Interpretation Response #PI-17-0014

Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 04/26/2018

Company Name: Plains All American GP LLC

Individual Name: Mr. Wm. Dean Gore, Jr.

Location State: TX Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

Mr. Wm. Dean Gore, Jr.
Vice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Plains All American GP LLC
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600 (77002)
Houston, Texas 77210-4648

Dear Mr. Gore:

In an August 21, 2017, letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 195. Specifically, you requested an interpretation regarding the scope of the 180-day evaluation and remediation requirement in § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(H) - Corrosion of or along a longitudinal seam weld.

You provided the following information.

... "Corrosion of or along a longitudinal seam weld" includes both ordinary corrosion crossing the seam, which generally does not pose an immediate threat to a pipeline's integrity, as well as selective seam weld corrosion ("SSWC"), which does pose an immediate a threat to a pipeline's integrity.

[A] strict application of § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(H) does not distinguish between SSWC which requires high priority (180-day timed condition) assessment and repair, and ordinary corrosion that poses no more risk than ordinary pipe body corrosion. In addition, because § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(H) does not distinguish between ordinary corrosion and SSWC, the criteria for scheduling the assessment and repair of ordinary corrosion based on metal loss and location (among other criteria) appear to be inapplicable. The result is that a substantial number of assessments and repairs are required simply because the anomaly is along, in or crosses over the pipe long seam even though no threat is posed to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. This, in turn, results in significant additional expenditures that could be better used to address assessment and repair of corrosion that poses more risk. ... it also results in significant inconvenience to the general public due to the destructive surface activities (transportation infrastructure damage and closures) necessary to perform the assessments and repairs.

Plains does not believe that PHMSA intended such onerous results from the application of § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(H). The requirements under § 195.452(h) are part of a comprehensive program of pipeline integrity management and therefore contingent upon the application of sound engineering practices during an evaluation. Accordingly, Plains is requesting clarification that remediation actions are only required when they are necessary to "ensure the condition is unlikely to pose a threat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline," and specifically a request for interpretation that the evaluation and remediation requirement of § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(H) applies only to SSWC...

Read together, subparagraph (h)(1) provides that an operator may evaluate a condition listed under subparagraph (h)(4) and determine that it does not require remediation. It would be illogical to interpret "evaluation and remediation" to have separate meanings in subparagraphs (h)(1) and (h)(4), wherein remediation is required in all cases under subparagraph (h)(4) but only when necessary under subparagraph (h)(1). Nor can subparagraph (h)(1) logically be read to exclude (h)(4), e.g., limit its application to the catch-all provision for condition schedules in § 195.452(h)(4)(iv).

This interpretation is further supported in the preamble to the original final rule. PHMSA indicated that all conditions identified during the integrity assessment must be evaluated. In contrast, PHMSA limited the requirement to repair/remediate to those conditions determined during the evaluation process to have the potential to affect the pipeline's integrity:

The rule still requires an operator to take prompt action to address all pipeline integrity issues raised by the integrity assessment and information integration. The rule now clarifies that an operator is required to evaluate all anomalies and repair those that could affect the pipeline's integrity.

Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators With 500 or More Miles of Pipeline), 65 Fed. Reg. 75,377, 75,383 (Dec. 1, 2000).

Plains assessed 513-517 using ILI in identifying anomalies. Pursuant to Plains' integrity management program, these anomalies were further evaluated by [a contractor], and it was determined that the pipeline segments are not susceptible to SSWC and that remediation of the non-injurious seam weld metal loss anomalies is not necessary to protect the integrity of the pipeline.

Plains requests clarification that the requirement under 49 CFR § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(H), that an operator must schedule remediation of corrosion of or along a longitudinal seam weld within 180 days of discovery, applies only when a condition is likely to pose a threat to the long-term integrity of a pipeline, and that such interpretation is applicable to Plains integrity management program for 513-517 and the segments referenced herein.

Interpretation

Section 195.452(h)(1) states:

(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?
(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely to pose a threat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must comply with §195.422 when making a repair.

Section 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(H) states:

(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?
(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation
(iii) 180-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of the following within 180 days of discovery of the condition:
(H) Corrosion of or along a longitudinal seam weld.

Plains is correct that § 195.452(h)(4)(iii) does not distinguish between SSWC and other types of corrosion. Though § 195.452(h)(1) provides general requirements to address integrity management issues, § 195.452(h)(4) provides requirements for remediating specific conditions. For example, corrosion along seam welds is singled out as a special requirement for scheduling remediation because of the elevated risk to safety. Section 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(H) states that an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of corrosion of or along a longitudinal seam weld within 180 days of discovery of the corrosion. This requirement applies regardless of the type of corrosion along the weld.

While an operator must generally take prompt action to address anomalies under § 195.452(h)(1), including assessing remediation, and must address conditions not otherwise listed under § 195.452(h)(4)(iv), if an operator discovers corrosion along a longitudinal seam weld, the operator must schedule remediation within 180-days as required by § 195.452(h)(4)(iii).

Plains must therefore schedule remediation within 180-days for any corrosion discovered along and including [across] longitudinal seam welds on 513-517 and the segments referenced in Plains' interpretation request.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523.

Sincerely,

John A. Gale
Director, Office of Standards
and Rulemaking

Regulation Sections