Pipeline Safety: Girth Weld Quality Issues Due to Improper Transitioning, Misalignment, and Welding Practices of Large Diameter Line Pipe, 14243-14245 [2010-6528]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 24, 2010 / Notices
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing
also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of NYSE
Arca. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You
should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No.
SR–NYSEArca–2010–14 and should be
submitted on or before April 8, 2010.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.19
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–6507 Filed 3–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 35359]
Decided: March 18, 2010.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Pacific Rim Railway Company, Inc.—
Acquisition and Operation
Exemption—City of Keokuk, IA
Pacific Rim Railway Company, Inc.
(PRIM), a noncarrier, has filed a verified
notice of exemption under 49 CFR
1150.31 to acquire from the City of
Keokuk, IA and to operate
approximately 2,894 feet of railroad
trackage (.544-mile) consisting of a
2,194 foot-long railroad bridge over the
Mississippi River, commonly known as
the Keokuk Municipal Bridge,
approximately 600 feet of land and track
at the approach to the bridge at
Hamilton, IL and approximately 100 feet
of land and track at the approach to the
bridge at Keokuk (collectively, the
Bridge). The Bridge connects trackage at
Keokuk with trackage at Hamilton.1
The transaction is expected to be
consummated on or shortly after April
7, 2010 (the effective date of the
exemption).
PRIM certifies that its projected
annual revenues as a result of the
transaction do not exceed those that
would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier
and further certifies that its projected
19 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
states that, because the Bridge is part of
a through route for rail transportation, it is a
‘‘railroad line’’ under 49 U.S.C. 10901(a)(4). Rail
transportation over the Bridge is currently being
performed by Keokuk Junction Railway Company
(KJRY), a Class III rail carrier. PRIM does not
propose to operate over the Bridge, but
acknowledges that, as owner of the Bridge, it would
have a residual common carrier obligation to
provide rail transportation in the event KJRY ceases
to do so. PRIM seeks an exemption for operation on
that basis.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
1 PRIM
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:24 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
annual revenue will not exceed $5
million.
If the verified notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
may be filed at any time. The filing of
a petition to revoke will not
automatically stay the effectiveness of
the exemption. Petitions for stay must
be filed no later than March 31, 2010 (at
least 7 days before the exemption
becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all
pleadings, referring to STB Finance
Docket No. 35359, must be filed with
the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001. In addition, a copy of each
pleading must be served on Thomas F.
McFarland, 208 South LaSalle Street,
Suite 1890, Chicago, IL 60604.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at https://
www.stb.dot.gov.
Kulunie L. Cannon,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2010–6414 Filed 3–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Research, Engineering And
Development Advisory Committee
Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.
L. 92–463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is
hereby given of a meeting of the FAA
Research, Engineering and Development
(R,E&D) Advisory Committee.
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration.
Action: Notice of Meeting.
Name: Research, Engineering &
Development Advisory Committee.
Time and Date: April 21, 2010—9 a.m. to
5 p.m.
Place: Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW–Round Room
(10th Floor), Washington, DC 20591.
Purpose: The meeting agenda will include
receiving from the Committee guidance for
FAA’ s research and development
investments in the areas of air traffic services,
airports, aircraft safety, human factors and
environment and energy. Attendance is open
to the interested public but seating is limited.
Persons wishing to attend the meeting or
obtain information should contact Gloria
Dunderman at (202) 267–8937 or
gloria.dunderman@faa.gov. Attendees will
have to present picture ID at the security
desk and be escorted to the Round Room.
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14243
Members of the public may present a
written statement to the Committee at any
time.
Dated: Issued in Washington, DC on March
17, 2010.
Barry Scott,
Director, Research & Technology
Development.
