{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-76-035","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-76-035","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1976-07-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-76-035 concerning 192.457.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-76-035.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-76-035.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-76-035","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1976/PI76035.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJuly 8, 1976\nPublication of Document in\nthe Federal Register\nCertifying Officer, Office of\nPipeline Safety Operations, MTP-30\nOffice of the Federal Register\nAttached is the original and two copies of a document to be published in the Federal Register\nentitled, Corrosion Control Deadline.\nPlease do not make any changes without calling me, 118-62392.\nMargaret E. Hammond\nAttachment\ndal\\192\\457\\76-07-08\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nFEDERAL REGISTER HIGHLIGHT\nPIPELINE SAFETY - DOT/MTB explains corrosion control requirements.\ndal\\192\\457\\76-07-08\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\nTRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE\nCorrosion Control Section\nOn June 25, 1971, the Department of Transportation issued safety standards for the\nprotection of metallic gas pipelines from external, internal, and atmospheric corrosion. The\nstandards are contained in 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart I, and apply to operators of pipelines used in\nthe transportation of gas in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Because operators\nneeded time to prepare for protecting existing pipelines, certain provisions were incorporated in\nSubpart I to allow adequate lead time for operators to comply with the new standards. For\nexample, Section 192.457(b) provides a 5-year lead time with respect to certain pipelines (except\nfor cast or ductile iron) installed before August 1, 1971.\nThis notice serves as an aid to operators in meeting the August 1, 1976, deadline for\ncompliance in Section 192.457(b) by explaining applicable requirements. It also states the policy\nof the Office of Pipeline Safety Operations (OPSO) with respect to enforcement of the standards.\nSection 192.457(b) reads as follows:\n(b) Except for cast iron or ductile iron, each of the following buried or submerged\npipelines installed before August 1, 1971, must, not later than August 1, 1976, be\ncathodically protected in accordance with this subpart in areas in which active corrosion is\nfound:\n(1) Bare or ineffectively coated transmission lines.\n(2) Bare or coated pipes at compressor, regulator, and measuring\nstations.\n(3) Bare or coated distribution lines. The operator shall determine the areas of\nactive corrosion by electrical survey, or where electrical survey is impractical, by\nthe study of corrosion and leak history records, by leak detection survey, or by\nother means.\ndal\\192\\457\\76-07-08\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nSection 192.457(c) defines the term \"active corrosion:\"\n(c) For the purpose of this subpart, active corrosion means continuing corrosion which,\nunless controlled, could result in a condition that is detrimental to public safety.\nIn response to problems and questions concerning the corrosion control requirements, a\nnumber of interpretations have been published in several monthly Advisory Bulletins. The\nfollowing questions and answers, some of which have been previously published but are now\nrestated for clarity, provide significant interpretations with regard to corrosion control under\nSection 192.457(b).\n1. Question: Which methods of \"electrical survey\" may be used to comply with the\nrequirements of 49 CFR 192.457(b)?\nOPSO Interpretation: Under Section 192.457(b), an operator must use an electrical\nsurvey method which identifies all areas of continuing corrosion along a pipeline with\nenough detail so that the operator can determine whether a condition detrimental to public\nsafety could result. This public safety determination is necessarily based, among other\nrelevant factors, on the effect of any continuing corrosion on a pipeline. Therefore, to\nmeet the requirements, an electrical survey method must provide accurate measurements,\nby direct or indirect techniques, of corrosion rate, loss of metal relative to pipe wall\nthickness, potential differences, and current flow, which are factors necessary to evaluate\nthe effect of corrosion. There are many electrical survey methods that an operator can use\nto meet the requirements, but OPSO does not preferentially recommend one method over\nanother.\n2. Question: May leak surveys or corrosion leak records be used as a substitute method for\ndetermining areas of active corrosion under Part 192?\ndal\\192\\457\\76-07-08\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n3. 4. OPSO Interpretation: Under Section 192.457(b) an operator must determine the areas of\nactive corrosion by electrical survey, except that where electrical survey is impractical, the\nstudy of corrosion and leak history records, leak detection surveys, or other means may be\nused to determine active corrosion areas. Thus, leak surveys or corrosion leak records\nmay be substituted only in those instances where determination by electrical survey is\nimpractical.\nQuestion: When is an electrical survey impractical?\nOPSO Interpretation: The phrase \"where electrical survey is impractical\" is used in\nsubpart I to identify those instances or situations where, through no fault or shortcoming\nof the operator, it is unreasonable or inappropriate to perform an electrical survey due to\nthe extreme hardship, trouble, or expense involved in the survey.\nQuestion: What areas of a pipeline must be cathodically protected under Section\n192.457(b)?\nOPSO Interpretation: Section 192.457(b) requires that a pipeline be cathodically\nprotected in areas in which \"active corrosion\" is found. The term \"active corrosion\" is\ndefined as \"continuing corrosion which, unless controlled, could result in a condition that\nis detrimental to public safety.