Donald E. Comstock a Method for Critical Research by hyp14154

VIEWS: 27 PAGES: 103

Donald E. Comstock a Method for Critical Research document sample

More Info

                    Palomar Hotel
         U.S. Department of Transportation
            1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
         2nd Floor Conference Room E27-302
                  Washington, D.C.

                      1:00 p.m.
               Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee Members

         Massachusetts Public Service Commission

         Florida Public Utilities Commission

         Illinois Commerce Commission

         Iowa Utilities Board
         Gas System Superintendent
         City of Mesa, Arizona

         J. ANDREW DRAKE
         Vice President of Engineering and
         Spectra Energy

         JERYL MOHN
         Senior Vice President, Operations and
         Panhandle Energy

                    (301) 565-0064
         Vice President, Engineering
         Southwest Gas Corporation

         UGI Utilities, Incorporated

         Senior Engineer
         National Fire Protection Association

         Chief Executive Officer
         Virginia Utility Protection Services, LLC

         PAUL S. ROTHMAN
         The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

         ALAN R. SHUMAN
         Georgia State Fire Marshal
         Insurance and Fire Safety Commissioner's

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

         Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety

         BILL GUTE


         JIM PATES


         ALAN RUKIN


                    (301) 565-0064

     Other interested parties:

Public Interest

Oklahoma City


American Gas Association

Kern River Gas


Van, Ness, Feldman

American Petroleum Institute

Arkema, Inc.

American Distribution Co.

           (301) 565-0064

                         A G E N D A
TOPIC:                                           PAGE:

Welcome/Purpose                                  5
     Jeff Wiese
     Executive Director

Call to Order                                    9
     Robert Keating
     TPSSC Chair

Committee Roll Call                              11
     Cheryl Whetsel
     Committee Liaison

Introduction of Participants Present             13

VOTE-BRIEFING: PHMSA will brief members on       17
the NPRM:
Polyamide-11(PA-11) Plastic Pipe Designs
     Richard Sanders, Director
     Training and Qualifications

Committee Discussion, Public Discussion and      19
Call for Motion
     Commissioner Robert Keating

Roll Call for Vote                               27
     Commissioner Robert Keating

VOTE-BRIEFING: PHMSA will brief members on the    35
NPRM: Standards for Increasing the Maximum Allowable
Operating Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines
     Alan Mayberry, Director
     Engineering and Emergency Support

Committee Discussion, Public Discussion and      54
Call for Motion
     Commissioner Robert Keating

Roll Call for Vote                                96
     Cheryl Whetsel

                     (301) 565-0064

 1                      P R O C E E D I N G S

 2                                               (1:00 p.m.)

 3                            Welcome/Purpose

 4               MR. WIESE:    I would just like to remind

 5   everyone at the outset that this meeting is being

 6   recorded, so it is helpful to us when you speak, if you

 7   identify yourself and if you are here in the room, I

 8   think we know, if you are a committee member we know

 9   who you are and we have the roster.        But, if you are

10   not a committee member, if you could identify your

11   affiliation, it would be helpful to us and the court

12   reporter.

13               So, with that, I would like to welcome the

14   committee and in just a second I will be turning this

15   over to our Chair, Commissioner Bob Keating from

16   Massachusetts, who chairs the TPSSC.       But, I thought I

17   would, with Bob’s indulgence, I would take just a

18   couple of seconds to welcome you all.       And really I

19   thought I would address “why hold a teleconference”.

20               Originally, I want to be respectful of your

21   time, I think is the short answer to that question.          We

22   have got two significant rulemakings coming before us

23   in the not too distance future.      Our distribution

24   integrity management rulemaking and our control room

25   management rulemaking.      They are not significant from

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   an economic, but it has taken a long time to develop

 2   those activities.   I really think they are complex

 3   enough to require a face to face vote.   The timing

 4   wasn’t such that we could delay everything and do it

 5   all at one time.    So, that is why I made a decision to

 6   go ahead with both the PA-11 and the MAOP rulemaking

 7   proposals and seek your advice and concurrence on those

 8   through a teleconference.

 9             I think they are a little clearer.    We have

10   got a lot more experience.    The Committee has talked

11   about these matters before.   So, it was my sense that,

12   and I am going to have to convene the Committee again

13   probably October timeframe, plus or minus, depending on

14   how the rulemakings come out.   I didn’t want to be

15   convening you back to back and dragging people to

16   Washington frivolously.

17             So, with your indulgence, I know

18   teleconferences are not the preferred method for doing

19   business, but I think it will be, hopefully, it will be

20   effective for our purposes here today.

21             All I really wanted to say as I introduce

22   this, is that we are going to be talking today about

23   two rulemakings that have been under development for

24   quite some time.    Both in the rulemaking phase and in

25   the primarily phases.   And we are here today to kind of

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   refresh everyone on what we proposed in rulemaking, as

 2   well as to kind of summarize the comments.       Most of you

 3   should have received this stuff by now.    And I wanted

 4   to make sure that we had an opportunity to present that

 5   back to you.     We will give you a sense on both

 6   rulemakings of what we are thinking about doing as we

 7   proceed to the final rule.    And then as usual, we

 8   would, of course, be seeking the advice and consent of

 9   the Committee.

10             We will take an opportunity at the right time

11   in each of these matters to hear from interested

12   members of the public, but, I will say the, you know,

13   our primary purposes here today are to get a vote from

14   our Committee.    So, I am asking for any statements that

15   are made publicly to be relevantly brief and be pointed

16   to the subject matter before us that we have to vote

17   on.

18             I have asked two of our technical experts to

19   join us today and to brief you.    So, again, I will turn

20   back to Bob in a second.

21             The last thing I thought I would say to you

22   is that both of these fairly novel in that the rules

23   grew out of a provision in our general code that allows

24   us to experiment.    The code is meant to be kind of an

25   uniformed code nationwide.    But, we all know that

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   technology, circumstances are not uniformed nationwide.

 2   It also was meant to allow us, to allow for the

 3   introduction of new technology, new materials, new

 4   processes, what have you.   So, both of these grew out

 5   of that provision within the code that allows us to

 6   experiment in a controlled way, in a public way, but in

 7   a controlled way and learn as we go through and the

 8   logical outcome of that experiment is to be either to

 9   reject the idea that is under consideration or to

10   modify the code.

11              We, of course, are very keenly interested in

12   the idea of resolving matters that we experiment with

13   at some point in time, because special permits,

14   formally known as waivers, can be a fairly

15   administratively time consuming matter for us.    So, we

16   work with them as long as we need to, to get the

17   information that we need.   We try to share that with

18   everyone who is affected, and then we proceed forward

19   to rulemaking, which is where we find ourselves today.

20              I would also say, the last sort of comment,

21   is I think there becomes a point in time when you have

22   to act on what you have learned under these special

23   permits.   They take a fair amount of time for us to

24   process and go through there.   And there are some

25   economic advantage being rendered to those who were

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   first in the door with the special permit request.

 2   Sensitive to the needs to treat all of our stakeholders

 3   with, you know, on a level playing field.     So, again, I

 4   think when the experiment has run its course, it is

 5   time to evaluate it and move it to the Code, if

 6   necessary.    Now we all stakeholders are held to the

 7   same standard.

 8                So, with that and thanks for indulging

 9   me with that, Bob, I would turn this over to

10   Commissioner Keating.

11                           Call to Order

12                COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Thank you very much,

13   Jeff.

14                I guess this is the formal call to order.

15   Let me just add my welcome to you all as Jeff just did.

16   And let me just kind of reintroduce myself.      I know I

17   have met many of you at our winter meeting.      And my

18   name is Bob Keating.    I am a commissioner with the

19   Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities.     And let

20   me just say that I am honored to serve as your chair

21   for today’s meeting.

22                I know I have big shoes to fill with the

23   departure of my good friend Commissioner Don Mason from

24   Ohio, who has moved onto bigger and better things.

25   But, hopefully, I will somehow get us through today in

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   an efficient way as possible.

 2             Just a couple of quick comments before we go

 3   to the roll call.   First of all, I trust everybody has

 4   the agenda in front of them and as I know Jeff

 5   mentioned, you all have received several mailings with

 6   all the pertinent attachments.   And hopefully you have

 7   had a chance to look at least some of the materials.

 8             I will note that we are scheduled to adjourn

 9   by 4:00 p.m., yet we have very two important agenda

10   items to consider for action today.    So, when it comes

11   to the Committee discussion and the public discussion,

12   I would ask that all of you who wish to speak, as Jeff

13   indicated, please identify yourself.    And make your

14   point as efficiently as possible, so that everyone who

15   wishes to speak will have an opportunity to do so.

16             And also since this is being done by

17   teleconference for a large majority of us, and I

18   obviously can't see your body language or facial

19   expression, when you have completed your comments, if

20   you would just let me know by either saying at the end

21   of your comments, either, Mr. Chairman, or back to Bob,

22   or I am done.   Or just some indication so I know I

23   won't be cutting you off.   This will allow me to move

24   onto the next speaker.

25             Okay, with that, I would like to request

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   Cheryl Whetsel to do the committee roll call, please.

