Interpretation Response #PI-82-0103
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name:
Individual Name:
Location State: TX Country: US
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
PI-82-0103
May 12, 1982
Mr. Stanley P. Haydel
AMP Tuboscope, Inc.
P. O. Box 808
Houston, Texas 77001
Dear Mr. Haydel:
Your letter of March 30, 1982, asks us to confirm on the basis of a laboratory test report from Anderson & Associates, Inc., that a particular means of mechanically joining lengths of steel pipe meets the requirements of 49 CPR 192.271 and 192.273.
The report shows the results of destructive tests run on API 5L Grade B pipe material. In each of the eight specimens tested, tensile and pressure strength values exceeded the 30,000 p.s.i. minimum yield strength of the material. These tests plus the hardness values demonstrate the capability of the connection to produce a joint that is stronger than the design strength of the pipe tested. Thus, the connection appears capable of producing a joint that can withstand expansion and contraction forces and external and internal loading mentioned in §192.273(a), and that is gastight as required by §192.273(b). However, actual compliance with §192.273 would depend on proper installation of the con-nection by a pipeline operator under field conditions, a matter which we can not judge based on the test report alone.
Let me add that our confirmation is not necessary for you to market the connection. Indeed, Part 192 is intentionally self-effectuating to avoid governmental approvals, and it is our policy not to endorse proprietary methods that meet the applicable requirements of Part 192.
Sincerely,
Melvin A. Judah
Acting Associate Director for
Pipeline Safety Regulation
Materials Transportation Bureau