{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480eb58bf","title":"U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL PERMIT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SP Requester: TransCanada Pipelines Limited – ANR Pipeline Company1 PHMSA Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0192 Location: St. Martin Parish, Louisiana Document Date: April 19, 2011 Contact: Todd DelVecchio, P.E., Special Permit Coordinator/Environmental... , therefore r = 0.69 * 30” * square root of 1050psig = 670.8feet In order to comply with 49 CFR § 192.611, approximately 0.06 miles of pipe would require replacement to address this class location change. This replacement pipe would provide additional protection for only 28 single family dwellings. In its request,...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480eb58bf.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480eb58bf.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480eb58bf","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-2010-0192-0005/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nSPECIAL PERMIT\nFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and FINDING OF NO\nSIGNIFICANT IMPACT\nSP Requester: TransCanada Pipelines Limited – ANR Pipeline Company1\nPHMSA Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0192\nLocation: St. Martin Parish, Louisiana\nDocument Date: April 19, 2011\nContact: Todd DelVecchio, P.E., Special Permit Coordinator/Environmental\nAssessment Engineer, 202-253-0814, todd.delvecchio@dot.gov\nI. Background\nThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 USC §§ 4321 – 4375, Council on\nEnvironmental Quality regulations, 40 CFR §§ 1500-1508, and DOT Order 5610.1C,\nrequire that PHMSA analyze a proposed action to determine whether the action will have\na significant impact on the human environment. PHMSA analyzes special permit\nrequests for potential risks to public safety and the environment that could result from our\ndecision to grant or deny the request. As part of this analysis, PHMSA evaluates whether\na special permit would impact the likelihood of a pipeline failure as compared to the\nenvironmental status quo in the absence of the special permit. We developed this\nassessment to determine the effects of our action on the environment.\nII. Purpose and Need\nOn June 9, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nreceived a special permit petition from TransCanada Pipelines Limited – ANR Pipeline\nCompany (TCPL-ANR) for relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) for a\npipeline segment that experienced class location changes. The proposed special permit\nwould apply to an area of the TCPL-ANR mainline, between Station 584+66 ft in St.\nMartin Parish, Louisiana (Milepost: 54.05) and Station 616+15 ft in St. Martin Parish,\nLouisiana (Milepost: 54.61). This represents 3149 ft of pipe which is the special permit\nsegment.\nThe special permit inspection area, a much broader area than the special permit segment,\nis defined as the pipeline that begins at Mile Post 29.02 at Valve Site 2 (V3 427+75 feet)\non Loop 1-716 in Iberia Parish, Louisiana. The special permit inspection area extends\n1 ANR Pipeline Company is a subsidiary of the TransCanada Corporation.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nthrough Valve Site 3 to Mile Post 43.03 where the ANR pipeline lateral naming\nconvention changes from Loop 1-716 to Loop 2-716 in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. The\nspecial permit inspection area continues along Loop 2-176 to Valve Site 4 at Mile Post\n55.52 where the ANR pipeline lateral naming convention reverts back to Loop 1-176,\nalso in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. The special permit inspection area continues along\nLoop 1-176 and concludes at Valve Site 5 at Mile Post 70.78 (V5 00+00 feet) in St.\nLandry Parish, Louisiana. The total length of the special permit inspection area is\napproximately 41.76 miles and includes the special permit segment. This is graphically\nillustrated on the lower diagram within Figure 1.\nTCPL-ANR specifically requested a special permit (waiver) from the requirements of\n49 CFR 192.611(a), which requires pressure reduction, pressure testing or pipe\nreplacements to address class location changes when the pipeline is not commensurate\nwith the new class location.