{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-79-032","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1979-09-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-79-032 response to Memo: Internal concerning 192.457.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-79-032.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-79-032.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-79-032","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1979/PI79032.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nInterpretation of Section 192.457(b)\nAssociate Director, OPSR, DMT-39\nChief, Eastern Region, DMT-16\nTHRU: Associate Director, OOE, DMT-10\nIn your memorandum of June 11, 1979, you ask if a transmission pipeline that has been\ndetermined to be in a Class I location must have an electrical survey made in accordance with\nSection 192.457(b)(1), even though it is apparent that cathodic protection would not have to be\ninstalled because of the definition of \"active corrosion.\"\nSection 192.457(b) requires, in pertinent part, that bare and ineffectively coated transmission lines\ninstalled before August 1, 1971, must be cathodically protected in areas in which active corrosion\nis found. Further, this section requires that \"active corrosion\" be determined by electrical survey,\nor where this method is impractical, by other means. \"Active corrosion\" is defined in Section\n192.457(c) to mean continuing corrosion which, unless controlled, could result in a condition that\nis detrimental to public safety. Under these provisions, an operator must look for areas of\ncontinuing corrosion by electrical survey where such a survey is practical. The survey technique\nor other allowable method is an essential first step in compliance. Then in situations where\ncontinuing corrosion could at some foreseeable time (not more than 3 years since Section\n192.455(c) would require a resurvey in that time) result in a condition that is detrimental to public\nsafety, even though such a condition does not now exist, the area of continuing corrosion must be\ncathodically protected.\nAlthough one might expect that a corrosion condition detrimental to public safety would be less\nlikely to develop in a Class I location, nonetheless Class location is not considered under Section\n192.457 in determining areas of active corrosion. Rather, an operator should consider the short\nand long range effect of corrosion on the pipeline, the proximity to people, and other factors\nrelevant to assessing the potential harm to people or property of continuing corrosion. (See 41\nFR 29128 July 15, 1978). An electrical survey or other allowable method must be used to\nprovide information needed to make this judgement.\nCesar DeLeon\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\457\\79-09-10\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nSUBJECT: Interpretations\nFROM: Chief, Eastern Region, DMT-15\nTO: Associate Director, OPSR, DMT-30\nTHRU: Associate Director, OOE, DMT-10\nIn connection with a transmission pipeline that an operator has determined to be in a Class I area,\nis the operator required to make an electrical survey on such a line in accordance with\n§192.457(b)(1)?\nIt is apparent that the installation of cathodic protection devices would not be required per our\ndefinition of active corrosion, but it is not clear as to whether the electrical survey must be made.\nPlease advise at your earliest convenience.\nLance F. Heverly\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\457\\79-09-10\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":2905}