{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-81-012","title":"OOE — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1981-06-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-81-012 response to OOE concerning 195.406.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-81-012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-81-012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-81-012","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1981/PI81012.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJune 17, 1981\nOperator Design of Valves\nSigned\nMelvin A. Judah\nActing Associate Director, OPSR\nBob Paullin\nAssociate Director, OOE\nThe attached interpretation responds to your memorandum of March\n17, 1981, regarding the meaning of ?195.406.\nAttachment\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nNo. 81-3\nDate: June 17, 1981\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nMATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU\n_________________________________________________________________\nPIPELINE SAFETY REGULATORY INTERPRETATION\n_________________________________________________________________No\nte:A pipeline safety regulatory interpretation applies a particular\nrule to a particular set of facts and circumstances, and, as such,\nmay be relied upon only by those persons to whom the interpretation\nis specifically addressed.\nSECTION: ?195.406\nSUBJECT: Maximum Operating Pressure of Valves\nQUESTION 1.a: For Section 195.406(a)(2), who is responsible for\ndetermining the maximum design pressure of components (valves,\nflanges, fittings, etc.) of a pipeline, the manufacturers of the\ncomponents, or the pipeline operators?\nANSWER: Part 195 applies to the transportation of hazardous\nliquids by pipeline in interstate or foreign commerce. (?195.1)\nThe persons who own or operate the pipelines subject to Part 195\n(\"pipeline operators\") are responsible for compliance with the\nrequirements of Part 195 (?195.10 and 49 U.S.C. 2006). Since the\nterm \"pipeline\" includes \"component\" (?195.2), pipeline operators\nmust comply with Part 195 provisions governing design pressure of\ncomponents. A manufacturer of a component normally does not own or\noperate the component after it is put into service subject to Part\n195.\nQUESTION 1.b: Does this paragraph allow pipeline operators to act\nas designers, and by their own calculations or testing, determine\nthat it is safe to exceed the pressure ratings established by the\nactual designer-manufacturer of the component?\nANSWER: The design pressure of components is not prescribed in\nspecific terms as it is for pipe under ?195.106. However, a few\ngeneral requirements apply: for valves, \"The valve must be of sound\nengineering design.\" (?195.116(a)); for fittings, \"The fitting\nmust be . . .at least as strong as the pipe . . . .\" (?195.118(c));\nand for flanges, \"[A] flange connection . . . must be suitable for\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nthe service in which it is to be used.\" (?195.126)\nThese design requirements do not limit the design of a component to\nthe manufacturer's pressure rating. There is no express\nlimitation, and neither the history of Part 195 nor the ordinary\nusage of terms would support a finding that the pressure rating set\nby a manufacturer is an implied limitation of the quoted design\nprovisions. Although sound design principles may require that a\nmanufacturer's pressure rating and applicable factors in consensus\nstandards be considered in determining the design pressure of a\ncomponent, a pipeline operator is free under Part 195 to use\nequally sound principles to derive an independent design pressure.\nTo rule otherwise would allow operators to avoid responsibility\nfor improper design in cases where a manufacturer's rating is\nunsafe, and in cases where a manufacturer's rating is conservative,\ngive an unfair advantage (and perhaps unlawful power) to\nmanufacturers.\nThe preamble to the final rule adopted in ?195.406(a) supports this\nconclusion. (35 FR 17184) Under the caption \"Section 195.406,\" the\npreamble states, \"The design pressure criteria are based on the\ndefinition of maximum operating pressure proposed in the notice.\"\nThe definition proposed was: \"'Maximum operating pressure' means a\npressure not more than the 'internal design pressure' that is the\nmaximum pressure established by the carrier (emphasis added) for\nthe safe operation of a pipeline. . . .\" (33 FR 10213) Thus, the\nintent of ?195.406(a)(2) was to allow the pipeline operator to\ndetermine design pressure.