\nThe following is the text of 49 CFR 192.611(a).\n§192.611(a) Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum\nallowable operating pressure.\n(a) If the hoop stress corresponding to the established maximum allowable operating\npressure of a segment of pipeline is not commensurate with the present class location,\nand the segment is in satisfactory physical condition, the maximum allowable\noperating pressure of that segment of pipeline must be confirmed or revised\naccording to one of the following requirements:\n(1) If the segment involved has been previously tested in place for a period of not\nless than 8 hours:\n(i) The maximum allowable operating pressure is 0.8 times the test\npressure in Class 2 locations, 0.667 times the test pressure in Class 3\nlocations, or 0.555 times the test pressure in Class 4 locations. The\ncorresponding hoop stress may not exceed 72 percent of the SMYS of the\npipe in Class 2 locations, 60 percent of SMYS in Class 3 locations, or 50\npercent of SMYS in Class 4 locations.\n(ii) The alternative maximum allowable operating pressure is 0.8 times the\ntest pressure in Class 2 locations and 0.667 times the test pressure in\nClass 3 locations. For pipelines operating at alternative maximum\nallowable pressure per § 192.620, the corresponding hoop stress may not\nexceed 80 percent of the SMYS of the pipe in Class 2 locations and 67\npercent of SMYS in Class 3 locations.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n(2) The maximum allowable operating pressure of the segment involved must be\nreduced so that the corresponding hoop stress is not more than that allowed by\nthis part for new segments of pipelines in the existing class location.\n(3) The segment involved must be tested in accordance with the applicable\nrequirements of Subpart J of this part, and its maximum allowable operating\npressure must then be established according to the following criteria:\n(i) The maximum allowable operating pressure after the requalification test is\n0.8 times the test pressure for Class 2 locations, 0.667 times the test pressure\nfor Class 3 locations, and 0.555 times the test pressure for Class 4 locations.\n(ii) The corresponding hoop stress may not exceed 72 percent of the SMYS of\nthe pipe in Class 2 locations, 60 percent of SMYS in Class 3 locations, or 50\npercent of SMYS in Class 4 locations.\n(iii) For pipeline operating at an alternative maximum allowable operating\npressure per § 192.620, the alternative maximum allowable operating\npressure after the qualification test is 0.8 times the test pressure for Class 2\nlocations and 0.667 times the test pressure for Class 3 locations. The\ncorresponding hoop stress may not exceed 80 percent of the SMYS of the pipe\nin Class 2 locations and 67 percent of SMYS in Class 3 locations.\nIf granted, this special permit would allow TCPL-ANR to continue to operate the special\npermit segment at its current maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 1050\npsig.\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nIII. Site Description\nThe proposed special permit would apply to an area of the ANR lateral loop, between\nStation 584+66 ft in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana (Milepost: 54.02) and Station 616+15 ft\nin St. Martin Parish, Louisiana (Milepost: 54.61). TCPL-ANR provided a description of\nthe environmental resources in the vicinity of the right-of-way of the special permit\nsegments. TCPL-ANR’s description is included as Appendix A.\nIV. Alternatives Considered and Environmental Impacts of Each Alternative\nAlternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions\nUnder this alternative, PHMSA would grant a special permit to TCPL_\nANR to continue\nto operate the special permit segment at its current maximum allowable operating\npressure (MAOP) of 1050 psig.\nIf this special permit is issued it would be conditioned upon measures that PHMSA\nbelieves are in the public interest and would reduce the risks associated with allowing\nTCPL\n_\nANR to operate under the special permit. Potential conditions are evaluated for\nenvironmental impacts in the Special Permit Conditions Section of this EA.\ni. Potential Safety Risks Resulting Grant of the Special Permit.