Pipeline Safety: Potential Low and Variable Yield and Tensile Strength and Chemical Composition Properties in High Strength Line Pipe, 23930-23931 [E9-11815]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
23930
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 97 / Thursday, May 21, 2009 / Notices
distribution. Please contact the Federal
Aviation Administration at (907) 271–
5438 for a copy.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Sitka
Rocky Gutierrez Airport Master Plan
outlined development goals and projects
that are anticipated to be necessary over
the next 20 or more years at the Airport.
This Final EIS discusses the proposed
improvements recommended at the
Airport over the next five years, which
have the potential to result in significant
adverse environmental impacts. The
FAA and the State of Alaska Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT & PF) propose the following
projects recommended over the next
five years at the Airport to meet the
identified needs. The major actions
assessed in this Final EIS include:
b Improvements to the Runway
Safety Area.
b Extension of the Parallel Taxiway.
b Relocation of the Airport Seaplane
Pullout.
b Installation of an Approach
Lighting System.
b Repairs and Improvements to the
Airport Seawall.
b Acquisition of Sufficient Property
Rights to Lands Needed for Existing and
Future Aviation and Airport Uses.
The proposed Airport improvements
would be completed during the 2010–
2015 time period and, depending on the
alternatives implemented, may result in
temporary or long-term impacts to the
coastal resources, marine environment
and wildlife (including species
protected under the Endangered Species
Act), water quality, wetlands, historical,
architectural, archaeological, and
cultural resources, terrestrial wildlife
and vegetation, and subsistence.
Section 810 of the Alaska National
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
requires an evaluation on the effects of
alternatives presented in this Final EIS
on subsistence activities occurring on
public lands in the planning area. The
evaluation in the Final EIS indicates
that none of the alternatives
significantly restrict subsistence
activities.
If the transfer of title option is
selected for the acquisition of property
rights, the lands would change from
Federal to State ownership. This would
result in the loss of Federal subsistence
regulations applying on those lands and
the irreversible loss of opportunities for
a subsistence priority for rural residents
from loss of Federal public lands. A
long-term lease or easement would
preserve opportunities for a subsistence
priority for rural residents by retaining
Federal ownership of public lands.
The FAA conducted a public hearing
on the Draft EIS October 2, 2008 and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:08 May 20, 2009
Jkt 217001
received comments on the Draft EIS
through October 14, 2008. The FAA has
reviewed and responded to the
comments received during the Draft EIS
comment period and made revisions to
the EIS as appropriate.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Sullivan. Environmental
Specialist, Federal Aviation
Administration, Alaskan Region,
Airports Division, 222 W. 7th Avenue
#14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7504. Ms.
Sullivan may be contacted during
business hours at (907) 271–5454
(phone) and (907) 271–2851 (facsimile).
Issued in Anchorage, Alaska on May 14,
2009.
Byron K. Huffman,
Mananger, Airports Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. E9–11764 Filed 5–20–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2009–0148]
Pipeline Safety: Potential Low and
Variable Yield and Tensile Strength
and Chemical Composition Properties
in High Strength Line Pipe
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA); DOT.
ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory
Bulletin.
SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing an advisory
bulletin to owners and operators of
natural gas pipeline and hazardous
liquid pipeline systems. This bulletin
advises pipeline system owners and
operators of the potential for high grade
line pipe installed on projects to exhibit
inconsistent chemical and mechanical
properties. Yield strength and tensile
strength properties that do not meet the
line pipe specification minimums have
been reported. This advisory bulletin
pertains to microalloyed high strength
line pipe grades, generally Grade X–70
and above. PHMSA recently reviewed
metallurgical testing results from several
recent projects indicating pipe joints
produced from plate or coil from the
same heat may exhibit variable chemical
and mechanical properties by as much
as 15% lower than the strength values
specified by the pipe manufacturer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alan Mayberry by phone at (202) 366–
5124 or by e-mail at
alan.mayberry@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
I. Background
The Federal pipeline safety
regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
require operators of natural gas
transmission, distribution pipeline
systems, and hazardous liquids pipeline
systems to use pipe manufactured by a
listed specification in the design of
pipelines in accordance with §§ 192.7,
192.55(a), 192.105, and §§ 195.3,
195.106, and 195.112.
During pipeline construction in the
late-fall of 2008, several recently
installed natural gas transmission
pipeline systems experienced field
hydrostatic test failures or excessively
expanded pipe joints of large diameter,
microalloyed high grade line pipe.