[FR Doc. 2010–6254 Filed 3–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2010–0078]
Pipeline Safety: Girth Weld Quality
Issues Due to Improper Transitioning,
Misalignment, and Welding Practices
of Large Diameter 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 notify owners and operators
of recently constructed large diameter
natural gas pipeline and hazardous
liquid pipeline systems of the potential
for girth weld failures due to welding
quality issues. Misalignment during
welding of large diameter line pipe may
cause in-service leaks and ruptures at
pressures well below 72 percent
specified minimum yield strength
(SMYS). PHMSA has reviewed several
recent projects constructed in 2008 and
2009 with 20-inch or greater diameter,
grade X70 and higher line pipe.
Metallurgical testing results of failed
girth welds in pipe wall thickness
transitions have found pipe segments
with line pipe weld misalignment,
improper bevel and wall thickness
transitions, and other improper welding
practices that occurred during
construction. A number of the failures
were located in pipeline segments with
concentrated external loading due to
support and backfill issues. Owners and
operators of recently constructed large
diameter pipelines should evaluate
these lines for potential girth weld
failures due to misalignment and other
issues by reviewing construction and
operating records and conducting
engineering reviews as necessary.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alan Mayberry by phone at 202–366–
5124 or by e-mail at
alan.mayberry@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
14244
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 24, 2010 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
I. Background
The Federal pipeline safety
regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
require operators of natural gas
transmission, distribution, and
hazardous liquids pipeline systems to
construct their pipelines using pipe,
fittings, and bends manufactured in
accordance with 49 CFR §§ 192.7,
192.53, 192.55, 192.143, 192.144,
192.149, 195.3, 195.101, 195.112, and
195.118 and incorporated standards and
listed design specifications. This
involves reviewing the manufacturing
procedure specification details for weld
end conditions for the line pipe, fitting,
bend, or other appurtenance from the
manufacturer to ensure weld end
conditions are acceptable for girth
welding.
During the 2008 and 2009 pipeline
construction periods, several newly
constructed large diameter, 20-inch or
greater, high strength (API 5L X70 and
X80) natural gas and hazardous liquid
pipelines experienced field hydrostatic
test failures, in-service leaks, or inservice failures of line pipe girth welds.
Post-incident metallurgical and
mechanical tests and inspections of the
line pipe, fittings, bends, and other
appurtenances indicated pipe with weld
misalignment, improper bevels of
transitions, improper back welds, and
improper support of the pipe and
appurtenances. In some cases, pipe end
conditions did not meet the design and
construction requirements of the
applicable standards including:
• American Petroleum Institute (API),
Specification for Line Pipe—5L, (API
5L), 43rd (including Table 8—Tolerance
for Diameter at Pipe Ends and Table 9—
Tolerances for Wall Thickness) or 44th
editions for the specified pipe grade;
• API 1104, 19th and 20th editions,
Welding of Pipelines and Related
Facilities;
• American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) B31.8, Gas
Transmission and Distribution Piping
Systems or ASME B31.4 Pipeline
Transportation Systems for Liquid
Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids; and
• Manufacturers Standardization
Society of the Valve and Fittings
Industry, Inc. (MSS) MSS–SP–44–1996
Steel Pipeline Flanges and MSS MSS–
SP–75–2004 Specification for High-Test,
Wrought, Butt-Welding Fittings.
Post-incident findings were that in
some cases the pipe and induction bend
girth weld bevels were not properly
transitioned and aligned during
welding. In some cases, the girth weld
pipe ends did not meet API 5L pipe end
diameter and diameter out-of-roundness
specifications. Many of the problematic
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:24 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
girth welds did not meet API 1104
misalignment and allowable ‘‘high-low’’
criteria.
Some girth welds that failed inservice had non-destructive testing
(NDT) quality control problems. NDT
procedures, including radiographic film
and radiation source selection, were not
properly optimized for weld defect
detection and repairs. This was
particularly the case where there were
large variations in wall thickness at
transitions. In some situations, NDT
procedures were not completed in
accordance with established API 1104
and operator procedures.
