{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-73-036","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1973-11-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-73-036 response to Memo: Internal concerning 192.149.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-036.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-036.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-036","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1973/PI73036.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nD. K. Greenwald, Ladish Company\nHenry H. George, Tube Turns, Division of Chemetron Corporation\nRobert V. Warrick, Manufacturers Standardization Society\nJean E. Lattan, Taylor Forge Group\nSUBJECT: Butt-Welded prototype fittings\nThese gentlemen came to discuss our letter of August 10, 1973, to Mr. Robert V. Warrick with\nregard to our clarification of the word \"prototype\".\nThey said that the cost for testing each size and type fitting would be enormous. Now they test\nabout 0.2 percent of their fittings and extrapolate test results to cover lines of fittings of many\nsizes.\nThey understood that compliance with the last part of the second sentence of paragraph\n192.149(b) meant the prototype only had to be tested to a pressure equal to the test pressure for\nthe pipeline to which it is added. (This would mean about 90 percent of SMYS for the pipe.)\nThey also understood that this was consistent with our letter of November 9, 1970, in comply to\ntheir letter of October 30, 1970.\nWe explained that the first part of the second sentence of paragraph 192.149(b) related to\ncalculated bursting strength of pipe and to clarify the last part of this sentence they could think of\nthe words \"calculated bursting\" as being ahead of \"pressure required for the pipeline to which it is\nbeing added.\"\nThey pointed out that paragraph 192.505(d)(2) also upheld their argument that the pressure test\nfor the prototype would be at least the pressure required for the pipeline to which the fittings are\nbeing added. This would mean 90 percent of SMYS. One of the representatives said that on this\nbasis every fitting has been pressure tested each time the pipeline is tested.\nMr. DeLeon concluded by saying that we understand and appreciate their argument and that we\nwould respond to their letter of August 10, 1973, regarding the interpretation of this section.\nL.F. Heverly\nAssistant Chief, Tech. Div.\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\149\\73-11-15\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":1943}