure. If the strength of the pipe\nhas been reduced by the corrosion, then the operator must either replace or repair the segment\ninvolved or assure that his operating pressure is commensurate with the strength of the remaining\npipe wall thickness.\nAs a result of the evaluation of the information presented at the Public Hearing held on July 20,\n1971, and other data available to this office, it was decided to withdraw the Notice of Proposed\nRule Making (Notice 71-3; Docket No. OPS-5) and leave the regulations in the performance\nlanguage as contained in the regulations covering corrosion control requirements issued June 25,\n1971. Consideration is being given to the recommendations presented at the hearing for a\npossible new Notice of Proposed Rule Making relating the acceptability of the pipe to a\ncombination of localized corrosion pit depth, width, and length. As Mr. Heverly told you in his\ntelephone conversation, we have no time schedule set for this notice.\ndal\\192\\105\\72-04-20\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nYour company has been added to our mailing list for receiving copies of our regulations.\nThank you for your interest in our pipeline safety program.\nSincerely,\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ndal\\192\\105\\72-04-20\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nMarch 6, 1972\nMr. Lance Heverly\nCorrosion Engineer\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDepartment of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C.\nDear Sir:\nThank you very much for your call on 3-1-72 and the information on the current status of 49CFR\nPart 192.\nI should like to ask your opinion of a suggested interpretation of Section 192.485 of the present\nregulation.\nIn the case of general corrosion or localized corrosion pitting, corrosion could exist to the extent\nthat 28% of the nominal wall thickness was missing and the operator could continue operating at\nmaximum design pressure since that pressure would be 72% SMYS as per B31.8.\nIt is my understanding that there is at present no dimensional criterion for pits, but that a change\nwill be made in the regulation probably this spring, which will define pitting in terms of combined\ndepth and diameter measurements in terms of wall thickness.\nDoes the Department of Transportation have a mailing list for announcements, regulations, etc?\nIf so, we would appreciate having our name added for mailings related to pipeline safety.\nSincerely,\nCONAM INSPECTION, INC.\nDavid A. Warren\ndal\\192\\105\\72-04-20\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":3366}