 2                Cheryl, are you there?

 3                                Roll Call

 4                MS. WHETSEL:    Yes, I am.     And I will do that

 5   roll call.

 6                COMMISSIONER KEATING:       Thank you.

 7                                Roll Call

 8                MS. WHETSEL:    Okay.    Lisa Edgar?

 9                MS. EDGAR:    Here, thank you.

10                MS. WHETSEL:    Thank you.     Lula Ford?

11                MS. FORD:    Here.

12                MS. WHETSEL:    Thank you.     Bob Keating.

13                Berne Mosley?

14                [No response]

15                MS. WHETSEL:    Don Stursma?

16                MR. STURSMA:    I am here.

17                MS. WHETSEL:    Thank you.     Mike Comstock?

18                MR. COMSTOCK:    I am on.

19                MS. WHETSEL:    Thanks.     Andy Drake?

20                MR. DRAKE:    I am on the line.

21                MS. WHETSEL:    Jeryl Mohn?

22                MR. MOHN:    I am here.

23                MS. WHETSEL:    Jim Wunderlin?

24                MR. WUNDERLIN:       I am here.

25                MS. WHETSEL:    Pete Terranova?

                             (301) 565-0064

 1              MR. TERRANOVA:    Here.

 2              MS. WHETSEL:    Richard Feigel?

 3              [No response]

 4              MS. WHETSEL:    Ted Lemoff?

 5              MR. LEMOFF:    Here.

 6              MS. WHETSEL:    Richard Pervarski?

 7              [No response]

 8              MS. WHETSEL:    Paul Rothman?

 9              MR. ROTHMAN:    Here.

10              MS. WHETSEL:    Thank you.    Alan Shuman?

11              MR. SHUMAN:    Here.

12              MS. WHETSEL:    Thank you.    And let me just

13   double check.

14              Berne Mosley?

15              Richard Feigel?

16              And Rick Pervarski?

17              [No responses]

18              MS. WHETSEL:    No, thank you, they are not

19   here.   Maybe they will join us later.       Okay.   That is

20   it, Bob.

21              COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Okay.    And that

22   included participants that are with you in Washington,

23   correct?

24              MS. WHETSEL:    Actually, no.     I think we are

25   going to do an introduction now.

                           (301) 565-0064

 1             Is there anybody else on the telephone line

 2   that has not been introduced or called upon?

 3             MR. KUPERWITZ:     Well, you have got Rick

 4   Kuprewicz, but I am not part of the committee.      I am

 5   public interest.

 6             MS. WHETSEL:    Thank you, Rick.

 7             MR. SANDERS:    And you have got to Richard

 8   Sanders, Oklahoma City.

 9             MS. WHETSEL:    Thank you, Richard.

10             Anyone else?

11             Okay, I guess I can go around the room now.

12             Why don’t we start with Jim Pates.

13            Introduction of Participants Present

14             MR. PATES:    Jim Pates, Office of Chief

15   Counsel, PHMSA.

16             MR. MAYBERRY:    John Mayberry with PHMSA.

17             MR. REGAN:    I am Dan Regan, Regulatory

18   Counsel with INGAA.

19             MS. OLENCHUK:    Susan Olenchuk with the Law

20   Firm of Van Ness, Feldman.

21             MS. KULKARNI:    Margo Kulkarni, PHMSA.

22             MR. BOSS:    Terry Boss with INGAA.

23             MR. WALLIS:     Dustin Wallis with Kern River

24   Gas.

25             COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Could you repeat that,

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   I couldn’t hear, please.

 2             MR. WALLIS:    Dustin Wallis with Kern River

 3   Gas.

 4             COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Thank you, Dustin.

 5             MR. McALLISTER:     Von McAllister, Kern River

 6   Gas.

 7             MR. BENNETT:     Philip Bennett, American Gas

 8   Association.

 9             MR. GUTE:    Bill Gute, PHMSA.

10             MS. PLOTKIN:     Victoria Plotkin, American Gas

11   Association.

12             MR. HOLOHAN:     Vinnie Holohan with PHSMA.

13             MS. TUCKER:    Charlotte Tucker with Daily

14   Environment Reports.

15             COMMISSIONER KEATING:     We can't hear those, I

16   don’t know if the other members can.    The last two

17   speakers, could you speak up a little louder, please.

18             MR. HOLOHAN:     Vinnie Holohan with PHSMA.

19             COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Thank you, Vinnie.

20             MS. TUCKER:    Charlotte Tucker with Daily

21   Environment Reports.

22             MR. RUKIN:    Alan Rukin with PHSMA.

23             MR. MASON:    Jim Mason, Arkema.

24             MR. BELLINGER:     Brad Bellinger with American

25   Petroleum Institute.

                             (301) 565-0064

 1             MS. WHETSEL:    And I am Cheryl Whetsel with

 2   PHSMA.

 3             MR. WIESE:    And Jeff Wiese with PHSMA.

 4             And I think that concludes.      We will have a

 5   sign-in sheet here for the record.

 6             So, Bob, back to you.

 7             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Okay.   Thank you,

 8   Cheryl and thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen for

 9   introducing yourselves.

10             The next item is our first agenda item and it

11   deals with a Vote-Briefing.    And essentially, PHSMA

12   members will be briefed on the NPRM Polyamide-11

13   Plastic Pipe Designs.    And we have with us or actually

14   not with us, but in Oklahoma City, Richard Sanders,

15   Director of Training and Qualifications.

16             And, Jeff, did you want to do some

17   introductory comments before Richard starts his report?

18    Richard will provide a background discussion for the

19   Committee before we go into general discussion of this

20   subject matter.

21             MR. WIESE:    Bob, this is Jeff, the only

22   introduction I will make is, really it will be the same

23   for both of these, is that I have asked the technical

24   experts who were lead on these two rulemakings to come

25   before you today, because it is my desire to have

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   somebody here who can answer any of your questions.       I

 2   know I can answer some of them.    And if Jim could help

 3   me with others, but I wanted to have the technical

 4   experts here so you could feel free that you would have

 5   the resources you need.

 6                So, I think our general approach to both of

 7   these is going to be the same.    We are going to kind of

 8   give you a quick refresher on where we have been.      We

 9   are going to talk to you about what we have done.      We

10   are going to talk to you a little bit about the

11   comments that we have received in reaction to our

12   proposals.    And then we are going to talk to you about

13   what we are thinking about doing as we go forward to

14   final rule.    Then we will seek your advice and your,

15   Cheryl will at the appropriate time, will go out for a

16   discussion with the members of the public.       Anybody who

17   wants to comment and then I think, Bob, it would be you

18   to be seeking, you know, motions for votes or

19   amendments or what have you.    And then Cheryl at that

20   time will call the roll call.

21                So, we will play that sequence out in both

22   cases.   I thought we would start with PA-11 and if

23   anyone knows plastic pipe inside of PHMSA, I have got

24   to tell you it is Richard Sanders.    So, I am very

25   pleased Richard was able to lead this effort for us.

                             (301) 565-0064

 1               So, maybe with that, Bob, with your

 2   permission, I would just turn it to Richard.

 3               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   That is wonderful.

 4   Thank you, Richard.   Thank you, Jeff.    And I am looking

 5   forward to hearing what you have to say.

 6          Vote-Briefing PHMSA Polyamide-11 (PA-11)

 7                       Plastic Pipe Design

 8               MR. SANDERS:   Mr. Chairman, Committee Members

 9   and General Public, I appreciate the opportunity to

10   present the PA-11 information to you.

11               This is a material that has been under test

12   and evaluation for a number of years.     Just some

13   general information about PA-11.     It is a nylon

14   material.   It is a thermo plastic material and the

15   manufacturer of this material has gone before Gas

16   Research Institute and had the materials tested.      It

17   has gone through numerous lab tests for evaluation for

18   use in pipeline systems.     They have, the manufacturer

19   has jumped all the hurdles that have been put before

20   them, as far as going to the Plastic Pipe Institute,

21   PPI, and getting a rating for the material and so on

22   and so forth.

23               This material is not really a new material.

24   It has been used on airlines, on trucks, on a transport

25   trucks for a number of years.    So, it is now trying to

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   come into the toolbox, I will say, for pipeline

 2   operators to use in pipeline systems.

 3             This material underwent evaluation and an

 4   advanced notice of proposed rulemaking where there were

 5   thirteen comments, ten specific individuals and all but

 6   one were positive in favor of the material.    The

 7   negative voter or negative comments were addressed and

 8   after further review, it is my opinion that the issues

 9   on oxidation associated with the addictive package for

10   this particular material, have been addressed and

11   certainly have been changed consistent with test data,

12   etc.

13             This material is proposing also under the

14   design formula section, under 192.121 and 192.123, to

15   change the de-rating factor or safety factor, if you

16   might, from a .32 to a .4 for this material.    It also

17   had a proposal to add an additional requirement for a

18   pressure tape or an evaluation tape prior to digging

19   down to the pipe.   After review of all the commenters

20   on this particular issue, I have to concur that I

21   believe it would only confuse the issues if it were

22   required under the regulation.   And it would be my

23   recommendation that we go forward without the

24   192.123(f)(4) changes.