Many of the integrity issues with
transition girth welds were present on
pipelines being constructed in hilly
terrain and high stress concentration
locations such as at crossings, streams,
and sloping hillsides with unstable
soils. These girth welds had high stress
concentrations in the girth weld
transitions due to the combination of
large variations in wall thickness and
improper internal bevels with
inadequate pipe support, poor backfill
practices and soil movement due to
construction activities.
II. Advisory Bulletin ADB–10–03
To: Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Liquid and Natural Gas
Pipeline Systems.
Subject: Girth Weld Quality Issues
Due to Improper Transitioning,
Misalignment, and Welding Practices of
Large Diameter Line Pipe.
Advisory: Owners and operators of
recently constructed large diameter
pipelines should evaluate these lines for
potential girth weld failures due to
misalignment and other issues by
reviewing construction and operating
records and conducting engineering
reviews as necessary. The assessments
should cover all large diameter, 20-inch
or greater, high strength line pipe
transitions and cut factory bends or
induction bends installed during 2008
and 2009, and should include material
specifications, field construction
procedures, caliper tool results,
deformation tool results, welding
procedures including back welding,
NDT records, and any failures or leaks
during hydrostatic testing or in-service
operations to identify systemic
problems with pipe girth weld
geometry/out-of-roundness, diameter
tolerance, and wall thickness variations
that may be defective.
The reviews should ensure that
pipelines were constructed in
compliance with the Federal pipeline
safety regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192
and 195. Operators of natural gas
transmission, distribution, and
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
hazardous liquids pipeline systems are
required to use pipe and fittings
manufactured in accordance with 49
CFR §§ 192.7, 192.53, 192.55, 192.143,
192.144, 192.149, 195.3, 195.101,
195.112, and 195.118 and incorporated
standards and listed design
specifications.
With respect to the construction
process, pipe, fittings, factory bends,
and induction bends must be made in
accordance with the applicable
standards to ensure that weld end
dimension tolerances are met for the
pipe end diameter and diameter out-ofroundness. API 1104 specifies girth
weld misalignment and allowable ‘‘highlow’’ criteria. API 1104—19th edition,
§ 7.2, Alignment, specifies for pipe ends
of the same nominal thickness that the
offset should not exceed 1⁄8 inch (3mm)
and when there is greater misalignment,
it shall be uniformly distributed around
the circumference of the pipe, fitting,
bend, and other appurtenance. ASME
B31.4, Figure 434.8.6(a)–(2), Acceptable
Butt Welded Joint Design for Unequal
Wall Thickness and ASME B31.8, Figure
I5, Acceptable Design for Unequal Wall
Thickness, give guidance for wall
thickness variations and weld bevels
designs for transitions. API 5L, 43rd
edition in Table 8—Tolerance for
Diameter at Pipe Ends and Table 9—
Tolerances for Wall Thickness, specifies
tolerances for pipe wall thickness and
pipe end conditions for diameter and
diameter out-of-roundness. MSS–SP–
44–1996 specifies weld end tolerances
in § 5.3—Hub Design, § 5.4—Welding
End, Figure 1—Acceptable Designs for
Unequal Wall Thickness, and Figures 2
and 3; and MSS–75–2004 specifies weld
end tolerances in § 13.3 and Figures 1,
2, and 3 and Table 3—Tolerances.
Pipeline owners and operators should
closely review the manufacturing
procedure specifications for the
production, rolling, and bending of the
steel pipe, fittings, bends, and other
appurtenances to make sure that pipe
end conditions (diameter and out of
roundness tolerances) and transition
bevels are suitable for girth welding.
Pipeline owners and operators should
request or specify manufacturing
procedure specification details for weld
end conditions for the line pipe, fitting,
bend, or other appurtenance from the
manufacturer to ensure weld end
conditions are acceptable for girth
welding.
To ensure the integrity of the
pipeline, field personnel that weld line
pipe, fittings, bends, and other
appurtenances must be qualified, follow
qualified procedures, and operators
must document the work performed.