\nThe safety risk with respect to this request for a special permit focuses on the integrity of\nthe pipeline with respect to the increased population in the event of a catastrophic failure\nof the pipeline in this special permit segment. Though the potential impact radius (PIR)\nhas not increased, the effects on the increased population around the pipe must be\naddressed. A PIR is a measurement in feet to which an area could be affected if a\nexplosion failure were to occur. The measurement is from the centerline of the pipeline\nout in every direction.\nThe current PIR for this pipeline is calculated using a PIR calculation from ASME B318S\nManaging System Integrity of Gas Pipelines, version 2004, section 3 consequences,\nincorporated by reference by PHMSA 192 regulations. The formula and resulting\ncalculation is as follows: (see appendix B for a more in depth discussion of PIR).\nr = radius of the impact circle (ft), otherwise known as the PIR\nd = outside diameter of the pipeline (in); (30”)\np = pipeline segment’s maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), psig (1050psig)\nNote: the coefficient for natural gas is 0.69\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n, therefore r = 0.69 * 30” * square root of 1050psig = 670.8feet\nIn order to comply with 49 CFR § 192.611, approximately 0.06 miles of pipe would\nrequire replacement to address this class location change. This replacement pipe would\nprovide additional protection for only 28 single family dwellings. In its request, TCPL-\nANR stated that the implementation of enhanced integrity management in lieu of pressure\nreduction, hydrostatic testing or pipe replacement provides a superior level of safety than\nthat offered by the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192.611. By implementing the\nprovisions of this special permit petition, including performing in-line inspection,\nadditional safety benefit will be provided to approximately 41.76 miles of pipeline which\nencompasses approximately 464 single family dwellings and 5 multiple occupancy\nbuildings. Furthermore, adhering to 49 CFR Part 192 Subpart O requirements for re-\nassessment and implementing additional preventive and mitigative measures described in\nthis petition will provide ongoing safety benefits to this area.\nTCPL-ANR would incur significant costs to replace the pipe in the class location change\narea. More important than the total cost is the effectiveness of the expenditures and their\nimpact on pipeline safety. In the special permit application, TCPL-ANR has already\ncommitted to inspect and provide enhanced integrity assessments (including ongoing and\nfuture work) for approximately 41.76 miles of pipeline. If the pipe in the special permit\nsegment were replaced, additional protection would only be provided for 0.06 miles of\npipeline.\nii. Potential Environmental Risks Resulting From a Grant of the Special\nPermit.\nAs with any class location waiver when one is considering operating a pipeline above the\npressures allowed within the originally approved class designation, the risk of\nenvironmental impacts should be examined and addressed as they relate to humans,\nanimals and the environment. This analysis focuses on the following categories:\nNearby Population: There appears to be little impact to land use by this alternative since\nall work under this permit will occur within the existing ROW. The PIR has not\nincreased on account of the change in population density. The increase in population\ndensity is minimal and the increase can be mitigated with conditions. For instance,\nincreased surveillance and detailed analysis and remediation of the existing pipeline\ncould reduce the risk associated with failure of the pipeline.\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nSurface Waters: Any negative effect to surface waters due to an increased risk of a\npipeline failure would be temporary in nature and do not pose a long-term problem to\nsuch areas. However if this special permit is granted, it is likely that TCPL_ANR would\nbe required to investigate these areas further and work with local authorities to address\nany abnormalities.\nPotable Water Sources: TCPL_ANR identified no potable water areas affected by the\nspecial permit segment.