25             With that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn the

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   program back over to you.

 2                  Committee Discussion and Public

 3                  Discussion and Call for Motion

 4                COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Thank you, thank you

 5   very much, Richard.    I appreciate your discussion.

 6                Ladies and Gentlemen, we are now going to

 7   open this up for discussion.     And the way we would, I

 8   would like to do this, is Committee members will be,

 9   will given the opportunity to speak first.       After

10   Committee members have spoken, I will open it up to

11   public discussion.     And then after that, I will call

12   for a motion.

13                Keep in mind on one of the documents you

14   received via email within the last several weeks, is

15   the voting sample.    And there are three options on

16   there.   One of the options obviously is a motion to

17   accept the proposal as written.      And the other options

18   are to either deny it or to amend it.     Hopefully, we

19   can move forward in an efficient time as possible.

20                So, with that, I would ask for any Committee

21   members who would like to make some comments, please

22   identify yourself and let me know when you are finished

23   your comment, please.

24                MR. WUNDERLIN:   Mr. Chairman, this is Jim

25   Wunderlin.    I am a TPSSC Committee member representing

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   the industry.    I work for Southwest Gas Corporation,

 2   which serves approximately 1.8 million customers in the

 3   Southwest.    The majority of those are distribution

 4   customers.

 5                I want to say that I certainly support the

 6   proposed rule for PA-11.     I think it is important that

 7   we incorporate new technology into our pipeline

 8   infrastructure.    I think there are advantages to do

 9   that more on end-cost, etc.     I concur with Richard

10   Sanders that the research has been extensive,

11   significant and pretty much ongoing since 1991.

12                The field testing, I have reviewed the

13   document, have been successfully completed and any

14   issues in the draft.    And, bottom line, I support the

15   document.

16                The other thing, I also support Richard

17   Sanders’ comment about the warning tape or other safety

18   devices.    I will just make a brief comment that

19   supports that and the fact that there is really no

20   reason to identify PA-11 by itself or warning tape or

21   other safety device.

22                As an operator, we have many different

23   pressures within our system, and I have reviewed our

24   marketing requirements, and we require that, the

25   marketing requirements for excavators include a

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   designation of high pressure or HP on the surface of

 2   the ground on any pressure system above sixty pounds

 3   within our distribution system.      I think that

 4   adequately covers any concern about the excavators that

 5   would be digging above this pipe.      In fact, adding

 6   warning tape just for one material actually maybe

 7   somewhat confusing, either for the company, their

 8   operators or the contractors.

 9                So, I would recommend also then, that 49 CFR

10   192.123(f)(4) be deleted from the proposed vote for

11   this rule.    That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman.

12                COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Thank you, Jim.   Just

13   because you had a specific recommendation, let me just

14   go back.

15                Jeff Wiese or Cheryl, did somebody get that

16   specific section down that Jim Wunderlin suggested?

17                MS. WHETSEL:   Yes.

18                MR. SANDERS:   Mr. Chairman, this is Richard

19   Sanders.   I have that information.

20                COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.   Fine.

21                Richard, did you want to comment on that, on

22   Mr. Wunderlin’s suggestion or anything at this point?

23                MR. SANDERS:   I concur with Jim’s appraisal.

24    I think there are other ways that safety is promoted

25   through good third party damage programs, etc.       I don’t

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   think it is necessary at this time.

 2              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.   Other Committee

 3   members who wish to speak, please identify yourself.

 4              MR. STURSMA:   Don Stursma from Iowa.    I am

 5   one of the Iowa Utilities Board, one of the Government

 6   representative.

 7              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Could you speak up a

 8   little bit louder or move closer to the phone, Donald.

 9              MR. STURSMA:   Okay. Don Stursma, Iowa

10   Utilities Board.   I am one of the Government people.

11   And I will start off by saying, excuse me today, I am

12   not as prepared as I would like to have been, but we

13   have got word this morning that we needed to get

14   everything in our building off of the floor and lower

15   shelves and file drawers because we might get flooded

16   in the next day or two.

17              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Oh, that is really

18   bad.   Well, I am sorry to see what is happening in Iowa

19   and I hope that you and family and your friends and

20   neighbors are all safe.   God Bless.

21              MR. STURSMA:   But, on the same issue we have

22   been talking about, on the warning tape, I would like

23   to make two comments on that.

24              First of all, well, three actually, because

25   first I am going to say I agree with getting rid of it.

                           (301) 565-0064

 1    But, also pointing out that when this particular rule

 2   was proposed, it was certainly proposed to be in the

 3   wrong place.    As one of the commenters noted, this is

 4   not a design requirement.    It is a construction

 5   requirement.    And as you will probably find out later

 6   when we talk about the MAOP rules, I am kind of a

 7   stickler for putting things in the appropriate places

 8   in the Code.    So, I thought I would make that point and

 9   make a point of future reference for personnel when

10   they draft rules on being careful about rules are

11   placed in a location that is appropriate for their

12   subject matter.

13              The other thing that I don’t think we have

14   anticipated by that particular rule was that most

15   plastic pipes in urban and residential areas, it is

16   probably not direct, it is probably a bore place, and

17   how are you going to use marking tape when you bore a

18   plastic line in or directional drill might be a better

19   word for it.    Marking tape, or excuse me, pressure

20   wire, you tape it to the pipe and even though contact

21   from tracer wire and pipe is generally not a very good

22   thing.   You don’t really have any choice, but you tape

23   marking tape to the pipe and bore, obviously, you have

24   accomplished absolutely nothing.

25              So, to cut to the chase, a lot of plastic

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   pipe is installed by directional drilling or boring.

 2   There is really no practical way to include marker tape

 3   with the pipe when you do that, unless you do a whole

 4   separate operation to try and add it somehow.    But,

 5   that is being maybe a practical reason why you are

 6   requiring marking tape.    In this instance is not a good

 7   idea.

 8             And that is the end of my comments.

 9             COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Thank you, Don.

10             Other Committee members who wish to comment,

11   please.

12             MR. LEMOFF:     This is Ted Lemoff, NFPA, a

13   member of the Committee.    I just wanted to point out

14   that we have added this material, NFK-58 for propane

15   and I don’t know if people are using it, but we are not

16   having any problems.    I think with any polyamide

17   materials, the key is you don’t know the failure modes

18   until you have failures, yet we have had enough

19   experience with these, so I think it is appropriate to

20   move to the next step.    So I am in favor.   Thank you.

21             COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Thank you, Ted.

22             Other Committee members?

23             MR. COMSTOCK:     Mr. Chairman, this is Mike

24   Comstock with City of Mesa.    And I represent the

25   American Public Gas Association on TPSSC.

                          (301) 565-0064

 1               I just wanted to say that I concur with Mr.

 2   Wunderlin and Mr. Sanders’ remarks earlier.      And as a

 3   member of the pilot project, City of Mesa was

 4   intimately involved with the exploration of this

 5   material.    And I did want to acknowledge the

 6   cooperative efforts between industry and PHMSA in this

 7   case to help bring new technologies to market.     I think

 8   it was a positive experience overall.     I encourage us

 9   to continue to do that in the future, to help bring

10   these new technologies out and help industry move

11   forward with their needs.

12               That concludes my remarks.

13               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Thank you.

14               Other Committee members?

15               Did we have somebody new just join the call?


17               MR. WIESE:   Stacey Gerard.

18               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Oh, hi, Stacey.

19   Welcome.

20               Other Committee members who wish to make a

21   comment?    Okay.   Are there members of the public who

22   wish to make a comment?

23               All right, well, hearing none, as your Chair,

24   what I would ask is if a member of the Committee would

25   wish to make a motion.    And I believe an appropriate

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   motion based on the discussion I heard, but you can

 2   make whatever motion you wish, of course, would be one

 3   consistent with Mr. Wunderlin’s original comments and

 4   the amendment that he offered that the section which I

 5   didn’t write down in front of me, be deleted.      I

 6   believe the other speakers all supported that.      If they

 7   didn’t, they can address it.    So, could I have a

 8   Committee member make an appropriate motion and then a

 9   second by whoever wishes to second it?

10               MR. WUNDERLIN:   Mr. Chairman, this is Jim

11   Wunderlin, Committee member, I will make a motion for

12   the approval vote on the use of PA-11.       And I would use

13   the tamper language, Item number 2, which says the

14   proposed rule as published in the Federal Register and

15   the draft reg evaluation are technically feasible,

16   reasonable, cost effective, practical, if the following

17   changes are.

18               I would recommend deleting Section

19   192.123(f)(4) in the Federal Register from the Design

20   Limitations for plastic pipe.

21               That is the end of my motion.

22               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Thank you.   Do we have

23   a second?

24               MS. FORD:   Lula Ford, second.

25               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Thank you, Lula.

                             (301) 565-0064

 1                We now have a formal motion.    I would like to

 2   open it up for discussion among the Committee members.

 3                (Pause.)

 4                COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Going once.    Anyone?

 5   Not hearing any further discussion, I would like to

 6   move to question.

 7                All those in favor?    Aye.

 8                (Whereupon, a chorus of ayes was heard.)