Operators should verify that field
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 24, 2010 / Notices
practices are conforming to API 5L, API
1104, ASME B31.4 or ASME B31.8 and
operator procedures for weld bevel, pipe
alignment, back welding, and
transitions. If any bends are cut, the
operator must have procedures to
ensure that the pipe or bend cut ends
are acceptable for welding in
accordance with the listed
specifications. Procedures, inspection,
and documentation must be in place to
ensure that when pipe, fittings, bends,
and other appurtenances are welded,
the field girth welds are made and nondestructively tested in accordance with
49 CFR §§ 192.241, 192.243, 192.245,
195.228, 195.230, and 195.234. NDT
procedures including film type and
radiation source selection should be
optimized for weld defect detection and
repairs completed in accordance with
established welding procedures. When
there is a variation in wall thickness
between line pipe and a segmented
fitting, bend, or other appurtenance,
consideration should be given to the
installation of a segment of intermediate
wall thickness pipe. Additionally,
efforts should be taken to ensure pipe
girth weld alignment is optimized by
utilizing experienced and trained
welders, suitable pipe and detailed
procedures.
Each material component of a
pipeline such as line pipe, fittings,
bends, and other appurtenances must be
able to withstand operating pressures
and other anticipated external loadings
without impairment of its serviceability
in accordance with 49 CFR §§ 192.143
and 195.110. In order to ensure pipeline
integrity, the operator must take all
practicable steps to protect each
transmission line from abnormal loads
while backfilling and other work
continues along the right-of-way and to
minimize loads in accordance with 49
CFR §§ 192.317, 192.319, 195.246(a),
and 195.252. Operators should give
special attention to girth welds with
variations in wall thickness when
located in pipeline segments where
significant pipe support and backfill
settlement issues after installation may
be present, specifically in hilly terrain
and high stress concentration locations
such as at crossings, streams, and
sloping hill sides with unstable soils.
Even if no girth weld concerns are
identified by reviewing construction
records, if an operator has any
knowledge, findings or operating history
that leads it to believe that its newly
constructed, high material grade, large
diameter, line pipe segments contain
these type girth weld transitions, the
operator should conduct engineering
reviews as described above with those
operating pipelines to ensure that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:24 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
material, engineering design, and field
construction procedures were in
compliance with 49 CFR Parts 192 and
195. Failure to conduct engineering
reviews and to remediate findings may
compromise the safe operation of the
pipeline.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapter 601 and 49
CFR 1.53.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 18,
2010.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010–6528 Filed 3–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
Voluntary Intermodal Sealift
Agreement
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice of Voluntary Intermodal
Sealift Agreement (VISA).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration
(MARAD) announces the extension of
the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift
Agreement (VISA) until October 1, 2011,
pursuant to the Defense Production Act
of 1950, as amended. The purpose of the
VISA is to make intermodal shipping
services/systems, including ships, ships’
space, intermodal equipment and
related management services, available
to the Department of Defense as
required to support the emergency
deployment and sustainment of U.S.
military forces. This is to be
accomplished through cooperation
among the maritime industry, the
Department of Transportation and the
Department of Defense.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerome D. Davis, Director, Office of
Sealift Support, Room W25–310,
Maritime Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590, (202) 366–2323, Fax (202) 366–
5904.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
708 of the Defense Production Act of
1950, as amended, (50 U.S.C. App.