\nSoils and Vegetation: Any areas of excavation would be limited and confined to the\nexisting ROW and filling of any excavation will be done with in-situ soils.\nWildlife: Risks to existing habitat within the ROW are limited to this ROW. Any\ncatastrophic failure would negatively impact wildlife within the PIR however these risks\ncould be lessened by proposed conditions.\nGeologic Hazards: There appears to be no impact to geologic hazards.\nSocioeconomic Impacts: From the data collected TCPL\n_\nANR appears to have no\nnegative affect to socioeconomic impacts in general or on Native Americans, due to the\nnature of the work of this permit limited to its ROW. Any other socioeconomic impacts\nsuch as temporary traffic management plans due to the ROW intersecting with roadways\nshall be handled with local and state authorities when encountered to impact traffic on\nany state or local roadway.\niii. Special Permit Conditions\nIf a special permit is granted, PHMSA would place conditions in the permit that would\nrequire TCPL_ANR to comply with numerous conditions designed to address safety and\nenvironmental issues that are in the public interest. Most Class Location special permits\nrequire operators to locate and remediate certain pipeline safety threats, including, but not\nlimited to, threats associated with: pipe coating quality, cathodic protection, third party\ndamage, weld seam and girth weld integrity, pipe steel anomalies, and material and\nstructures either along or near the pipeline that could cause the cathodic protection\nsystem to be ineffective.\nIf the permit application is granted, conditions may include requirements that\nTCPL\n_\nANR perform the following work:\n6\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n Conduct a close interval survey to determine the effectiveness of the cathodic\nprotection system within the special permit segments. Remediate all areas with\ninadequate cathodic protection.\n Conduct a coating survey to determine the quality of the pipe coating. Remediate\nineffective coating areas in the special permit segments.\n Conduct stress corrosion cracking surveys on the pipeline in the special permit\nsegments to ensure that the pipe steel is not cracking due to the effects of high and\nnear neutral pH SCC.\n Incorporate the latest methods of damage prevention, such as the best practices of\nthe Common Ground Alliance (CGA), into the damage prevention program in the\nspecial permit segments.\n Identify, control and mitigated any interference currents from electric\ntransmission lines and other interfering structures in the special permit segments.\nConduct surveys and install grounding systems where required.\n Analyze pipeline field coated girth welds that could have shielding coatings that\ncould cause corrosion of the pipe steel in the special permit segments. Expose\nand evaluate corrosion indications on shielding or unknown coatings as indicated\nfrom in-line inspection logs.\n Repair anomalies and dents on the pipeline according to the special permit repair\ncriteria for special permit segments.\n Clear all shorted casing (either metallic or electrolytic) at all road crossings and\nrailroad crossings in the special permit segments.\n Perform periodic close interval surveys and in-line inspection surveys on the\nspecial permit segments at the applicable reassessment intervals.\nIn its application, TCPL\n_\nANR has also proposed to voluntarily perform additional work\nincluding specific alternative integrity management activities to mitigate the integrity\nthreats applicable to this pipeline segment. PHMSA will consider and evaluate whether\nto include these conditions in the special permit.\n1. The special permit area will be subject to the requirements of TCPL’s Integrity\nManagement Program and 49 CFR 192, Subpart O. TCPL-ANR maintains a\ncomprehensive corrosion control program comprising annual test lead surveys\nand diagnostic testing. This is supplemented with high-resolution in-line\ninspection surveys (magnetic flux leakage and geometry).\n2. TCPL-ANR will perform a depth of cover survey in the special permit area within\none year of receiving the special permit. TCPL-ANR will review the survey\nresults and design and implement appropriate mitigation.