{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-92-003","title":"Gas del Estado — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1992-01-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-92-003 response to Gas del Estado concerning 192.1, 192.111, 192.245.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-92-003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-92-003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-92-003","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1992/PI92003.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nMr. Jose Hugo Muraco\nJefe de Normalizacian Tecnica\nGas del Estado\nCentro Communicaciones Don Bosco\nBuenos Aires, Argentina\nDear Mr. Muraco:\nThis responds to your telefax #536 dated October 21, 1991, in the order of your specific\nquestions as stated in your telefax:\n1. 2. 3. Question: §192.1(b) What is the limit between gathering and other facilities? Likewise,\nwhat regulations, standard or code do you suggest for the design of gathering lines or\nnetworks to comply with?\nAnswer: With regard to your question on the limit between gathering and other facilities,\nI am enclosing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 48505; September 25, 1991)\nproposing a more precise definition for gathering lines, including a clearer delineation of\nthe end point of a gathering line. The final rule on this proposed definition will be issued\nin 1992. In accordance with §192.9, each gathering line must comply with the\nrequirements of Part 192 applicable to transmission lines.\nQuestion: §192.111(b) In paragraph (4) river crossing headers are specifically mentioned\nwithin the examples of fabricated assembly to be calculated with design factor 0,6 for\nClass 1 location. Nowhere in this sub-section (b) is the river crossing itself mentioned;\nthus, should it be interpreted that for this latter it is not required a \"reinforced\" calculation\nby applying such factor?\nAnswer: In accordance with §192.111(d), a design factor of 0.50 or less must be used in\nthe design formula in §192.105 for Class 1 and Class 2 locations for steel pipe located in\ninland navigable waters, such as rivers.\nQuestion: §192.245(a) Why welds to be repaired on a pipeline vessel are exempted from\nthe requisite of being removed if the crack exceeds 8% of the weld length, considering\nthat the acceptance conditions for such lengths of pipeline should be more restrictive and\nthe line is still being installed (not fully descended from the vessel)? Then, for this specific\ncase, what type of repair do you recommend? Besides, the 8 percent mentioned should be\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\1\\92-01-07\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\ninterpreted as corresponding to a single crack, or more than one crack are admissible with\nsuch 8% as sum for their lengths?\nAnswer: You inquire why welds to be repaired on an offshore pipeline being installed\nfrom a pipeline vessel are exempted from the requirements of being removed if the crack\nexceeds 8% of the weld. This exception for offshore pipelines was provided because of\nthe difficulties in removing or repairing welds on a pipeline vessel. The repair of a crack\nmust be done in accordance with §192.245(b) and (c). You further inquire if the crack\nthat is more than 8 percent of the weld length that must be removed pursuant to\n§192.245(a) is a single crack or more than one crack. The limitations on this requirement\napplies to one crack or more than one crack that cumulatively may exceed 8 percent of the\nweld length.\nI trust that this adequately responds to your questions.\nSincerely,\n/signed/\nCesar DeLeon\nDirector\nRegulatory Programs\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\1\\92-01-07\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":3106}