Metallurgical, mechanical and chemical
composition tests of the line pipe in
these cases have shown pipe to have
yield strengths, tensile strengths and/or
chemical compositions that did not
meet the requirements of the American
Petroleum Institute, Specification for
Line Pipe—5L, (API 5L), 43rd edition
for the specified pipe grade. API 5L,
product specification level (PSL 2),
specifies material requirements in
Section 6 and inspection and testing
standards in Section 9. Even though the
pipe supplier provided the pipeline
owner or operator with documentation
that the pipe that was delivered to the
owner met these minimum standards,
substandard pipe properties were found
in some pipe joints. Specifically,
PHMSA was made aware that some of
the line pipe that was installed in these
projects had yield strengths that were
up to 15% below the listed API 5L
specification requirements for the
specific pipe grade.
Pipeline owners and operators should
closely review the manufacturing
procedure specifications for the
production and rolling of the steel plate
or coil that is to be used in the
production of new microalloyed high
strength line pipe to ensure that pipe
steel was properly rolled into steel plate
or coil prior to the pipe mill rolling
process. Pipeline owners and operators
should request detailed manufacturing
procedure specifications (MPS) from the
pipe manufacturer as a basis for
ensuring critical steel processing
parameters such as the detailed rolling
schedule, including, but not limited to
rolling temperature, heating temperature
and temperature uniformity, are
controlled throughout the steel rolling
process.
Mechanical property and chemical
composition tests should be conducted
throughout the steel making, steel
rolling and pipe manufacturing process
to ensure uniformity of chemical and
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 97 / Thursday, May 21, 2009 / Notices
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
mechanical properties of the pipe prior
to being shipped from the steel and pipe
rolling mills. Low yield and tensile
strength test results are defined as any
test results below the minimum
specified yield strength ordered, and
tensile strengths below those specified
for the specified grade. An example of
pipe standard and grades includes API
5L, PSL 2, X70 and X80; where X–70
corresponds to steel achieving a
specified minimum yield strength of
70,000 psi; and so on.
II. Advisory Bulletin ADB–09–01
To: Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Liquid and Natural Gas
Pipeline Systems.
Subject: Potential Low and Variable
Yield and Tensile Strength and
Chemical Composition Properties in
High Strength Line Pipe.
Advisory: The Federal pipeline safety
regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
require operators of natural gas
transmission, gas distribution, and
hazardous liquids pipeline systems to
use pipe manufactured by a listed
specification in the design of pipelines
in accordance with §§ 192.7, 192.55 (a),
192.105, and §§ 195.3, 195.106, and
195.112.
PHMSA has identified an integrity
issue with respect to microalloyed high
grade line pipe. Tests that have been
conducted on line pipe that has been
installed in pipeline systems have
shown that some of the pipe material
has yield strengths, tensile strengths,
and/or chemical compositions that do
not meet the requirements of the
American Petroleum Institute,
Specification for Line Pipe—5L, (API
5L), for PSL 2 and the specified pipe
grade. Pipe joints produced from plate
or coil from the same heat may exhibit
variable chemical and mechanical
properties. Yield strengths below the
minimum specified yield strength have
been reported and yield strengths up to
15% lower than the strength values on
the pipe manufacturer produced mill
test report have also been reported. In
some cases, the affected pipe may
successfully pass strength testing
methods contained in current
specifications but may lead to a future
pipeline integrity issue. The presence of
low yield strength line pipe installed in
a pipeline system may result in
increased susceptibility to excessive
pipe expansion or rupture during the
pre in-service field hydrostatic strength
test.
PHMSA wants to ensure that owners
and operators of recently constructed
pipeline systems are aware of the need
to investigate whether their pipelines
contain joints of pipe that do not meet
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:08 May 20, 2009
Jkt 217001
minimum specification requirements.
Pipeline owners and operators should
review all MPS mill test reports and
other appropriate documentation with
their pipe suppliers to determine if all
specification requirements have been
met. Pipeline owners and operators
should be aware that small deviations in
steel rolling schedule parameters can
have a pronounced effect on final
mechanical properties. The MPS should
provide adequate information
concerning process details and
inspection methods to ensure that the
materials are uniform and will meet all
specification requirements.
PHMSA advises pipeline owners and
operators of in service pipelines to
review their pipe specifications, pipe
steel making and rolling MPS, pipe mill
test reports, deformation tool results and
all hydrostatic test failure results for
both mill and in place hydrostatic tests
to ensure that inconsistent mechanical
and chemical properties are not
inherent in microalloyed line pipe
grades on all API 5L—PSL 2, X70 and
X80 line pipe installed during recent
construction projects.