2158), as implemented by regulations of
the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (44 CFR Part 332), ‘‘Voluntary
agreements for preparedness programs
and expansion of production capacity
and supply’’, authorizes the President,
upon a finding that conditions exist
which may pose a direct threat to the
national defense or its preparedness
programs, ‘‘* * * to consult with
representatives of industry, business,
financing, agriculture, labor and other
interests * * *’’ in order to provide the
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14245
making of such voluntary agreements. It
further authorizes the President to
delegate that authority to individuals
who are appointed by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, upon
the condition that such individuals
obtain the prior approval of the
Attorney General after the Attorney
General’s consultation with the Federal
Trade Commission. Section 501 of
Executive Order 12919, as amended,
delegated this authority of the President
to the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary), among others. By DOT
Order 1900.9, the Secretary delegated to
the Maritime Administrator the
authority under which the VISA is
sponsored. Through advance
arrangements in joint planning, it is
intended that participants in VISA will
provide capacity to support a significant
portion of surge and sustainment
requirements in the deployment of U.S.
military forces during war or other
national emergency.
The text of the VISA was first
published in the Federal Register on
February 13, 1997, to be effective for a
two-year term until February 13, 1999.
The VISA document has been extended
and subsequently published in the
Federal Register every two years. The
last extension was published on
November 7, 2007. The text published
herein will now be implemented.
Copies will be made available to the
public upon request.
Text of the Voluntary Intermodal
Sealift Agreement:
Voluntary Intermodal Sealift
Agreement (VISA)
Table of Contents
Abbreviations
Definitions
Preface
I. Purpose
II. Authorities
A. MARAD
B. USTRANSCOM
III. General
A. Concept
B. Responsibilities
C. Termination of Charter, Leases and
Other Contractual Arrangements
D. Modification/Amendment of This
Agreement
E. Administrative Expenses
F. Record Keeping
G. MARAD Reporting Requirements
IV. Joint Planning Advisory Group
V. Activation of VISA Contingency
Provisions
A. General
B. Notification of Activation
C. Voluntary Capacity
D. Stage I
E. Stage II
F. Stage III
G. Partial Activation
VI. Terms and Conditions
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14243-14245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6528]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0078]
Pipeline Safety: Girth Weld Quality Issues Due to Improper
Transitioning, Misalignment, and Welding Practices of Large Diameter
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 notify owners and
operators of recently constructed large diameter natural gas pipeline
and hazardous liquid pipeline systems of the potential for girth weld
failures due to welding quality issues. Misalignment during welding of
large diameter line pipe may cause in-service leaks and ruptures at
pressures well below 72 percent specified minimum yield strength
(SMYS). PHMSA has reviewed several recent projects constructed in 2008
and 2009 with 20-inch or greater diameter, grade X70 and higher line
pipe. Metallurgical testing results of failed girth welds in pipe wall
thickness transitions have found pipe segments with line pipe weld
misalignment, improper bevel and wall thickness transitions, and other
improper welding practices that occurred during construction. A number
of the failures were located in pipeline segments with concentrated
external loading due to support and backfill issues. Owners and
operators of recently constructed large diameter pipelines should
evaluate these lines for potential girth weld failures due to
misalignment and other issues by reviewing construction and operating
records and conducting engineering reviews as necessary.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Mayberry by phone at 202-366-5124
or by e-mail at alan.mayberry@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 14244]]
I. Background
The Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
require operators of natural gas transmission, distribution, and
hazardous liquids pipeline systems to construct their pipelines using
pipe, fittings, and bends manufactured in accordance with 49 CFR
Sec. Sec. 192.7, 192.53, 192.55, 192.143, 192.144, 192.149, 195.3,
195.101, 195.112, and 195.118 and incorporated standards and listed
design specifications. This involves reviewing the manufacturing
procedure specification details for weld end conditions for the line
pipe, fitting, bend, or other appurtenance from the manufacturer to
ensure weld end conditions are acceptable for girth welding.