\" Determining where cathodic protection is required by\nSection 192.457(b) is a two step process. First, an operator must find areas of active\ncorrosion by electrical survey or other allowable methods. If active corrosion that is not\ndetrimental to public safety can be demonstrated, cathodic protection is not required.\nSecondly, where active corrosion is found, the operator must determine whether a\ncondition detrimental to public safety could result therefrom, taking into account the short\nand long range effect of the localized\ncorrosion on the pipeline, the pipeline's proximity to people, and all other factors relevant\nto public safety. If after consideration of all relevant factors, it can reasonably be\ndal\\192\\457\\76-07-08\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nconcluded that a condition detrimental to public safety does not exist now or in the\nforeseeable future, localized cathodic protection is not required. If a pipeline remains\nunprotected, Section 192.465(e) requires that it be reevaluated every three years for the\nexistence of \"active corrosion.\"\nQuestion: Is a pipeline which is located so that the bottom portion is buried and the top\nportion extends above the ground level subject to the cathodic protection requirements?\nOPSO Interpretation: The same cathodic protection requirements applicable to a fully\nburied pipeline apply to a partially buried pipeline because electrochemical process which\ncauses corrosion on underground pipelines are equally active with respect to a partially\nburied pipeline.\nQuestion: How often must a pipeline that is cathodically protected only in areas of active\ncorrosion be monitored under Section 192.465?\nOPSO Interpretation: Such a pipeline may be divided into protected and unprotected\nsections. Section 192.465(a) requires that the protected sections must be tested at least\nonce each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine\nwhether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of Section 192.463. However,\nSection 192.465(a) further provides that if tests at those intervals are impractical for\nseparately protected service lines and short sections of protected mains, not in excess\nof 100 feet, these service lines and mains may be surveyed on a sampling basis as set\nforth in the section. (Note: The emphasized section [bolded], above, was originally\nmarked to be omitted because it was felt the answer was not responsive to the question.)\nSection 192.465(e) requires that at intervals not exceeding 3 years, unprotected sections\nmust be reevaluated and cathodically protected in areas in which active corrosion is found.\nCompliance\ndal\\192\\457\\76-07-08\n6\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nIn accordance with Section 9 of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (49 USC\n1678), any operator not under the jurisdiction of a certified State agency who violates the\nrequirements of Section 192.457(b) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for\neach such violation for each day of the violation, except that the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $200,000 for any related series of violations. In determining the amount of such civil\npenalty and its appropriateness, OPSO will evaluate an operator's efforts towards compliance\nduring the 5 years between August 1, 1971 and August 1, 1976. This evaluation includes the\noperator's corrosion control plan, past accomplishments, projected completion dates, and all\nrelevant extenuating circumstances. If a civil penalty is considered appropriate, Section 9 of the\nAct further provides that in determining the amount of that penalty, or the amount to be agreed\nupon in compromise, the following factors are to be considered:\n1. The appropriateness of the penalty to the size of the business of the person charged.\n2. the gravity of the violation, and\n3. the good faith of the person charged in attempting to achieve compliance after\nnotification of a violation.\nIn addition to civil penalties, Section 10 of the Act provides for appropriate injunctive\nsanctions in the case of a violation of a safety standard.\nOperators under the jurisdiction of a certified State agency are subject to substantially the\nsame enforcement policy as operators under the direct enforcement jurisdiction of OPSO. This\nsimilarity is required by Section 5(a) of the Act in that each certified State agency must enforce\nthe safety standards under a State law with \"injunctive and monetary sanctions substantially the\nsame as are provided under Sections 9 and 10.\"\nWaivers\nSection 3(b) of the Act provides that the Secretary of Transportation or a State agency\nparticipating under Section 5 of the Act may grant a waiver from compliance with any gas\ndal\\192\\457\\76-07-08\n7\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\npipeline safety standard. A waiver is necessary if a person proposes to operate a pipeline facility\nin a manner that varies from applicable standard, so that the operation will not violate the safety\nstandard and subject the person to a civil penalty or injunctive sanction.\nWaivers are intended only for those situations where a general safety standard is not\nappropriate for a particular situation or condition. A waiver is granted only after there has been a\nconvincing demonstration of cogent reasons why a given standard should not be followed or an\nalternative safety measure is more appropriate. Waivers ar not intended for those situations\nwhere a violation exists and the administering government agency defers imposition of a penalty\nor other sanction while an operator executes a plan of compliance. Both OPSO and State agency\ncompliance efforts include this discretionary action.\n(Sec. 3, Pub. L. 90-481, 82 Stat 721 (49 USC 1672); 40 FR 43901, 49 CFR 1.53).\nIssued in Washington, D.C. on\nCesar DeLeon\nActing Director\nOffice of Pipeline\nSafety Operations\ndal\\192\\457\\76-07-08\n8\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nMEMORANDUM\nJune 22, 1976\nTO: Acting Director, Office of Pipeline Safety\nOperations, MTP-1\nFROM: Specialist Assistant to Director, Materials\nTransportation Bureau\nSUBJ: Critique of Corrosion Control Interpretation Summary\nAttached is a marked up copy of the Corrosion Control xeroxed Thursday, June 17, 1976.\nSection that I\nAs you can see there are many portions that I feel should be changed, clarified or\ndeleted.\nLance F. Heverly\nAttachment\ndal\\192\\457\\76-07-08\n9","truncated":false,"body_characters":11721}