Pipeline owners and operators should
conduct technical document reviews on
all high strength microalloyed line pipe
installed during this period, review
hydrostatic test failures that occurred on
pipelines installed during this period
and consider using methods to detect
pipe expansion such as running
deformation tools that detect expanded
pipe in these systems if they have any
knowledge, findings or pipe history that
lead them to believe their newly
constructed high grade line pipe
systems contain line pipe joints that do
not meet specification requirements.
Should a pipeline owner or operator
have knowledge of other high grade
pipe vintages supplied at early dates
that are in their operating systems that
may have this problem, they should
consider conducting reviews as
described above with these operating
pipelines to ensure that operating
pressures and anomaly repair
procedures are not being conducted
outside of their 49 CFR Parts 192 and
195 Code parameters.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapter 601 and 49
CFR 1.53.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 14,
2009.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E9–11815 Filed 5–20–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23931
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[AC 187–1C]
Schedule of Charges Outside the
United States
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is announcing the
availability of Advisory Circular (AC)
187–1C which transmits an updated
schedule of charges for services of FAA
Flight Standards Aviation Safety
Inspectors outside the United States.
The advisory circular has been updated
in accordance with the procedures
listed in 14 CFR Part 187, Appendix A.
DATES: This AC is effective on June 1,
2009.
ADDRESSES: How to obtain copies: A
copy of this publication may be
downloaded from: https://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/b38e4a
75d8e55cae862575b6004e937a/$FILE/
AC%20187-1C.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Geoff McIntyre, Flight Standards
Service, AFS–51, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone (202) 385–8139.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 14,
2009.
John W. McGraw,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E9–11926 Filed 5–20–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
Advisory Committee on Structural
Safety of Department of Veterans
Affairs Facilities; Notice of Meeting
The Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) gives notice under Public Law 92–
463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act)
that a meeting of the Advisory
Committee on Structural Safety of
Department of Veterans Affairs
Facilities will be held on June 18–19,
2009, in Room 442, Export Import Bank,
811 Vermont Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. The June 18 session
will be from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., and the
June 19 session will be from 8:30 a.m.
until 12:30 p.m. The meeting is open to
the pubic.
The purpose of the Committee is to
advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23930-23931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11815]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0148]
Pipeline Safety: Potential Low and Variable Yield and Tensile
Strength and Chemical Composition Properties in High Strength Line Pipe
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.
ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing an advisory bulletin to owners and operators
of natural gas pipeline and hazardous liquid pipeline systems. This
bulletin advises pipeline system owners and operators of the potential
for high grade line pipe installed on projects to exhibit inconsistent
chemical and mechanical properties. Yield strength and tensile strength
properties that do not meet the line pipe specification minimums have
been reported. This advisory bulletin pertains to microalloyed high
strength line pipe grades, generally Grade X-70 and above. PHMSA
recently reviewed metallurgical testing results from several recent
projects indicating pipe joints produced from plate or coil from the
same heat may exhibit variable chemical and mechanical properties by as
much as 15% lower than the strength values specified by the pipe
manufacturer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Mayberry by phone at (202) 366-
5124 or by e-mail at alan.mayberry@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
require operators of natural gas transmission, distribution pipeline
systems, and hazardous liquids pipeline systems to use pipe
manufactured by a listed specification in the design of pipelines in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 192.7, 192.55(a), 192.105, and Sec. Sec.
195.3, 195.106, and 195.112.
During pipeline construction in the late-fall of 2008, several
recently installed natural gas transmission pipeline systems
experienced field hydrostatic test failures or excessively expanded
pipe joints of large diameter, microalloyed high grade line pipe.
Metallurgical, mechanical and chemical composition tests of the line
pipe in these cases have shown pipe to have yield strengths, tensile
strengths and/or chemical compositions that did not meet the
requirements of the American Petroleum Institute, Specification for
Line Pipe--5L, (API 5L), 43rd edition for the specified pipe grade. API
5L, product specification level (PSL 2), specifies material
requirements in Section 6 and inspection and testing standards in
Section 9. Even though the pipe supplier provided the pipeline owner or
operator with documentation that the pipe that was delivered to the
owner met these minimum standards, substandard pipe properties were
found in some pipe joints. Specifically, PHMSA was made aware that some
of the line pipe that was installed in these projects had yield
strengths that were up to 15% below the listed API 5L specification
requirements for the specific pipe grade.
