{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-83-0107","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-83-0107","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1983-08-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-83-0107 concerning 192.463.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-0107.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-0107.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-0107","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1984/g83-08-04_Poole_192.463%20-%20lmxs.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-83-0107\nAugust 4 1983\nMr. Charles L Poole, P.E.\nO'Malley & Clay, Inc.\nP.O. Box 1976\n505 Green Street\nBrenham, TX 77833\nDear Mr. Poole:\nYour letter 04 July 19, 1983, asks three specific questions concerning 49 CFR Section 192.469, External corrosion control:\nTest stations, as it applies to a catholically protected steel natural gas distribution system. These questions are as\nfollows:\n1. Do the services provide \"sufficient\" test stations?\n2. If not, at what frequency, or spacing, should additional test stations be installed?\n3. If the services were not electrically connected to the main, or were widely scattered, what should the test\nstation spacing be?\nIf the service lines are electrically continuous with the mains, they may be used as test stations. Spacing of test stations\nalong the pipeline system will vary widely depending upon the type of soil, moisture, quality of pipe coating, size of pipe,\ntype of cathodic protection system, level of cathodic protection, etc. Whatever the number and spacing of test points\nalong a cathodically protected pipeline, they must be adequate to show that the cathodic protection level along the\nentire length of pipeline meets the requirements of Section. 192.463. With so many variables involved, the distance\nbetween test stations must be based on the judgment of a person qualified by experience and training in pipeline\ncorrosion control methods for the specific installation and conditions.\nWe hope this provides the information you are seeking.\nSincerely,\nRichard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Sanity Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nO’Malley & Clay, Inc.\nP.O. Box 1976\n505 Green Street\nBrenham, Texas 77833\nJuly 19, 1983\nMr. Richard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau U.S.\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nRe: 49 CFR 192.469 External Corrosion Control: Test Stations.\nDear Mr. Beam:\nWe wish to quantify the term \"sufficient\" contained in the referenced paragraph.\nEnclosed is a typical print of a portion of a cathodically protected steel natural gas distribution system owned by a client.\nThere is electrical continuity between gas services and mains. Pipe-to-soil potential readings can be made at meter\nrisers.\nOur questions are these. Do the services provide \"sufficient\" test stations? If not, at what frequency, or spacing, should\nadditional test stations be installed? If the services were not electrically connected to the main, or were widely\nscattered, what should the test station spacing be?\nWe are most appreciative of any information or assistance you can provide.\nSincerely,\nCharles I. Poole, P.E.","truncated":false,"body_characters":2719}