\n3. A CIS in the inspection area and DCVG survey in the special permit area will be\nconducted within one year of being granted the special permit.\n7\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n4. During excavations, TCPL-ANR will confirm the cathodic protection potential of\nthe pipelines; measure depth of cover; examine the coating; examine the pipe for\norientation of the seam, condition of the longitudinal seam, and visually inspect\nfor corrosion pitting or crack-like features. Furthermore, the pipe with disbonded\ncoating shall be examined for the presence of stress corrosion cracking.\n5. ANR Line 2-716 mainline valves within the inspection area are equipped with valve\nactuators. Each actuator works on a rate of pressure drop sensor to trigger the\nautomatic closure in the event of a rupture.\n6. These activities and devices will provide a degree of risk reduction equivalent to\nand greater than that provided by the replacement of pipeline in the affected area.\n7. TCPL-ANR anticipates PHMSA may issue additional conditions for the special\npermit area when the special permit is granted and will comply with the\napplicable conditions.\nEnhancements to the operations and maintenance requirements under the proposed\nspecial permit will reduce the overall risk of incident occurrence. Since the overall risk\nof a pipeline failure will be reduced, there is an improvement in human safety if the\nspecial permit is granted.\nThe overall environmental impacts would remain the same or be reduced if the proposed\nspecial permit is granted with conditions since implementing the special permit would\nrequire TCPL-ANR to perform specific integrity assessments and take specific actions to\nremediate pipeline integrity concerns. Under this alternative, there is the potential that\nremediation efforts will affect public infrastructure or environmentally sensitive areas,\nbut this cannot be determined until the integrity assessments have been performed.\nTCPL-ANR would be required to comply with all laws and regulations when performing\nany of the activities required by the proposed special permit, including consultations with\nappropriate environmental agencies, procuring all required environmental permits and\nimplementing all appropriate environmental mitigation measures.\nAlternative 2: Reduce the MAOP\nIf PHMSA denied the request for a special permit, TCPL-ANR would be required to\nreduce the MAOP for the special permit segment from its current maximum allowable\noperating pressure (“MAOP”) of 1050 psig to a MAOP of 875 psig, which would reduce\nthe capacity of this portion of the TCPL- ANR pipeline system below its Federal Energy\nRegulatory Commission (“FERC”) certificated capacity. Certainly, this alternative\ncreates less of an environmental concern than replacing the pipe eliminating the need for\nexcavation and construction but under this alternative, TCPL-ANR would be unable to\ndeliver its contractual commitment to its customers.\n8\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nAlternative 3: Deny the Request\nPHMSA could deny the request for a special permit which would require TCPL-ANR to\nreplace the pipe in the class location change area. If the special permit segment were\nreplaced, the area would incur increased environmental impacts due to excavation, post-\nconstruction compaction of soils, and an impacted right-of-way during construction. Any\nexcavation through a surface water would also be negatively impacted and need\nremediation. There are often significant disturbances to surface water bodies such as\nwetlands, streams and other water surface features during construction of a pipeline.\nThese disturbances are not limited to trenching large excavation areas, building\ntemporary construction staging areas, and changing the topology of the right of way , etc.\nAll of which can be mitigated however natural features and disturbances to the ecology of\nthe local environment in most cases takes time to recover completely even with\nmitigation. Furthermore wildlife can be temporarily impacted during construction\nactivities.\nV. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)\nPHMSA has carefully analyzed the safety and environmental risks associated with\ngranting this special permit. PHMSA has imposed conditions on this special permit\ndesigned to protect the public, property, and the environment from the risk of a\npipeline spill or failure. These conditions are designed to ensure that the likelihood\nof a spill or failure is not greater than it would be in the absence of the special\npermit. Therefore, we believe there are no significant environmental impacts\nassociated with the issuance of a special permit to the applicant.\nVI. List of Preparers\nTodd DelVecchio, P.E., PHMSA, USDOT\nVII. Agencies and Persons Consulted\nPHMSA considered environmental information and documents submitted by TCPL-\nANR.\n9\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nFigure 1: Special Permit Area Stations\nv';:1 ti.,,! 1\n.~ ,:\" 14 ,\n, 1 L....,7! ~ ..,'\"\nSI W.1\" >- ..... o \".n_ 0 ' .. I x ~iOt.\ns:. \" ... .., \" .. \" un, \" .'~ h\n1 )0 ~,,, ,\n• •\nm \" \" m 8 - • • 0 0\n•\n\" • , , m \"\n\" \" \" \" \" \"\n, , , 3.149 n , , ,\n, ,\nV5 V . V3 V2\n0 , 0 I : ] 0 , 0\n.c .c\n. \"\nm ~ u'> \" \" - -\n«'\",,,\" m • • <E> ........ 11\n;: J. N;; • - 0 •\n•\n-ii:!!zg • • \" 0 ,\n2! . .:1 • 0 • .,\n'~ - .\n- ::J -\n:::l ~ ... ;t ;< ~\n~l ... l\n. ~ ------------------ l1ne2-716 --------.-----.-.---- ~ . ---\n~ .. Line 1 -7 16\nLine -7 16\nV5 00+00 \"\n-\n.. l ine 1- 7 16 . - -~\nlinb 1-71 6\nV 4.21+75 \"\n41.76 ml Inspection Area\n16. 17 mi Sp,tial P,rmit Alta 25 mi\n•\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nFigure 2: Special Permit Area Map\n)\n\\\n,\n, ,\n, i\nr\n-\nr I \\\" -\n_I , t\n1 -'\nJ-\n~ll\nL~.\nNIR ~Itf\" Loop 1·116\nSpitcIII P ...... AI ... _ V4 SlW066t1lO V4 \"6+15 11\n~ IVy _ Line ' ·716VSo.oo It 1OV3 41Z.n It\n-,\n,\n'.\nI\n--\n.. \"....\n'.'TO\n11\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nAppendix A\nThe following is a description of the right-of-way in the vicinity of the special permit\nsegments that was obtained from an environment questionnaire from TCPL-ANR.\nNearby Population:\nFigure 2, attached, is a state map showing the general location of the special permit\nsegment. There are 28 single family dwellings in the vicinity of the special permit\nsegment.\nSurface Waters:\nThere is a stream located within the special permit segment located at Valve Section 4,\nstation 593+98 ft (Milepost: 54.20). There are wetlands located from Valve Section 4,\nStation 584+66 ft (Milepost: 54.02) to Valve Section 4, Station 586+92 ft (Milepost:\n54.06). There are also wetlands located from Valve Section 4, Station 612+95 ft\n(Milepost: 54.55) to Valve Section 4, Station 616+15 ft (Milepost: 54.61).\nPotable Water Sources:\nThere are no known drinking aquifers in the vicinity of the proposed special permit\nsegment.\nSoils and Vegetation:\nSoils at the special permit segment of Line 2-716 include Dundee series situated on 0% to\n1% slopes, Tensas series situated on 0% to 1% slopes, and Loreauville series situated on\n0% to 1% slopes. The vegetation in the vicinity of the segment on 2-716 is mainly\nagriculture fields and forested wetland.\nWildlife:\nUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened and Endangered Species in\nSt. Martin Parish, Louisiana includes the Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). The\nspecial permit area does not have the appropriate conditions for the Pallid Sturgeon.\nGeologic Hazards\nA Phase I Geohazards Assessment study has been conducted on parts of the TCPL-ANR\npipeline system. The inspection area is included in the study. Of the hazards considered,\nthere are no landslide hazards, potential low2 liquefaction and low3 shaking hazard for\nseismic activity (moderate4 fault hazard due to Gulf Coast Normal faults), potential low5\nhazard - Karst area for subsidence hazard, potential moderate6 to high7 collapsible and\n2 Areas of alluvial or lacustrine soil meeting one of the following criteria: < 0.1 g peak ground acceleration\nor groundwater deeper than about 9 meters.