 9                COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Any opposed?

10                MR. WIESE:    I think, Bob, as a matter of

11   procedure, with your indulgence, we will have to take a

12   roll call vote.

13                COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Oh, that is true.

14   Okay.

15                MR. WIESE:    Oh, no, you got to the place

16   where we needed to go.       Just for purposes of the

17   record, I think we are required to take a roll call.

18                COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Yes, you are correct,

19   I am sorry.    First day on the job.

20                MR. WIESE:    Not at all, not at all.

21                           Roll Call for Vote

22                COMMISSIONER KEATING:    I will call for a roll

23   call vote.    And I am just going to go down the list

24   here.

25                Lisa P. Edgar.

                             (301) 565-0064

 1             COMMISSIONER EDGAR:    Yes, this is

 2   Commissioner Edgar, and I vote in favor of the motion.

 3             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Thank you,

 4   Commissioner.

 5             Lula M. Ford?

 6             COMMISSIONER FORD:    In favor of the motion.

 7             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Thank you.   Robert

 8   Keating, in favor of the motion.

 9             Did Berne Mosley show up yet?    Okay.

10             Don Stursma?

11             MR. STURSMA:    In favor of the motion.

12             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Michael Comstock?

13             MR. COMSTOCK:    I vote in favor of the motion.

14             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Thank you.   Andrew

15   Drake?

16             MR. DRAKE:    I vote in favor of the motion.

17             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Thank you.   Jeryl

18   Mohn?

19             MR. MOHN:    I vote in favor.

20             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    James Wunderlin?

21             MR. WUNDERLIN:    I vote in favor of the

22   motion.

23             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Peter Terranova?

24             MR. TERRANOVA:    I vote in favor of the

25   motion.

                          (301) 565-0064

 1               COMMISSIONER KEATING:      Has Dr. Richard Feigel

 2   showed up yet?    Okay.

 3               Ted Lemoff?

 4               MR. LEMOFF:    In favor.

 5               COMMISSIONER KEATING:      Okay.   Did Mr. Richard

 6   Pervarski show up yet?     Okay.

 7               Mr. Paul Rothman?

 8               MR. ROTHMAN:    I vote in favor of the motion.

 9               COMMISSIONER KEATING:      And Mr. Alan Shuman?

10               MR. SHUMAN:    I vote in favor of the motion.

11               COMMISSIONER KEATING:      Thank you.   Thank you,

12   Ladies and Gentlemen.

13               Cheryl or Jeff, is there anything else you

14   need with regard to the process standpoint on this

15   subject?

16               MS. WHETSEL:    We had twelve in favor.

17               COMMISSIONER KEATING:      I am sorry, Cheryl, I

18   can't hear you.    Can you get closer to the phone?

19               MS. WHETSEL:    Bob, I was just saying that we

20   had twelve in favor out of those that are currently on

21   the line.   That is everyone.

22               COMMISSIONER KEATING:      That is correct.   It

23   is an unanimous vote of everyone who indicated that

24   they were here.    So, the three people who were not

25   here, did not vote.    Everybody else voted in the

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   affirmative.

 2               MS. WHETSEL:    We are good to go.

 3               MR. WIESE:    Okay.   Thank you very much for

 4   that.

 5               Bob, I thought I would, with your permission,

 6   before we move onto Agenda Item 2, really correct kind

 7   of a deficiency here.      I note there are logistical

 8   difficulties because we are on the phone.        But, Cheryl

 9   did provide a lot of information to you in the warm-up

10   to this meeting.    And I wanted to just reiterate for

11   folks, if you hadn’t, that we have before you, for both

12   of these cases, and we can talk about them as we

13   proceed onto talk about Maximum Allowable Operating

14   Pressure, a briefing paper, a summary of comments that

15   were there, a copy of our proposal, the regulatory

16   analysis.   And all that material that is supporting

17   information should have been to you by now.

18               So, just making sure everyone knew they had

19   it and had reference to it.

20               Also, I would welcome Stacey Gerard to the

21   call.   I heard Stacey.     I heard you dial in, Stacey.

22   For those of you who don’t know, we have members of the

23   public here as well.     Stacey is PHMSA Chief Safety

24   Officer and the former Associate Administrator for

25   Pipeline Safety with a fairly long history in pipeline

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   safety and direct personal involvement, I think, in

 2   both of these efforts.

 3               So, thank you for joining us today, Stacey.

 4   I know you are also moving in one hundred degree

 5   weather.    So, that can't be a lot of fun.

 6               And our best to Bob, he is in the background,

 7   I heard him barking.

 8               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   I just realized, Jeff,

 9   I also make a mistake.     I was looking at my handwritten

10   notes and I realized that Cheryl Whetsel was suppose to

11   do the roll call for a vote.    I am sorry, Cheryl, I

12   didn’t mean to take your job.    You can do it on the

13   next agenda item.

14               MS. WHETSEL:   As long as they still pay me,

15   Bob, it is okay.

16               MR. WIESE:   Okay, Bob, we are docking her pay

17   for that.

18               All right.   With your permission, Bob –-

19               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   The Agenda Item is

20   Agenda Item number 2, is a Vote-Briefing that will be

21   provided on PHMSA.    We will brief the members on NPRM

22   Standards for Increasing the Maximum Allowable

23   Operating Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines.

24   Alan Mayberry, the Director of Engineering and

25   Emergency Support will provide a briefing on that.

                            (301) 565-0064

 1              But, once again, I will ask Jeff Wiese, if he

 2   wishes to make an introductory.    I know you said, your

 3   first comment would serve as an introductory, but, I

 4   give you another shot in case there is something else

 5   you wish to say, Jeff.

 6              MR. WIESE:    Thanks a lot, Bob.   And with your

 7   permission, I will allow Stacey to add any notes that

 8   she might care to as well.

 9              Stacey, for your benefit, we had some opening

10   remarks that I think apply in general to both of the

11   actions before us today for a vote that regard why we

12   undertake a special permit/waiver process and how we

13   proceed along those lines.    And, you know, when it

14   finally culminates with our having gained the

15   experience necessary, we try to move it to modifying a

16   regulatory code, to sort of incorporate the lessons

17   learned in that.

18              On this particular issue, I will beg your

19   indulgence to reach back a few years and say that we

20   have been talking about this issue.    I have been in

21   PHMSA now ten years.    We have been talking about it the

22   entire time that I have been here.    We have literally.

23    And I remember talking about it in Regional Director

24   meetings and having whitepapers, discussing it for ten

25   years.   These aren’t matters that develop quickly,

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   overnight without consideration.    There is substantial

 2   effort that goes in this.    We have talked about this

 3   with our state partners.    It is still takes a long time

 4   to change the code.    People are comfortable with things

 5   once it gets etched in there.

 6               I think PHMSA, there are a couple of our

 7   hallmarks, as those of you who had an opportunity to

 8   take a look at our strategic plan, will understand.         We

 9   very much believe in kind of a risk informed data

10   driven approach to managing for pipeline safety.       We

11   take our responsibilities to the public very seriously.

12    We don’t approach any waiver or any special permit

13   cavalierly.    We try to do our efforts as transparently

14   as possible.    In this particular case, I would like to

15   highlight just a couple of things, besides the ten year

16   history that I am aware of, you know, and it probably

17   pre-dated me.

18               After talking with a lot of people behind the

19   scenes, one on one, we decided to convene a public

20   workshop, which I know Alan will touch on, so I won't

21   go into detail on that, short of saying it is our way

22   of trying to get these things out into the public for

23   discussion.    And let's develop things on top of the

24   table, let everybody have a shot and having their say

25   in there.

                             (301) 565-0064

 1             A very popular, very well attended meeting

 2   that was held out in Reston, had a lot of people from

 3   across the globe.   We had international delegates there

 4   from, as I recall the UK, certainly the Canadians were

 5   there, the Australians could have been there.    We

 6   brought technical experts in.   We had state

 7   representatives and others.    Debated this stuff in a

 8   fair amount of detail and a very good discussion.     That

 9   led to what I would just say, the approach that really

10   kind of hallmark of our modern approach to doing

11   special permits and waivers, is to have a criteria

12   driven process.   And I think that PHMSA believes very

13   deeply about that to feed two things.   One is

14   regulatory clarity for operators.   They ought to know

15   what their ground rules are.    And the second one is a

16   level playing field.   So, that everyone is treated the

17   same. And I guess I should have add the third one, so

18   that anybody who has something to say in the matter,

19   has an opportunity to come forward with it.

20             So, I would like to say that this process has

21   been very longer perhaps then we even connote in here,

22   and does discuss for sometimes.   I am particularly

23   thankful that we can bring this to a discussion before

24   the Committee because I will say that I think it was

25   Rick Kuprewicz, who has cautioned us before about

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   special permits consume a lot of time.       And when we

 2   have learned what we need to learn from them is

 3   probably time to move on.

 4              So, with your indulgence, Stacey, is there

 5   anything else you would like to add?     Well, maybe she

 6   dropped off.    I think Bob bite the cord.

 7              Well, at any rate, Bob, with your indulgence,

 8   then I turn it over to Alan Mayberry.