During the 2008 and 2009 pipeline construction periods, several
newly constructed large diameter, 20-inch or greater, high strength
(API 5L X70 and X80) natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines
experienced field hydrostatic test failures, in-service leaks, or in-
service failures of line pipe girth welds. Post-incident metallurgical
and mechanical tests and inspections of the line pipe, fittings, bends,
and other appurtenances indicated pipe with weld misalignment, improper
bevels of transitions, improper back welds, and improper support of the
pipe and appurtenances. In some cases, pipe end conditions did not meet
the design and construction requirements of the applicable standards
including:
American Petroleum Institute (API), Specification for Line
Pipe--5L, (API 5L), 43rd (including Table 8--Tolerance for Diameter at
Pipe Ends and Table 9--Tolerances for Wall Thickness) or 44th editions
for the specified pipe grade;
API 1104, 19th and 20th editions, Welding of Pipelines and
Related Facilities;
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31.8, Gas
Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems or ASME B31.4 Pipeline
Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids; and
Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and
Fittings Industry, Inc. (MSS) MSS-SP-44-1996 Steel Pipeline Flanges and
MSS MSS-SP-75-2004 Specification for High-Test, Wrought, Butt-Welding
Fittings.
Post-incident findings were that in some cases the pipe and
induction bend girth weld bevels were not properly transitioned and
aligned during welding. In some cases, the girth weld pipe ends did not
meet API 5L pipe end diameter and diameter out-of-roundness
specifications. Many of the problematic girth welds did not meet API
1104 misalignment and allowable ``high-low'' criteria.
Some girth welds that failed in-service had non-destructive testing
(NDT) quality control problems. NDT procedures, including radiographic
film and radiation source selection, were not properly optimized for
weld defect detection and repairs. This was particularly the case where
there were large variations in wall thickness at transitions. In some
situations, NDT procedures were not completed in accordance with
established API 1104 and operator procedures.
Many of the integrity issues with transition girth welds were
present on pipelines being constructed in hilly terrain and high stress
concentration locations such as at crossings, streams, and sloping
hillsides with unstable soils. These girth welds had high stress
concentrations in the girth weld transitions due to the combination of
large variations in wall thickness and improper internal bevels with
inadequate pipe support, poor backfill practices and soil movement due
to construction activities.
II. Advisory Bulletin ADB-10-03
To: Owners and Operators of Hazardous Liquid and Natural Gas
Pipeline Systems.
Subject: Girth Weld Quality Issues Due to Improper Transitioning,
Misalignment, and Welding Practices of Large Diameter Line Pipe.
Advisory: Owners and operators of recently constructed large
diameter pipelines should evaluate these lines for potential girth weld
failures due to misalignment and other issues by reviewing construction
and operating records and conducting engineering reviews as necessary.
The assessments should cover all large diameter, 20-inch or greater,
high strength line pipe transitions and cut factory bends or induction
bends installed during 2008 and 2009, and should include material
specifications, field construction procedures, caliper tool results,
deformation tool results, welding procedures including back welding,
NDT records, and any failures or leaks during hydrostatic testing or
in-service operations to identify systemic problems with pipe girth
weld geometry/out-of-roundness, diameter tolerance, and wall thickness
variations that may be defective.
The reviews should ensure that pipelines were constructed in
compliance with the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR Parts
192 and 195. Operators of natural gas transmission, distribution, and
hazardous liquids pipeline systems are required to use pipe and
fittings manufactured in accordance with 49 CFR Sec. Sec. 192.7,
192.53, 192.55, 192.143, 192.144, 192.149, 195.3, 195.101, 195.112, and
195.118 and incorporated standards and listed design specifications.
With respect to the construction process, pipe, fittings, factory
bends, and induction bends must be made in accordance with the
applicable standards to ensure that weld end dimension tolerances are
met for the pipe end diameter and diameter out-of-roundness. API 1104
specifies girth weld misalignment and allowable ``high-low'' criteria.