\nQUESTION 1.c: Before an operator exceeds the manufacturer's\nmaximum working pressure rating of a valve or flange, is it\nnecessary that MTB review the operator's calculations, i.e., is it\nnecessary for an operator to apply for a waiver?\nANSWER: Part 195 does not require that an operator seek or\nobtain an approval from MTB before placing in operation a pipeline\nthe operator has designed. Therefore, there is no requirement to\nwaive. MTB field personnel may choose to verify an operator's\ndesign before a pipeline is placed in operation as a step in the\nenforcement process.\nQUESTION 1.d: If it is allowable for operators to exceed the\nmaximum working pressure rating established by its manufacturer,\nwhat specific test or calculations contained in the documents\nincorporated by reference in Part 195 are allowable to prove that\nflanges and valves can be safely operated in excess of the\nmanufacturer's rating?\nANSWER: Part 195 does not require the use of referenced\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\ndocuments to comply with the design requirements for components set\nforth in answer to Question 1.b above. The appropriateness of\nparticular tests or calculations to determine a safe design above a\nmanufacturer's rating would be judged by sound engineering\nprinciples and practices. Inclusion of particular principles or\npractices in a generally recognized consensus standard, regardless\nof whether the document is referenced in Part 195, would be a heavy\nfactor to weigh in making a judgment about the appropriateness of\nan operator's tests or calculations.\nQUESTION 2: For Section 195.406(a)(4), does this paragraph\nallow the operating pressure of valves to be 80 percent of the\nfactory test pressure or the prototype test pressure? The ANSI\nrating is lower than 80 percent of a prototype pressure test on a\nvalve.\nANSWER: Section 195.406(a)(4) provides one of four criteria, the\nlowest value of which determines the maximum operating pressure of\na pipeline. Thus, a valve excepted under ?195.304 could be\noperated at 80 percent of its actual or prototype factory test\npressure, provided that pressure does not exceed any of the\npressures determined by the other three criteria. The lower ANSI\nrating would not be a consideration in determining compliance with\n?195.406(a) unless the ANSI rating were used as the design pressure\nunder ?195.406(a)(2).\nQUESTION 3: For Section 203(d) of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline\nSafety Act, will the \"grandfather\" provision of the HLPSA exempt\nvalves installed prior to the adoption of Part 195 from the\nrequirements of Part 195, including Section 195.406?\nANSWER: The \"grandfather\" provision of the HLPSA is set forth in\nSection 203(c). It reads: \"Any standard issued under this section\naffecting the design, installation, construction, initial\ninspection, and initial testing shall not be applicable to pipeline\nfacilities in existence on the date such standard is adopted.\"\nThis provision, together with the savings provision of Section\n218(a) of the HLPSA, would prohibit the application of design and\nconstruction standards to valves in existence before Part 195 was\nadopted. Such valves would not be exempt from compliance with\n?195.406, however, since this section is an operating rule that\ndoes not fall under the \"grandfather\" provision.\nMelvin A. Judah\nActing Associate Director\nfor Pipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nC:WP51INTERPRT11951406181-06-17\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nMarch 17, 1981\nSubject: ACTION: Request for Interpretation\nSection 195.406(a)(2) & (4)\nFrom:Robert L. Paullin\nAssociate Director for Operations & Enforcement, DMT-10\nTo: Melvin A Judah\nActing Associate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation, DMT-30\nA number of liquid pipeline operators have components\n(valves, flanges, and fittings) installed in pipelines\nwhich operate at pressures exceeding the maximum working\npressure specified by the ANSI class rating, or maximum\nworking pressure marked on the component by its\nmanufacturer. The pipelines have been operating at\npressures exceeding the components maximum working\npressure rating, which was established by its\nmanufacturer, since before Part 195 became effective.\nThese operators feel they are not in violation of\nSection 195.406, however, compliance actions have been\ninitiated by OOE. In order for these compliance cases\nto be concluded in a timely manner, we need a prompt\nresponse to the questions included in this memo. Your\ncooperation in expediting this request would be\nappreciated.