 9              COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Okay, great.     Alan,

10   you are on.

11               Vote-Briefing: NPRM: Standards for

12           Increasing the Maximum Allowable Operating

13            Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines

14              MR. MAYBERRY:    Okay.   Thank you, Mr.

15   Chairman, Committee members, members of the Public.          I

16   appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk

17   about the proposed rule, Standards for Increasing the

18   Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure for Gas

19   Transmission Pipelines.

20              What you should already have is the briefing

21   paper I prepared a couple of weeks ago, as well as the

22   summary of comments.

23              And just to reflect and touch on the bit of

24   what Jeff had talked about, a little bit of history

25   here.   In March of 2006 we conducted a public meeting

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   here in Washington, to survey the interest and to hear

 2   technical topics related to the possibility of allowing

 3   operators to revise the MAOP established for pipelines.

 4                In attendance at that meeting, what is

 5   essentially the who’s, who’s on this subject, from both

 6   the U.S. and overseas.    And based on the results of

 7   that meeting, we worked in a favorable response, we

 8   worked toward developing criteria to allow operators to

 9   operate up to eighty percent of SMYS which I will

10   explain in a minute, in Class I areas.

11                And I might as well mention that right now.

12   The rule basically proposes to allow operators to go

13   from seventy-two percent, which is the current

14   regulatory maximum in Class I areas, sixty-seven

15   percent, up from sixty percent in Class II areas, and

16   then fifty-six percent up from fifty percent in Class

17   III areas.    And as most of you know, the class location

18   system is how we categorize pipelines operating

19   through.   In the case of a rural area, Class I area, if

20   you are most urban or through the most urban area,

21   which would be Class IV areas.

22                Under the proposed rule and furthermore the

23   special permits or waivers as we used to call them, we

24   didn’t consider Class IV urban areas.    And after

25   developing or in conjunction with developing the

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   criteria, we have since granted six special permits to

 2   operators who operated up to eighty percent of SMYS in

 3   Class I areas.

 4              The basic concept on the criteria that was

 5   developed are conditions for the special permit, was

 6   the life cycle approach.   That is a buzz phrase, if you

 7   will, that came up often during the public meeting.

 8   And it is a phrase that is used to describe management

 9   of the pipeline from the material procurement stage and

10   material standards to construction through operations

11   and maintenance and integrity management of the

12   pipeline, itself.

13              So, that is the theme, is a life cycle

14   management approach for the criteria for special

15   permits.

16              Based on the success of that program and also

17   to Jeff’s point, it has been a popular, if you will,

18   request from operators because of the benefits of

19   increased through put for existing pipelines and the

20   material cost savings for new pipelines.   It has proven

21   to be an option that many new projects, I would say are

22   primarily going to eighty percent.   And we have granted

23   special permits so far to two existing pipelines to

24   operate at up to eighty percent SMYS.

25              But, based on the success of that program, we

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   did decide to go to rulemaking last year and over the

 2   course of late last year and up until we published the

 3   rule this year, we worked to convert the requirements

 4   from a special permit into the regulation.    And we

 5   decided to work within the existing structure of the

 6   regulation and to breakdown the appropriate parts of

 7   the criteria and place them into the appropriate parts

 8   of the regulation, beit, design construction or

 9   operation in maintenance.

10             And there were a few exceptions, four to be

11   exact between the criteria for special permits we had

12   issued and the notice of proposed rulemaking or the

13   proposed regulation, I will get into that as they come

14   up a little bit later.

15             And today, what I would like to do is to

16   discuss the comments that we received back.    We did

17   receive a hundred and fifty-nine comments.    Obviously,

18   I won't go through every comment, but, I plan to touch

19   on the key comments or the ones that may be considered

20   the more controversial in nature.   And obviously, if

21   you have any questions on other comments, I would be

22   glad to address those as well.    And of course, I will

23   be seeking input from the Committee for a path forward

24   on many of these areas as well.   But, I will provide

25   some thoughts that we have on a path forward on these

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   key areas that I will bring up.

 2                First off, with the preamble to the

 3   regulation, we had a number of comments on that

 4   section.    And first off, with the question that we had

 5   in the preamble regarding how to handle existing

 6   special permits, the response overwhelmingly was that

 7   the special permits should stand on their own and that

 8   we should not roll them into the proposed rule.        We

 9   think that is a reasonable approach, but, again, I will

10   be looking for guidance from the Committee.      But, that

11   is our view right now.    That seems to be a reasonable

12   approach.

13                There are a number of comments on the

14   structure of the rule and the misplacement.        To Don’s

15   point earlier, we had a number of comments, Don would

16   probably be familiar with regarding just that.       And we

17   think that we can address many of those concerns by

18   putting the areas that deal, for instance, with

19   operations and maintenance that were inadvertently

20   placed in construction.    We can move those over to

21   their appropriate area.    I am sorry, if it was in

22   construction, it belongs in establishing MAOP, Section

23   620.   We can address that.

24                But, a lot of comments were related to the

25   structure.    A lot of comments were editorial in nature

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   on the preamble and accuracy related and we are

 2   appreciative of those comments.    And should we go to

 3   final rule, we plan to address those inaccuracies or

 4   those clarifications in the final rule.    But, I think,

 5   I mean, it was very good input and I think we can

 6   improve the document by addressing it as we go forward

 7   to add clarity and accuracy.

 8              Okay, moving onto Section 192.7, which is the

 9   incorporation by reference.    It is just one change.       We

10   modified in existing section there where we added a

11   reference to a ultrasonic inspection technique for

12   steel plate.    And the main comment on that was why are

13   we only referencing one standard.    We think that is a

14   reasonable comment and we will add some language to

15   allow suitable affirmatives that and/or equal, if you

16   will to that section.

17              Moving onto 192.112, which is just behind the

18   current section for design 111, 112 is the new

19   additional design requirements for steel pipe using the

20   alternative maximum allowable operating pressure.       A

21   number of comments referenced were in our Reference API

22   5L and mention of the revised 44th edition that will be

23   coming out or that is out, but, will be effective in

24   October.   And as these reference standards come up,

25   PHMSA refused these standards and if PHMSA agrees, we

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   tend to incorporate those by reference through a

 2   revised section.   And we have made note of that.    We

 3   are currently reviewing the 44th Edition, but, we will

 4   address that appropriately.   You know, after our

 5   review, I anticipate, you know, if everything works

 6   fine, we will incorporate that by reference.   And

 7   obviously we know industry is very interested in that

 8   and because there are some significant changes in the

 9   44th Edition from the 43rd Edition.

10             Having said that, I realize also the people

11   that developed these standards also know the regulatory

12   lag that exists.   So, we will just have to deal with

13   that and address the issues as they come up on that.

14   But, we acknowledge the issue that is presented there

15   with the revision of that standard.

16             There were a number of comments on the

17   specific material properties in the design section,

18   such as carbon equivalent, hardness and D/t ratios.

19   These are numbers that deal with weldability of pipe

20   and just the general diameter or the diameter to wall

21   thickness ratio, which affects the susceptibility to

22   dense.   The number for that one is, for instance, the

23   pipe should be no more than D/t 100.   We are willing to

24   work with alternative numbers.   We have seen some

25   proposals in there.   We think we have good numbers

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   based on what is out there, but, we are open to

 2   considering alternatives on that.

 3              Related to the comments on the requirement

 4   for Fracture Control Plan.    There were comments on

 5   requesting the allowance of crack arrestors other than

 6   the mechanical.    And there was an example used allowing

 7   a clock spring.    And I think, you know, we were

 8   honestly thinking that was the mechanical arrestor, and

 9   I think we would be okay with or we can modify the

10   wording on that to, I mean, we understand the goal of

11   arresting a crack and how we do it, I think, we can

12   modify the language to both meaning the same thing.

13              There was also a comment related to allowing

14   an engineering analysis for Fracture Control system.

15   We are little bit concerned about leaving the door open

16   for variability in this type of design or crack arrest

17   design, I believe, as it was stated.    We may have a

18   requirement for PHMSA review on that type of provision

19   in there, if that is, if that is the path forward.

20              The other alternative is that really it would

21   have to meet the fracture properties that were

22   calculated or provide a crack arrestor and know this

23   engineer design.    So, we really have two alternatives

24   on that.   And I will seek guidance from you on that.

25              Next on Coating Requirements.   First off,

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   there is a concern over only allowing adhesive and

 2   bonded epoxy coating.   And possibly stopping innovation

 3   by not allowing other coating types.   And that is a

 4   reasonable comment.   We will have language that

 5   addresses the material properties we are looking for

 6   there.

 7             Also related to the temperature limit on

 8   coating systems, we will probably change the wording

 9   slightly to accept testing and research, although we

10   are not so sure that the existing research we have seen

11   really supports this.   We have been successful in our

12   existing special permits, where we have this limit in

13   there, it has not been a big ticket item for operators.

14    And if there are areas that have a temperature

15   concern, if there is an inspectional requirement, that

16   seems to have addressed this issue.    But, we don’t see

17   that to be a big issue or it hasn’t really been a big

18   issue on our special permits.

