{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-75-0118","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-75-0118","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1975-11-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-75-0118 concerning 192.143, 192.241, 192.53, 192.719, 192.753.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-75-0118.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-75-0118.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-75-0118","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1975/gAB_75_11_192.719_lmx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-75-0118\nAdvisory Bulletin No. 75-11 November, 1975\nRelates to 49 CFR, §192.753, §192.53, and §192.143\nOPSO PROPOSES TO MODIFY GAS PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS FOR CAST IRON\nJOINT SEALANTS...On November 7, 1975, the OPSO Acting Director issued Notice\nNo. 75-6, Docket No. OPSO-36, in which the MTB proposes to amend Section 192.753.\nThe proposed amendment would permit cast iron caulked bell and spigot joints subject to\npressures of 25 psig or more to be sealed by any means which maintains flexibility in the\njoint, bonds chemically or mechanically with cast iron, and satisfies the general\nrequirements of Sections 192.53 and 192.143 applicable to the materials and the design of\npipeline components.\nThe proposed rule-making action responds to a petition from the Miller Pipeline\nCorporation to amend Section 192.753(a) to permit the use of a new method of sealing\ncast iron joints (Avonseal) as an alternative to mechanical leak clamps. The Ohio Public\nUtilities Commission (PUC) also believes that Section 192.753(a) should not restrict the\nuse of new methods as safe as mechanical leak clamps. On June 5, 1975, acting under\nSection 3(e) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (49 USC 1674(e)), the Ohio\nPUC granted waiver from the requirements of Section 192.753(a) to three Ohio gas\ncompanies permitting them to use the Avonseal method on cast iron caulked bell and\nspigot mains operating below 50 psig. The record of this State waiver and the OPSO\naction entering no objection to it are contained in OPSO Docket No. OH-75-1.\nOPSO has reviewed the tests and data supporting the safety of the Avonseal method\nalong with information relevant to the use of other sealing methods. OPSO has\ndeveloped criteria which it believes any sealing method subject to pressures of 25 psig or\nmore should meet if the method is to provide a safe alternative to mechanical leak\nclamps. These criteria are: (1) maintenance of flexibility in the joint to minimize\nstresses at the joint that could cause pipe breakage, (2) a chemical or mechanical bond\nbetween the sealing material and the metal surfaces of both the pipe bell and spigot to\nprovide a permanent seal, and (3) the sealing material and the bond must have a strength\nsufficient to withstand anticipated forces, be resistant to adverse environmental\nconditions, and be chemically compatible with materials to which the joint may be\nexposed. (The criteria in clause (3) are based on requirements now applicable to pipeline\nmaterials and components under Sections 192.53(a) and (b), and 192.143.)\nInterested persons are invited to participate in this rule-making action by submitting such\nwritten data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify\nthe regulatory docket and notice numbers and be submitted in duplicate to the Director,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety Operations, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.\n20590. All communications received by December 29, 1975, will be considered by the\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDirector before taking final action on the notice. Late filed comments will be considered\nto the extent practicable. All comments will be available or examination by interested\npersons at the Office of Pipeline Safety Operations, Room 6226, 2100 Second Street,\nS.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, before and after the closing date for comments. Reprints\nof the notice (40 Fed. Reg. 52855, November 13, 1975) are being sent to those on the\nappropriate OPSO mailing lists.\nNTSB RECOMMENDATIONS ... CORRECTIVE ACTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO\n_\nPENNSYLVANIA INVESTIGATION ... October 20, 1975, the National Transportation\nSafety Board ... released a letter reporting its investigation of a gas utility explosion and\nfire which occurred on June 17, 1975, in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. The NTSB\nconcluded that the explosion and fire which resulted in the death of a homeowner was\ncaused by gas leaking from a corrosion hole in a 3/4-inch galvanized steel gas service line\ncapped in the basement of the house. Other findings related to the detection of gas\nodorants in the house and follow-up actions of the Stroudsburg Gas Company, operator of\nthe system.\nIn the letter report, the NTSB recommended that the Stroudsburg Gas Company: (1)\nreview and revise its emergency procedures and its employee training program to insure\nthat houses in a suspected leakage area are entered and checked for gas; and (2) review\nand revise its service abandonment procedures to insure that all service lines reported\nabandoned have been cut and capped at the main.\nSingle copies of the NTSB letter report (Stroudsburg Gas Company -- Safety\nRecommendations P-75-12 and P-75-13) may be obtained by directing a request to\nPublications Branch, BGM-222, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C.\n20594, telephone (202) 426-8169.\nOPSO EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE MOVES TO WASHINGTON...Early this month, the\nEastern Regional Office of OPSO has been relocated from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to\nWashington, D.C. The new office is located in the Trans Point Building, 2100 Second\nStreet, S.W., Room 6315. The new mailing\naddress is Office of Pipeline Safety Operations, Eastern Region, MTP-50-EA, Materials\nTransportation Bureau, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590,\ntelephone (202) 755-9435.\nTHE READING RACK...Technical information relating to pipeline safety appears in the\nfollowing industry publications\n(Note--copies of these articles are not available from OPSO, and inclusion here does not\nnecessarily indicate that content is consistent with current Federal regulations):\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nMATERIALS PERFORMANCE, August 1975, \"Pipeline Telluric Current Interference as\nOne Phase of a Wider Interdisciplinary Technological Problem,\" T. G. Proctor, Ministry\nof Works, Wellington, New Zealand.\nPIPELINE & GAS JOURNAL, September 1975, \"Codes, Standards and Regulations for\nWestern Europe Oil Pipelines,\" Staff Report; \"LNG Terminals: Existing and Proposed\nSystems Compared,\" Phillip J. Anderson and Edward J. Daniels, Institute of Gas\nTechnology.\nOIL & GAS JOURNAL, May 12, 1975, \"Pipe-lay Ship to Challenge Tough Areas,\" Staff\nReport; June 2, 1975, \"Alyeska Pioneering Aboveground Construction of Big-Inch\nPipeline,\" Howard M. Wilson, West Coast Editor; \"Deepwater Pipe-Laying Research\nUnder Way,\" D. E. Broussard, Shell Pipeline Research and Development Laboratory.\nCHILTON'S OIL & GAS ENERGY, July 1975, \"Alaska Pipeline -- Energy's Laboratory,\"\nJames P. Roscoe, Contributing Editor.\nPIPE LINE INDUSTRY, July 1975, \"New Developments for Offshore Construction,\"\nDon E. Lambert, Editor.\nINTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS\nRelates to 49 CFR, §192.241 and §192.719\nQuestion: Does the exception from the requirement for nondestructive testing of welds\nunder Section 192.241(b) for pipe less than six inches in nominal diameter also apply to\nfield girth butt welds which must be tested under Section 192.719(a)(2)?\nOPSO Interpretation:...\"Section 192.241(b) provides limited exceptions from the\nrequirement that all welds on newly installed, replaced, or relocated pipe to be operated at\n20 percent or more of SMYS be nondestructively tested. In contrast, Section\n192.719(a)(2) specifically requires strength or nondestructive testing for field girth butt\nwelds made in repairing a transmission line by cutting out damaged pipe as a cylinder and\nreplacing it. This specific requirement for testing a repair weld was established without\nexception because of the greater need to ensure weld quality.\"\n(Continued)","truncated":false,"body_characters":7496}