\nThe operator's support for their position is based on\nthe following rationale:\nBy using formulas and testing procedures contained in\nstandards incorporated by reference in Part 195, these\noperators have acted as designers and have justified to\ntheir own satisfaction that the components can be safely\noperated at pressures exceeding the manufacturer's\nmaximum working pressure rating. The operators have not\nphysically changed the manufacturer's design of the\ncomponents but have relied solely on their own tests or\ncalculations to justify the increase in the maximum\npressure rating. For examples of operator justification\nof their action see Appendix A.\nThe OOE contends that the design pressure referenced in\nSection 195.406(a)(2) is the pressure established by the\nmanufacturer of the valve and that Section 195.406(a)(4)\napplies to components that otherwise do not have a\nstandard specification under which they were\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n6\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nmanufactured.\nIn order to determine the enforceability of this\nregulation, OOE needs to have OPSR answer the following\nquestions.\n1. For Section 195.406(a)(2):\na. Who is responsible for determining the maximum\ndesign pressure of components (valves,\nflanges, fittings, etc.) of a pipeline, the\nmanufacturers of the components, or the\npipeline operators?\nb. Does this paragraph allow pipeline operators\nto act as designers, and by their own\ncalculations or testing, determine that it is\nsafe to exceed the pressure ratings\nestablished by the actual designer-\nmanufacturer of the component?\nc. Before an operator exceeds the manufacturer's\nmaximum working pressure rating of a valve or\nflange, is it necessary that MTB review the\noperator's calculations, i.e., is it necessary\nfor an operator to apply for a waiver?\nd. If it is allowable for operators to exceed the\nmaximum working pressure rating established by\nits manufacture, what specific tests or\ncalculations contained in the documents\nincorporated by reference in Part 195 are\nallowable to prove that flanges and valves can\nbe safely operated in excess of the\nmanufacturer's rating?\n2. For Section 195.406(a)(4):\nDoes this paragraph allow the operating pressure of\nvalves to be 80 percent of the factory test\npressure or the prototype test pressure? The ANSI\nrating is lower than 80 percent of a prototype\npressure test on a valve.\n3. For Section 203(d) of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline\nSafety Act:\nWill the \"grandfather\" provision of the HLPSA\nexempt valves installed prior to the adoption of\nPart 195 from the requirements of Part 195,\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n7\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nincluding Section 195.406?\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n8\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nAPPENDIX A\nOperator Justification\n1. Phillips Petroleum Co. (CPFs 3520 & 5506-1)\nOperator's justifications are:\na. Section 400(e) of ANSI B31.4-1974 gives them the\nauthority to act as a designer and, by complete and\nrigorous calculations, uprate the pressure ratings\nestablished by the valve manufacturer.\nb. By their own calculations based on the formulas in\nANSI B16.5, Section 6.1; ASME Boiler and Pressure\nVessel Code, Section VIII, Appendix 2; and ASME\nBoiler and Pressure Code, Section VIII, Division I,\nthe operator has proven to their own satisfaction\nthat these valves are safe to operate at pressures\ngreater than their current operating pressures.\nThe above standards are all incorporated in Part\n195.\nc. The valves in the pipeline cited were manufactured\nunder API 600. These valves have thicker walls\nthan valves manufactured on API 6D.\nd. Operating history proves that these valves are\ncapable of operating at their current pressures.\nSome of these valves have operated at these\npressures for over 30 years.\ne. ANSI B16.5, \"Steel Pipe Flanges and Flanged\nFittings,\" is conservative and needs updating.\nAs a matter of company policy, manufacturer's pressure ratings\nare no longer exceeded when new valves are installed or old\nvalves are replaced.\n2. Williams Pipe Line Co. (CPFs 3521 & 3523)\nOperator's justifications are:\na. Operator believes that Section 195.406(a)(4) allows\nthe operating pressure of valves to be 80 percent\nof the factory test pressure of valves for any\nindividually installed component which is excepted\nfrom testing under Section 195.304.