19             I would like to address, the last item, I

20   wanted to bring up on 192.112 is the revised

21   requirement in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a

22   twenty second mill hydrostatic test.   We really had a

23   lot of discussion internally about that issue.     We, in

24   the special permits, had the requirement of a ten

25   second mill hydrostatic test.   We did want to seek

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   comment from industry and obviously the comments

 2   overwhelmingly were, well, what is wrong with the ten

 3   second test.    So, we are taking that under advisement,

 4   I think, in our path forward on that.

 5              There are some operators that require the

 6   twenty second mill hydrostatic test or many that

 7   require the ten.    But, we wanted to gauge industry

 8   input and that I what we got.

 9              Okay, moving onto the Construction Session,

10   192.328.   There is general support for the construction

11   quality assurance plan that we discussed in the

12   regulation, that Section.     On the initial strength

13   test, there was the concern over a failure of a

14   hydrostatic test kicking out a potential project for

15   going to the Alternative MAOP.    And we acknowledge that

16   comment and actually had an allowance for a root cause

17   analysis if there was the hydrostatic test failure on

18   the initial hydro that we had in the initial special

19   permit, but when we converted the language to

20   regulation, somehow it made it where if there was any

21   failure on a hydro, that you would not be eligible for

22   the ultimate pressure.     So, we will change the wording

23   accordingly.    Or we propose a change of wording

24   accordingly as a path forward on that.

25              Late Interference Currents, and the

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   addressing of issues with AC.       And for the benefit of

 2   everyone, this is where, typically where this is an

 3   issue is where pipelines are installed along power line

 4   right of way, and you have issues of the, what is

 5   called induced AC current where the pipeline becomes

 6   charged due to running parallel to the power line.        And

 7   it can create corrosion issues.       PHMSA is aware of this

 8   and we have seen this as a major issue to address and

 9   we have a requirement to, in the regulation as it is

10   written, to address these issues within six months.        We

11   feel that that is an appropriate requirement.      But,

12   there were comments that that was a bit too stringent.


14                But, I just have to remind the Committee that

15   we had a number of projects where corrosion before

16   activation of CP and before this sort of issue was

17   mitigated, has been quite severe.      Even as recently as

18   this past year.    We have seen it on projects.

19                Other comments on 328 were just from general

20   comments on moving sections to 620, because they were

21   misplaced.

22                I thought I would move onto the next section,

23   619.   There were no comments on, it was just a

24   miscellaneous provision there to address the new rule.

25                Moving onto 192.620.    There were a number of

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   comments on allowing for class location changes and

 2   what is commonly referred to as one class bump.       And

 3   the existing regulation allows the one class bump.       And

 4   what that means is, if an operator tests under the

 5   existing line, if he tests his pipeline at ninety

 6   percent of the pipe specified minimum yield strength,

 7   down the road its population increases around the

 8   pipeline and it goes from say a Class I to a Class II.

 9    Since he has tested it at that level, he does not have

10   to replace the pipe or down rate the pipe.       We think

11   that is a reasonable allowance and we would suggest

12   that that would be, we would be okay with that, to the

13   level one class bump.

14                There were comments on allowing for an

15   engineering analysis if the pipe was not tested to a

16   factor of 1.25 in a Class I location.    While we have

17   granted a number of, well, I am saying that we have

18   granted two special permits on pipelines that didn’t

19   meet this minimum requirement, we did review those

20   pipelines.    And going forward, we want the ability or

21   we would recommend that we retain the ability to review

22   these types of situations.    We don’t want just open the

23   door up for or we think it would be unreasonable to

24   open the door up for just preparing an engineering

25   analysis without some sort of check by PHMSA that

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   either, through one option would be requiring the

 2   operator to come back to us for a special permit or

 3   Option B, would be to require the operator to prepare

 4   an analysis to PHMSA with a notification requirement

 5   where we notify the operator of our acceptance of that

 6   analysis within 180 days.   So, there are really two,

 7   two options for that.

 8              Moving on, the Anomaly Assessment and Repair.

 9    There was concern that that was too stringent.     We

10   have worked on that quite a bit since we developed the

11   criteria for MAOP Special Permits.   And we have good

12   vibes from the operators that we have been dealing

13   with.   And it was our intent to make it more stringent

14   than the anomaly repair requirements currently in Sub-

15   Part O, which is the portion of our regulation dealing

16   with high consequence areas.

17              And there was concern over the tactical basis

18   of this and our contention really is that really the

19   factors that are used or the failure pressure ratio, if

20   you will, in Sub-Part O, while it is based on actual

21   burst test data or the calculation based on actual data

22   from burst tests, the actual 1.1 ratio is arbitrary.

23   And our anomaly assessment requirements in the

24   regulation, that part, I mean, it is based on the logic

25   of you have increase in requirements based on your

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   class location.    That is really what it is all about.

 2              The other issue is we see that if we are

 3   seeing these types of pipelines and keep in mind these

 4   pipelines we are talking about here are late model

 5   pipelines, generally post 1980 or post 1990

 6   construction.    So if we are seeing a lot of issues

 7   related to anomalies in these pipelines then that would

 8   be cause for concern.    So, we would recommend that we

 9   keep that as it is.

10              Along the same lines, there were comments on

11   the dent repair requirements in the proposed reg.

12   Well, the concern there was requiring existing

13   pipelines to meet the dent repair guidelines in the

14   construction section.    That is a reasonable request or

15   comment.   And, in fact, our existing special permits

16   for existing pipelines, we didn’t have that

17   requirement.    So, for an existing line, the dent

18   criteria would be what is in Sub-Part O or consistent

19   with what is in Sub-Part O, whereas, for a new

20   pipeline, we would still have the guideline from the

21   construction section since it is a newly constructed

22   line, which is more stringent.

23              Lastly, I wanted to bring up the revised

24   requirements from 620 that were not incorporated into

25   the special permits that were changes.

                             (301) 565-0064

 1                One is the patrolling requirement.   We went

 2   from monthly to twice monthly in the proposed rule.

 3   And here again, based on internal deliberations, we

 4   really wanted to gauge the feedback we were had

 5   received on that and gather input.    And obviously we

 6   did.   A number of comments that thought that was too

 7   stringent and we had a variety of other proposals for

 8   patrolling.

 9                Also as far as the revised requirements,

10   there was reference to damage prevention standards and

11   practices.    In the special permits we issued, we

12   reference the common ground alliance or an operator had

13   to apply applicable, best practices and common ground

14   alliance.    When we went to writing this into the

15   regulation, however, we really couldn’t reference the

16   common ground alliance since it is really not a

17   reference standard, if you will, so we changed the

18   wording to address that.    But, if there is alternative

19   wording that work better, we would be fine with that.

20                The other difference was with the coating

21   assessment.    We had an additional requirement for a

22   coating assessment.    And we added this based on our

23   experience with some construction projects over the

24   last couple of years, where we have seen incidents of

25   coating damage after the pipe has been buried.     And

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   frankly it was a requirement we considered when we were

 2   initially developing requirements for pipelines.     A lot

 3   of operators require this anyway for new pipelines.

 4   And it hasn’t been an issue or a major issue here

 5   recently.    We have been talking with operators about

 6   adding this.    And what I mean by that, it wasn’t

 7   initially part of our criteria for special permits, but

 8   recently we have added it as a requirement for

 9   pipelines.    And it actually has been a benefit.    A lot

10   of operators perform that anyway and because the

11   contractor for a new pipeline, in particular, would

12   still have to come back and make repairs in those

13   cases.

14                So, our feeling there was that, that was a

15   good requirement based on our experience with

16   construction over the last couple of years.

17   I might add, though, that the wording that is in the

18   regulation, that requirement is lumped in with another

19   requirement for an indirect examination called close

20   interval survey.    And I would propose that we separate

21   the two and that requirement would stay in, but we

22   would also have this coating assessment survey, which

23   is also, as many of you know, it is called, commonly

24   referred to as DCVG Survey.

25                Realize there are numerous comments that were

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   posted to the docket.   Perhaps you have questions on

 2   those, but, what I have done is summarize what I

 3   believe were the major issues.

 4              And Mr. Chairman, this completes my remarks.

 5              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Thank you very much,

 6   Alan.   Obviously you and the other members have done a

 7   tremendous amount of work on this issue to date.

 8              Alan, before I open it up for discussion, I

 9   have a question.   It is more of a clarifying point.    As

10   you were going through your discussion here, you

11   indicated that, if I heard it correctly, and that is

12   what I need to get a clarification on, if I heard it

13   correctly, you indicated there were a number of

14   comments where I thought you were going to make changes

15   and then I thought I heard there were comments that

16   were made where you had made changes.   And the

17   clarifying question I have is are the comments that you

18   received, where people had suggested changes, where

19   they thought they were appropriate, are they already in

20   this docket, the Federal Register of proposed rules?

21   Are they already reflected in there or are you going to

22   add them, some of these changes, in a future write-up?

23              MR. MAYBERRY:   The changes were

24   clarifications and to answer your question, this

25   document or the reg that we have before us has not been

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   modified in any way.     It is still the original

 2   regulation that was published.

