Interpretation Response #PI-24-0003

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

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 07/02/2024

Company Name: Torrance Pipeline Company LLC

Individual Name: Mr. Thomas J. McLane

Location State: CA Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

Mr. Thomas J. McLane
Director, Regulatory Compliance
Torrance Pipeline Company LLC
12851 E 166th Street
Cerritos, CA 90703

Dear Mr. McLane:

In a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), dated February 8, 2024, you requested an interpretation of the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 195 with respect to integrity management (IM) requirements under § 195.452 for pipelines in high consequence areas (HCA).

You stated that Torrance Pipeline Company (TPC) has been in communication with PHMSA with regards to an M-141, an 8-inch jet fuel pipeline owned by TPC and located in Southern California. You stated that a 2015 repair plan prepared by the prior operator of the pipeline included a conservative application of one of the potential repair conditions triggering 180-day remediation under § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(G).

You stated since TPC took over ownership of the pipeline in July 2016 it has undertaken a comprehensive review of the pipeline under Part 195, including two inline inspections (ILI) performed in 2019 and 2023. You stated review of the ILI inspection results has revealed that the prior operator categorized 225 linear anomalies in the pipeline as actionable "cracks" that require 180-day evaluation and remediation under § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(G) even though they did not actually meet the threshold for requiring repair. You stated because the prior operator incorrectly classified them as 180-day repair conditions, TPC was then inherently required to follow the 2015 repair plan submitted to California Office of Pipeline Safety State Fire Marshal (CALFIRE) to address the remaining anomalies within the 180-day repair plan. You stated, however, your investigation revealed that the prior pipeline operator never conducted any excavation or other field verification of the pipeline to confirm whether the anomalies flagged by its inspections were actual cracks in the pipeline.

You stated TPC has since performed extensive analysis of the physical pipeline conditions, including nondestructive testing, material analysis of pipe cutouts, and data analysis. You stated you also have confirmed that no long seam or crack related failures had ever occurred in this system at working pressures or during a hydrostatic test. You stated in September 2023 you ran a nondestructive testing (NDT) crack tool and confirmed that 100 percent of the remaining unrepaired anomalies outlined by the 2015 previous owner's repair plan do not meet repair criteria. You asked PHMSA to provide an interpretation of whether §195.452 requirements allow you to carry out a revised repair plan based on actionable anomalies supported by your data. Also, you requested that PHMSA close or remove Integrity Assurance Notifications (formerly IMDB) #560 / 19-167314 and allow TPC to establish a new repair plan and schedule to complete any remaining conditional repairs per the PHMSA-compliant TPC IM plan.

Section 195.452(h)(2) requires certain listed anomalies to be scheduled for evaluation and remediation within 180 days. Discovery of a condition that does not meet the threshold of a 180-day condition would not normally require repair within 180 days. However, § 195.452 is a minimum standard. When operating and maintaining a pipeline system, an operator sometimes will make conservative assumptions or otherwise implement its IM program to exceed the minimum requirements established by regulation to ensure the safety of pipeline. Where an operator's IM plan treats more conservative conditions as 180-day conditions, the operator must follow its IM plan and repair the conditions according to the timeline set forth in the plan.

You stated your investigation revealed that the prior pipeline operator did not conduct any excavation or other field verification of the pipeline to confirm whether the anomalies flagged by its inspection were actual cracks in the pipeline. Also, you stated TPC has since performed extensive analysis of the physical pipeline conditions, including nondestructive testing, material analysis of pipe cutouts, and data analysis. In this case, you suggest certain conditions on your pipeline previously thought to be 180-day conditions do not actually qualify as 180-day conditions. Furthermore, you ask PHMSA to approve and/or concur with TPC's reassessment of the anomalies and establishment of a new repair plan.

You are correct that § 195.452(f) states, "An operator must continually change the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of consequences of a failure on the high consequence area." This regulation recognizes operators will amend their plans from time to time. Therefore, you are not precluded from amending the 2015 repair plan. The regulator, in this case CALFIRE, could review the new repair plan to determine if it complies with the regulation and does not otherwise create an unsafe condition.

As to your request for PHMSA to close or remove Integrity Assurance Notification 19-167314, CALFIRE decides whether and when to change the status of the notification.

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