API 1104--19th edition, Sec. 7.2, Alignment, specifies for pipe ends
of the same nominal thickness that the offset should not exceed \1/8\
inch (3mm) and when there is greater misalignment, it shall be
uniformly distributed around the circumference of the pipe, fitting,
bend, and other appurtenance. ASME B31.4, Figure 434.8.6(a)-(2),
Acceptable Butt Welded Joint Design for Unequal Wall Thickness and ASME
B31.8, Figure I5, Acceptable Design for Unequal Wall Thickness, give
guidance for wall thickness variations and weld bevels designs for
transitions. API 5L, 43rd edition in Table 8--Tolerance for Diameter at
Pipe Ends and Table 9--Tolerances for Wall Thickness, specifies
tolerances for pipe wall thickness and pipe end conditions for diameter
and diameter out-of-roundness. MSS-SP-44-1996 specifies weld end
tolerances in Sec. 5.3--Hub Design, Sec. 5.4--Welding End, Figure 1--
Acceptable Designs for Unequal Wall Thickness, and Figures 2 and 3; and
MSS-75-2004 specifies weld end tolerances in Sec. 13.3 and Figures 1,
2, and 3 and Table 3--Tolerances.
Pipeline owners and operators should closely review the
manufacturing procedure specifications for the production, rolling, and
bending of the steel pipe, fittings, bends, and other appurtenances to
make sure that pipe end conditions (diameter and out of roundness
tolerances) and transition bevels are suitable for girth welding.
Pipeline owners and operators should request or specify manufacturing
procedure specification details for weld end conditions for the line
pipe, fitting, bend, or other appurtenance from the manufacturer to
ensure weld end conditions are acceptable for girth welding.
To ensure the integrity of the pipeline, field personnel that weld
line pipe, fittings, bends, and other appurtenances must be qualified,
follow qualified procedures, and operators must document the work
performed. Operators should verify that field
[[Page 14245]]
practices are conforming to API 5L, API 1104, ASME B31.4 or ASME B31.8
and operator procedures for weld bevel, pipe alignment, back welding,
and transitions. If any bends are cut, the operator must have
procedures to ensure that the pipe or bend cut ends are acceptable for
welding in accordance with the listed specifications. Procedures,
inspection, and documentation must be in place to ensure that when
pipe, fittings, bends, and other appurtenances are welded, the field
girth welds are made and non-destructively tested in accordance with 49
CFR Sec. Sec. 192.241, 192.243, 192.245, 195.228, 195.230, and
195.234. NDT procedures including film type and radiation source
selection should be optimized for weld defect detection and repairs
completed in accordance with established welding procedures. When there
is a variation in wall thickness between line pipe and a segmented
fitting, bend, or other appurtenance, consideration should be given to
the installation of a segment of intermediate wall thickness pipe.
Additionally, efforts should be taken to ensure pipe girth weld
alignment is optimized by utilizing experienced and trained welders,
suitable pipe and detailed procedures.
Each material component of a pipeline such as line pipe, fittings,
bends, and other appurtenances must be able to withstand operating
pressures and other anticipated external loadings without impairment of
its serviceability in accordance with 49 CFR Sec. Sec. 192.143 and
195.110. In order to ensure pipeline integrity, the operator must take
all practicable steps to protect each transmission line from abnormal
loads while backfilling and other work continues along the right-of-way
and to minimize loads in accordance with 49 CFR Sec. Sec. 192.317,
192.319, 195.246(a), and 195.252. Operators should give special
attention to girth welds with variations in wall thickness when located
in pipeline segments where significant pipe support and backfill
settlement issues after installation may be present, specifically in
hilly terrain and high stress concentration locations such as at
crossings, streams, and sloping hill sides with unstable soils.
Even if no girth weld concerns are identified by reviewing
construction records, if an operator has any knowledge, findings or
operating history that leads it to believe that its newly constructed,
high material grade, large diameter, line pipe segments contain these
type girth weld transitions, the operator should conduct engineering
reviews as described above with those operating pipelines to ensure
that material, engineering design, and field construction procedures
were in compliance with 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195. Failure to conduct
engineering reviews and to remediate findings may compromise the safe
operation of the pipeline.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapter 601 and 49 CFR 1.53.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 18, 2010.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010-6528 Filed 3-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