 3               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.

 4               MR. MAYBERRY:   We had just comments.   Really

 5   they are proposed clarifications.

 6               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   So, then at some point

 7   in the future a newer document with the appropriate

 8   amended changes would be written up, is my

 9   understanding correct?

10               MR. MAYBERRY:   Well, it wouldn’t be a new

11   document.   It wouldn’t, well, it would be new in the

12   sense that it is the final version, but, it is really,

13   it does not change the document that we have other than

14   wording things so that they are clearer.     And so that

15   everyone understands what we are accomplishing.

16               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.   All right, let

17   me restate.   I understand that the purpose and the

18   intent would not change, but some of the clarifying

19   language in the document would change, is that correct?

20               MR. MAYBERRY:   Yes.

21               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.   Thank you.

22               MR. WIESE:   Commissioner Keating?

23               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Yes.

24               MR. WIESE:   This is Jeff, could I add just a

25   note on there, if I could?

                            (301) 565-0064

 1             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Sure.

 2             MR. WIESE:   Our normal protocol and I know we

 3   have some new members on the Committee, too, so it is

 4   probably, if you will bear with me, since we will do

 5   this again coming this Fall.   Our normal protocol is to

 6   try to talk to the Committee as things are developing,

 7   with no votes necessary.    Seek their advice and consent

 8   at that point as we are developing our activities.

 9   Many of the members of the Committee are involved in

10   the developmental activities that go forward.

11             We, then, actually enter the more formal

12   stage of rulemaking, where we make a proposal on the

13   record that we are seeking comment on, as we did here.

14    And then our protocol is to come back to the Advisory

15   Committee, from whom we are seeking counsel and to

16   refresh you on what our proposal were, what the general

17   gist of the comments that we received are and our

18   thoughts going forward.    We are not trying to pre-stage

19   the Committee’s judgment.   We are here to solicit the

20   comments from the Committee on how they think we should

21   best proceed.

22             Alan has, I think, done a great job of giving

23   you a sense of our thoughts going forward.    As, you

24   know, myself characterize and Alan and I have spent a

25   fair amount of time talking about this, I think we are

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   really, we received a lot of good comments.      But, I

 2   will fall back to say that I think we had a very strong

 3   proposal that was pretty well developed, you know,

 4   criteria driven and we have gotten some field

 5   experience with them, which has been very important,

 6   you know, and tried to develop all of that in a very

 7   transparent way.

 8             So, what I am really trying to say to you is,

 9   I think in short, we received a lot of good comments

10   that will be helpful in making clarifications and

11   technical corrections.    It will make the regulatory

12   intents clearer for operators.    I think that we had a

13   fairly forward leaning in parameters.    As Alan pointed

14   out in several areas.    We tried to seek information and

15   technical information from anyone, really, on a number

16   of issues, having gotten that.    I think there are some

17   relatively minor changes that we can make to this.

18   But, that they are still very compatible with the

19   criteria that we developed in that public process, you

20   know, for each of the special permits.    They are at or

21   above those.

22             And then my closing note on that whole thing,

23   and I mean this seriously, is that the Agency has taken

24   seriously all of the oversight responsibilities for

25   these special permits.    We have spent a fair amount of

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   field time with operators reviewing, you know,

 2   implementation of the special permit criteria.      And I

 3   would just tell you that it is already in our

 4   inspection priorities for next fiscal year.      So, I am

 5   just here to tell you that regardless of the rule, the

 6   special permit criteria are pretty well developed.

 7   Anywhere they are applied will be applying a fairly

 8   significant amount of oversight.

 9             So, that is it for me, Bob, thank you for

10   indulging me.

11                   Committee Discussion, Public

12                        Discussion and Call

13                            For Motion

14             COMMISSIONER KEATING:       No, thank you, Jeff.

15   I appreciate the explanation.

16             Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time for

17   discussion.   Once again, I would ask Committee members,

18   have Committee members, to give the Committee members

19   the first opportunity for discussion and then we would

20   go to the public members.

21             So, are there any Committee members who wish

22   to make comments.     Again, please identify yourself.

23             MR. MOHN:    Mr. Chairman, this is Jeryl Mohn.

24    I am PPSC member.    I am employed by Panhandle Energy

25   and certainly represent, in my view, our industry.

                            (301) 565-0064

 1               I would just like to go on the record to

 2   commend PHMSA for moving this rulemaking forward.       It

 3   has been largely a collaborative effort as a

 4   consequence, as both Alan and Jeff said, of the various

 5   special permits that have been reviewed and ultimately

 6   issued.   And I would agree with Jeff, that we are very

 7   close from our point of view in having a rule that

 8   memorializes the requirements in the form of regulation

 9   that would enable continued utilization of this design

10   alternative.

11               I would pose a question to you first, Mr.

12   Chairman, and perhaps my colleague, Andy Drake has some

13   other ideas, as to how you would like to proceed and I

14   pose these alternatives to you.

15               As Alan reviewed the comments to the rule, he

16   noted many times, as you said, that there are changes

17   that PHMSA intends to make, in some cases was pretty

18   explicit about the changes.     And honestly, for the

19   comments that I think we have, those changes that he

20   discussed are responsive to our concerns, the comments

21   of our individual companies as well as our INGAA

22   comments.   There are, however, a few sections that we

23   would like to discuss further.

24               So, in the interest of brevity here, I am not

25   sure the best way to do this.    Is it to go back through

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   Alan’s discussion and only try to highlight those

 2   particular sections where Alan said there would be a

 3   change and then we discuss that change?     Or do you want

 4   to just open it up for a general discussion about the

 5   rule as a whole?

 6             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Okay.    Thank you,

 7   Jeryl, for your comments.

 8             Let me say, I think we, you and I anyway, are

 9   in the same wave length.    My concern is, well, first of

10   all, let me say, I certainly support the intent and the

11   approach and the entire gist of this rule.    And it is

12   my concern when I raised the question for

13   clarification, was just that unlike the first item

14   where there was one very specific item, where we wanted

15   to do an amendment and people could focus on it and we

16   all knew what we were agreeing to and what would be

17   included in there.

18             On this subject matter, again, I tend to

19   agree with Alan.   He certainly is on top of this.   And

20   I have great confidence in the PHMSA folks.    It is just

21   that there were so many potential changes.    If we can

22   focus on them and get through them within the allotted

23   time, that would be fine.   If not, we could and again,

24   I want to hear what other members have to say, but, we

25   as a committee, could discuss other points of concerns

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   from other Committee members and then find out if we

 2   could make kind of a tentative positive recommendation

 3   that we see the final draft.

 4               This may be unique to those of us that are

 5   public utility commissioners, but, in dealing with

 6   auditors, we many times will, before we get our public

 7   utility auditor out to review it, but, we are always

 8   reviewing that last audit to make sure the language is

 9   what we thought we were saying.    And I just want the

10   Committee members to be comfortable with whatever it is

11   they wish to vote.   And I will support whatever the

12   will of, obviously, what I am saying, I will support

13   whatever the will of the Committee is.    It was a just

14   clarification.

15               So, before we go to your suggestion of a

16   section by section discussion, I would just like to

17   find out if any other Committee members have any


19               MR. STURSMA:   This is Don Stursma, Iowa

20   Government.   As you may have, if you look at my written

21   comments, you know, I have some problems with the way

22   these rules are structured in addition to comments on

23   some of the individual issues in there.    And I don’t

24   know what would be an appropriate point to see if there

25   is any discussion or how people feel about that.

                            (301) 565-0064

 1             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Okay.   With all the

 2   material I have here, Don, I probably have your

 3   comments somewhere in them, but, I would be

 4   disingenuous if I told you I have read them.    I haven’t

 5   had a chance to read them all.

 6             MR. WIESE:   Commissioner Keating, this is

 7   Jeff Wiese, again.   Could I ask a question?

 8             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Sure.

 9             MR. WIESE:   Would it be helpful to you and

10   the other members of the Committee, recognizing there a

11   few new ones, if we kind of review, I have got our

12   Counsel here, if we kind of review for you what we are

13   asking of the Committee today.    There is really, I

14   mean, besides the fact that first we will deal with any

15   discussion you want on these subjects, happy to

16   restructure any kind of representation of the primary

17   changes that we are considering.    You know, I think,

18   and they would always want Counsel want me when I am

19   talking, is to tell you that I think that our general

20   view here is that we are asking you for your general

21   advice on our thoughts preceding to final rule.

22             We are not going to be in a position to

23   prepare a final rule and send it to you for comment.

24   It is not part of that Federal Regulatory process.

25             Jim, any comments on the items before us?

                          (301) 565-0064

 1              COMMISSIONER KEATING:      Thank you, Jeff.   I

 2   guess, I am certainly one of the new members and do

 3   need some education, guidance on that.         Okay.

 4              MR. WIESE:    Okay.

 5              MS. GERARD:    This is Stacey, typically, what

 6   happens is that, you know, the Committee identifies

 7   areas of the proposal which they would ask that

 8   modifications be made to.        And then, you, as the Chair,

 9   could keep a list of what those modifications are.       And

10   you are voting on the NPRM with those modifications as

11   proposed, you know, after you deal with them one by one

12   and sort of band them together as a package and say,

13   this NPRM with the following modifications, as the

14   Committee vote, can the Committee vote that it is

15   reasonable, feasible, etc., etc.