Pipeline owners and operators should closely review the
manufacturing procedure specifications for the production and rolling
of the steel plate or coil that is to be used in the production of new
microalloyed high strength line pipe to ensure that pipe steel was
properly rolled into steel plate or coil prior to the pipe mill rolling
process. Pipeline owners and operators should request detailed
manufacturing procedure specifications (MPS) from the pipe manufacturer
as a basis for ensuring critical steel processing parameters such as
the detailed rolling schedule, including, but not limited to rolling
temperature, heating temperature and temperature uniformity, are
controlled throughout the steel rolling process.
Mechanical property and chemical composition tests should be
conducted throughout the steel making, steel rolling and pipe
manufacturing process to ensure uniformity of chemical and
[[Page 23931]]
mechanical properties of the pipe prior to being shipped from the steel
and pipe rolling mills. Low yield and tensile strength test results are
defined as any test results below the minimum specified yield strength
ordered, and tensile strengths below those specified for the specified
grade. An example of pipe standard and grades includes API 5L, PSL 2,
X70 and X80; where X-70 corresponds to steel achieving a specified
minimum yield strength of 70,000 psi; and so on.
II. Advisory Bulletin ADB-09-01
To: Owners and Operators of Hazardous Liquid and Natural Gas
Pipeline Systems.
Subject: Potential Low and Variable Yield and Tensile Strength and
Chemical Composition Properties in High Strength Line Pipe.
Advisory: The Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR Parts
192 and 195 require operators of natural gas transmission, gas
distribution, and hazardous liquids pipeline systems to use pipe
manufactured by a listed specification in the design of pipelines in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 192.7, 192.55 (a), 192.105, and Sec. Sec.
195.3, 195.106, and 195.112.
PHMSA has identified an integrity issue with respect to
microalloyed high grade line pipe. Tests that have been conducted on
line pipe that has been installed in pipeline systems have shown that
some of the pipe material has yield strengths, tensile strengths, and/
or chemical compositions that do not meet the requirements of the
American Petroleum Institute, Specification for Line Pipe--5L, (API
5L), for PSL 2 and the specified pipe grade. Pipe joints produced from
plate or coil from the same heat may exhibit variable chemical and
mechanical properties. Yield strengths below the minimum specified
yield strength have been reported and yield strengths up to 15% lower
than the strength values on the pipe manufacturer produced mill test
report have also been reported. In some cases, the affected pipe may
successfully pass strength testing methods contained in current
specifications but may lead to a future pipeline integrity issue. The
presence of low yield strength line pipe installed in a pipeline system
may result in increased susceptibility to excessive pipe expansion or
rupture during the pre in-service field hydrostatic strength test.
PHMSA wants to ensure that owners and operators of recently
constructed pipeline systems are aware of the need to investigate
whether their pipelines contain joints of pipe that do not meet minimum
specification requirements. Pipeline owners and operators should review
all MPS mill test reports and other appropriate documentation with
their pipe suppliers to determine if all specification requirements
have been met. Pipeline owners and operators should be aware that small
deviations in steel rolling schedule parameters can have a pronounced
effect on final mechanical properties. The MPS should provide adequate
information concerning process details and inspection methods to ensure
that the materials are uniform and will meet all specification
requirements.
PHMSA advises pipeline owners and operators of in service pipelines
to review their pipe specifications, pipe steel making and rolling MPS,
pipe mill test reports, deformation tool results and all hydrostatic
test failure results for both mill and in place hydrostatic tests to
ensure that inconsistent mechanical and chemical properties are not
inherent in microalloyed line pipe grades on all API 5L--PSL 2, X70 and
X80 line pipe installed during recent construction projects.
Pipeline owners and operators should conduct technical document
reviews on all high strength microalloyed line pipe installed during
this period, review hydrostatic test failures that occurred on
pipelines installed during this period and consider using methods to
detect pipe expansion such as running deformation tools that detect
expanded pipe in these systems if they have any knowledge, findings or
pipe history that lead them to believe their newly constructed high
grade line pipe systems contain line pipe joints that do not meet
specification requirements. Should a pipeline owner or operator have
knowledge of other high grade pipe vintages supplied at early dates
that are in their operating systems that may have this problem, they
should consider conducting reviews as described above with these
operating pipelines to ensure that operating pressures and anomaly
repair procedures are not being conducted outside of their 49 CFR Parts
192 and 195 Code parameters.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapter 601 and 49 CFR 1.53.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 14, 2009.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E9-11815 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