\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n9\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nb. Operator believes that safety factors for valves\nand flanges, as provided by industry standards such\nas API 6D and ANSI B16.5, is out of proportion to\nthe criteria provided by Section 195.406 for pipe\nand components.\nc. d. Operator has had a long operating history with no\nproblems with the valves in question. Two of the\npipelines involved were constructed in the early\n1930's.\nThe pipelines are now being operated at pressures\nlower than they were operated prior to the advent\nof the pipeline safety regulations of Part 195.\n3. Mid-America Pipe Line System (CPF 3522)\nOperator's justification are:\na. When operator now orders valves, they request\nmanufacturer to test valve body to 1.5 times the\nworking pressure of MAPCO's pipeline. MAPCO also\nrequested that the valve seats be tested to 1.1\ntimes the pipeline working pressure. MAPCO\nbelieves that based on Section 6 of API 6D (Ratings\nfor Special Valves), that this testing and their\nown hydrostatic field testing would allow the\nvalves to operate at higher pressures.\nb. MAPCO believes that since the valves are operated\nbelow 80 percent of their field test pressures and\n60 percent below of the factory design pressure\ntest, they are in compliance with Sections 195.406\nand 195.116(d).\nc. Operator feels that they are the designer of the\npipeline and they accept total design\nresponsibility for the pipeline. Therefore, they\ncan determine what the safe design pressure of the\npipeline is.\nd. Operator does not believe in \"cookbook\nengineering.\" They believe both the ANSI B16.5 and\nAPI 6D are conservative and out of date.\ne. Operator also believes that their operating history\nproves that these valves can be safely operated at\nthese pressures.\n4. National Cooperative Refinery Association (NCRA) (No\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n10\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nb. CPF)\nThe question of pressure ratings with NCRA is different\nfrom the other companies because this case involves\nvalves that do not carry ANSI or API ratings, but are\nmarked as \"2000 test - 1000 CWP\" or \"1000 OWG.\" Some\nmanufacturers make valves with this rating. There is no\ndirectly equivalent ANSI or API rating for the 1000 OWG\nor CWP rating.\nOperator's justifications are:\na. Valves marked as 1000 OWG were tested at time of\nmanufacture to 2000 psig. Based on most industry\ncodes, this would establish a working pressure of\n1333 psig.\nOperator believes that since these valves are in a\nproducts line where there is no internal corrosion,\nthen can take into consideration the valve's\n\"corrosion allowance.\" This is recognized in ASME\nCode, Section VIII and is commonly used in all\nindustry. NCRA claims that valve manufacturers use\na corrosion allowance of about 1/4 inch for a 6-\ninch valve with a wall thickness of 7/8 inch. NCRA\nby using 1/8 inch for the corrosion allowance would\npressure uprate these valves 16.79 percent (1333\npsig to 1555 psig).\nc. The valves in question are Wescott Valves.\nWalworth Valve Co. purchased the Wescott Valve Co.\nand was selling the Wescott pipeline valve under\nthe Walworth name. NCRA has a Walworth Co. drawing\nof this valve which shows the working pressure to\nbe 1440 WOG at 100 degrees Fahrenheit for a ring\njoint faced flange. The Wescott valves have the\nsame dimensions as the Walworth valves in the\ndrawing. It is unknown why the valve body is\nmarked 1000 OWG when the drawing shows 1440 psig.\nAll of the valves which have been cited as bearing\nthe 1000 OWG or CWP were manufactured prior to\n1945. It is known that in 1950, the ASME, Section\nVIII code for unfired pressure vessels changed from\nallowable stresses reflecting a factor of safety of\n5 over to allowable stresses reflecting a factor of\nsafety of 4, thus uprating objects with the same\nthickness to a higher pressure rating. They\nbelieve that these valves would be qualified for\nthis consideration.\nd. DB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n11\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\ne. Operator has no failure problem with either the\nvalves or flanges during their operating history.\nf. NCRA has offered to test the valves by the\nhydrostatic brittle coating test in ASME, Section\nVIII, paragraph UG-101 to prove to us that they can\noperate at their present pressures.\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\406\\81-06-17\n12","truncated":false,"body_characters":17124}