\n3 < 0.15 g peak ground acceleration\n4 Geomorphic lineaments observed on aerial photographs, or during aerial reconnaissance, that are within\nactive tectonic regions; areas mapped as “Gulf Coast normal faults” in the Quaternary Fault and Fold\ndatabase\n5 Areas mapped as being underlain by potentially karstic or pseudokarstic formations (e.g. limestone or\ngypsum); areas between 500 to 2,000 meters of mapped salt dome center\n6 Linear Extensibility Percent (shrink-swell potential) between 3 and 6\n7 Linear Extensibility Percent (shrink-swell potential) greater than 6\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nexpansive soil hazard and potential moderate8 to high9 risk of meteorological hazard\nwithin the inspection area. Although there is a potential for geotechnical activity, there is\nno immediate risk to the integrity of the pipeline within the inspection area.\nSocioeconomics and Native Americans:\nThere will be no socioeconomic impacts or special impacts on Native Americans.\n8 Areas with greater than 0.25 tornado days per year\n9 Offshore areas or areas within 20 miles of coastline of Gulf of Mexico (hurricanes)\n13\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nAppendix B – Section 3, ASME B31.8S, 2004\n--\n.... n ... _\n_ .......\n............\n__ n... ...... _p\"\"...... '-P .... .,-----__\n:::-=':.~' ., _ ... ' ...\n-\n. ....\n__ .... __ .... \"V.po ,0\"--\n.. ~IJ\n!uN. ..... \"\" ____ \"\"\"\"\n_ .......... _ ... _\"\"\"----\n,,,u __ ' ''~''''''' '''''-_\n__ ''OJ .. ,_-..\n-\n-\n\"'\n..\n... ~\n-\n1\"\"\"\"\" I' _-.... .... ~'1*-\n.......,_--..\n-\n. ... ..\n.... ...\n~ .... ..,.....,-..\n__ AIIot_-...._-.ftry_ ..\n.... -.... .. ....\n-\n.. ~--...\n.... P\"f'II- __\n-\n-\n..\n_,\n~-~-- .... ...\n_............ .-\" ...\n.,-_-...oy fg , __.---\n_ ... __ ._ior.,-....,_\n,_ no. _'to ...... 1\"-' \"\"~KO\" _ •• _\n----\n...... ....,-.. \".,~ •• .po\"--...\n--\n-\n...\nnIJ \"-\n. ....,,-.. ~\n\"\n,\n-\n-- - of ... .,.-,,.,\n, - ,..poI!\" OOS-'\n• • \" ..... 0I1ow ....\n,\n__ oq_(M:\\OP> _\n-\n.\n..,.,..,.... AJO __ ...\n'_of\"'_~, ~\n.\n_\n_ _ _\n---\n\" 1 . . ...\n.. , ......... _---..\n., \" \" . ~\n, _110&10:_\"\"&'''''\n• eu O. _O\nlIooof_......- ........... _\"'._\n-\n---ppobno-_.\n--\n(SooOU.oo/OUIO.)\n-_ ......\n...... _,..\"......\n\"\"\"\" ...... _ ... __ ... _ .. _-\n-----\n......... (1' ..........\n-\n,./,r \"',,'·' c. , ~ ,~,rt\n-\n_ _ of\nc. --._' He\n10 - ---\nQ ---·\n,!.-hr\nu_\n...... -~ .. ~ ...... -..\n(I\" ,I ....,....... ilO ....... __\n_._bt..\"..... ' ''r--S-\n...... n ' '''.... I ...... . _ .. __\n-\n\"\"\"'-.po .... ..- ., _.... , ...\n........ ~ -.... -...,.--..... ... . ...--,,-~\n--\n., .. _ ........\n,.\" En • .,... ___ .. .,.-__ \"r\nodjoMoog-.--.,.--,....,. I - ....\n= --~, .... ,....,....<= : -\n.... ___ ,n... .... __ ...... _\n. .. 8\"-\n• •\n••\n• •\n,.\n..\n\" ••\n• •\n••\nIo .~ __ ... __ ...,.\n____ .... caIr.Iooo __\n--......,..\".. ... ... II' ...... ~\n.... . , .3J __\n\" \" ... _\n..... -\"r . ,.,--~_\n....,_ ... '--.--................\n1 __ \"-'-\"\"\"\"\"\"'\" , of\n...\n_\nof __ ... __ ...............\n_\n______ -.-....~ . _of ...\n.... ..,,~------- ,.,--....,-\n_ .... ,....,....-_.,.\"p<-..I ....... ---\"\"'-\"''''''---\n3:1 _101 ....... '_\n.... _'od_ ...\n-\n_\nior _ .... -..,\n..... _ -_ ...\n... _'\" ... .... Iooo __ e-... l~n...\n'\"--,\"\"\"'\"'\"\"\"\"\" .. _., ..... .............\n-\n\"\"' .... ....-... . ..,-\n~\n,\n14\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\n..... .. \"' ..... _ ................... -...\n....--.... ---\n- _.\nA )( A\n~ v\nA\n...... ..,I, ''''' ___ ... _ ...... ... .... __ \"\"\"'_ , __\nThorn...sof __ ... -.pon.wo_of ''-'I111i1t1116, Il\"IIl'WIIIG, Mg IInGMl1II6\n\"'\" .. O---' ............. of....... gAM\n,..._; __ ofnok .. ( _\n__ • _ SI_ iI.l\n_ _\n).} (_ .. _\n'\"\"\n_ .. ,.(.U ..\n_ .. ~ ... ~of.Ioit __\n-\n............. mno. ... __ --.-...\n, W\"\"\",,_-..,.\n(., pr\"\";\"\"Y of .100 popoloh .. '\" ,be p'pollne\nr._~~' rof=m .... \"\" __\n\"'\" ...,. pn>rido ..-10 .. , of .. __ ~\n1<1 _of\"..\". ............. _\"'....,-...\n_bty (\"-I-. \"\"\"\"', .... ><_. d\\iId.., .... _.\n:0 \" .<tOO_..-. ___ ~I*.\nlicul-wlyio> i _>0<1 __\nI '\" 1\"'¥\"1-...\n1 <1\"\"\"\"'-\"-...\nrp _of ....... d 11\"'-\nIV --\"Jofll\"'\"\"I'I\"J(\"s-._ .....\n-\n__ of .... o<o)\nftI~aww __ _\n/iJ .......... \"\".......a.y __\n\"'\" ~,,~, Nolo _ \"'\" ,.. ; ~ • ...,.\"\"'1 _ OIl ...\nU Doto .... _ ..\n_of .... II\"' ....... _ •• _of\"'-\n\"'II IIw _loCI of IIw \"\"--\nn....--\",\"~. \"'\"_ ---_->.01_-_ ..\nTho ____ • _ .... w ....... \"'\"\n-\n• \"\"8'\" <IM.I __ Tho ___ .... -.\nIIwdo\" __ \",por*'-o _ .(_ ......\n•\n15","truncated":false,"body_characters":27650}