16              MR. PATES:    Yes, this is Jim Pates.

17   Procedurally, probably the best way under Robert’s

18   Rules is to entertain a main motion to recommend

19   support for the NPRM and then once that is seconded, it

20   is open for discussion, then to accept any sort of

21   amendments or suggested changes and then vote on those

22   individually.   And then vote on the total package at

23   the end.

24              COMMISSIONER KEATING:       Okay.

25              MR. WIESE:    But, this is Jeff again, I don’t

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   want the Committee to get the sense that we are going

 2   to shutdown discussions.   So, you know, before you get

 3   a point where you feel like you need to move to that,

 4   if there is a specific matter or, you know, a number of

 5   specific matters, you just want Alan or someone else

 6   here to expound on for a second, we are happy to do so.

 7              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.    Why don’t we

 8   then follow this order then.   Following along with Jeff

 9   Wiese’s comments, just open it.    If there are some

10   general comments and clarifying questions that

11   Committee members would like Alan Mayberry to discuss,

12   we can do that.    After that discussion is concluded, we

13   can then ask for a motion.   And then we can go through,

14   if there are any specific points in that motion that

15   need to come up.

16              So, with that laid out as what we are going

17   to do for our next time period, are there Committee

18   members who have some specific questions, clarifying

19   questions for Alan Mayberry?

20              MR. DRAKE:   This is Andy Drake with Spectra

21   Energy.   I have some specific comments, if this is the

22   appropriate time to go through those.      I also have kind

23   of a general comment, maybe in reference to some of the

24   conversation that has already happened.

25              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.

                           (301) 565-0064

 1              MR. DRAKE:    Certainly, generally, we are

 2   supportive of this.     I think this is a good idea.     It

 3   has been well technically vetted over a long period of

 4   time.   And there has been a wide spectrum of

 5   involvement from other countries and technical experts.

 6    I think this is very well founded.     And I appreciate

 7   Alan accepting this to comment.     Certainly one of the

 8   prime tenants here is to minimize special permits.        And

 9   I think that goes a long way to that.

10              There are a couple of things here that we

11   have to, I think, take into consideration.      We are

12   trying to facilitate, you know, or minimize these

13   special applications.     We are also trying to make sure

14   we have got a technically valid rule.     And something

15   that is practicable.     If it is not practicable in the

16   interest of being perhaps more conservative, I think

17   what is going to happen is we are just going to right

18   back at the beginning, which is not where any of us

19   want to go.   And we really need to slow down and make

20   sure that these provisions, the wording choices, in

21   particular, don’t create situations that inadvertently

22   cause people to have to bail out to a special permit.

23              A couple of those, in particular, I think

24   that we need to be thinking about is, the basis for the

25   coating, the temperature restriction to 120 degrees

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   Fahrenheit on FBE coating, most of the manufacturers’

 2   coatings that I am aware of right now on FBE have

 3   temperature recommendations of 150 to 160 degrees as

 4   minimum for standard FBE.   To throttle that back to 120

 5   degrees is not a trivial matter.     And especially for

 6   existing pipelines.    That is going to be, that is going

 7   to be impracticable.   So, they are going to be right

 8   back in the special permit bucket.

 9              I would say we need to at least look at that

10   number and move that up to a little bit more

11   practicable number and/or put some sort of coating

12   tests that you do in areas where that, you know, that

13   coating is monitoring tests that you even put into

14   place in those areas where that temperature may be

15   present.

16              The other thing, I think, that we might need

17   to look at is these macro etching requirements for the

18   pipe manufacturer, certainly for a new pipeline that

19   has not been built yet.   That is something that can be

20   instituted as the manufacturer.    But, it has not been a

21   standard practice historically.    So for any existing

22   pipeline that was even thinking about doing this and

23   may meet every other technical requirement, that

24   requirement needs to be exempted as it is basically

25   proven out in the hydrostatic test and the 100 percent

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   x-ray requirement.    So, it is a moot point for an

 2   existing pipeline that meets the other parts of this

 3   requirement.    And I think you really are just looking

 4   for one word that says, macro etching for pipelines

 5   that haven’t been built yet.    For existing pipelines,

 6   these other requirements cover that.

 7             I think that, you know, the other comment

 8   that I think we might want to make some special

 9   consideration over, is the issue of coverage or

10   applicability or grandfathering of pipelines that

11   currently operate under or have been granted or have

12   applied for a special permit, but have not been granted

13   it yet.

14             Now the industry is experiencing a huge

15   growth spurt right now.    And these permits are helping,

16   you know, helping basically foster the pipelines to get

17   to some of these demand markets.     And I know there have

18   been a lot of applications submitted.    I wouldn’t want

19   to see the passage of a rulemaking preempt or nullify

20   or require that waivers that are being considered or

21   have been filed to be refiled.    I think that would be

22   huge, a huge waste and disruption to the marketplace

23   and this process.

24             So, I hope we can get something there.      I

25   don’t think that is a big consideration.    I don’t even

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   think that is a big consideration from a regulatory

 2   precedent standpoint.    But, if we don’t get that penned

 3   in there somewhere, I think we will end up really

 4   throwing a big wrinkle in a lot of projects timelines,

 5   which is a big, big issue right now.

 6                The only other significant comment that I see

 7   right here is this issue about evaluation mediation of

 8   anomaly.    The criteria that PHMSA is using right now,

 9   is not just unique to this MAOP waiver.    It is an issue

10   that is an issue that we are kind of in discussion with

11   and I think technically on a broader scale, and that is

12   related to the integrity management rule and here by

13   reference.

14                But, I think we need to call some kind of

15   technical summit to talk through this.    The application

16   of class location, design factors into the repair

17   criteria, the acceptance criteria of anomaly, is a

18   technical breakdown in the basis of the flaw evaluation

19   criteria.    I mean, fundamentally.   And we have talked

20   to John Kiefer about this, who developed the B-31G

21   basis.   And I think we need to just slow down and talk

22   about that on a bigger scale.

23                So, that is not just unique to this MAOP

24   operating issue.    That is across the spectrum.   And

25   that is really a technical misapplication on a very

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   fundamental level that we need to remediate, because

 2   that is going to have a huge, huge impact beyond this

 3   particular rulemaking.

 4                So, I would just kind of put an asterisk next

 5   that comment, that that actually is something that is

 6   not just unique to this rulemaking.    That is something

 7   that is more systemic in nature.

 8                You know, the comments that Alan said he has

 9   received, and they have addressed or intend to address

10   through language, I appreciate that.    You know, there

11   has been a lot of dialog on this rulemaking to date.

12   And, you know, I certainly know that Alan does not have

13   language at his hand right now to propose on some of

14   those changes.    And all we can say is, we appreciate

15   your consideration in those regards and that if, you

16   know, we or I or any members of the Technical

17   Committees can help in hammering out language to

18   address those comments and concerns, we make ourselves

19   available to that end.

20                And I appreciate your efforts here on this

21   rulemaking.    I know there has been a lot technical

22   discussions to date and it is a very complex

23   rulemaking, but, I think it really will help us make

24   pipelines much safer and much less expensive for

25   customers.

                             (301) 565-0064

 1              And that is my comments, Mr. Chairman.

 2              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Thank you, Andrew.

 3   Andrew, if I may just as I was taking notes listening

 4   to you, I am going to try to recap the thrust of you

 5   said and please correct me if I misstate it, because I

 6   just want to make sure I understood it.

 7              Basically, you are supportive of the rule.

 8   You feel the comments that Alan has received and will

 9   make changes to would be appropriate.    But, did I hear

10   in the middle of this, that you felt, you said you call

11   for a technical summit to talk through this, are you

12   suggesting that there are some mega issues that need to

13   be discussed that are larger than what we have specific

14   comments before us today?    I just want to understand

15   that.   I am not trying to put words in your mouth.      I

16   just want to know what you are saying.

17              MR. DRAKE:   I think that, you know, honestly

18   at this point, I don’t know that we will mediate this

19   anomaly issue prior to the development of this

20   rulemaking.   It is a bigger issue.   And I don’t intend

21   to recommend slowing down this rulemaking for this

22   singular issue, but, I think we need to have a

23   technical summit on anomalies as a separate matter to

24   deal with it on a bigger scale.    Because it is bigger

25   than just this rulemaking.   So, I wouldn’t, I am not

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   recommending that we have a technical summit, you know,

 2   during this process, because I think we are on an

 3   expedited basis here and I appreciate that.      But, I do

 4   think we need earmark some chance to sit down and talk

 5   through the basis of that on a bigger scale.

 6               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.   Thank you for

 7   clarifying that.    I appreciate it.

 8               Other members of the Committee?

 9               MR. MOHN:   This is Jeryl Mohn again, Mr.

10   Chairman, I would echo Andy’s comments and I tried to

11   follow as Alan was going through his summary of the

12   comments, where he indicated that the Agency was

13   willing to be responsive to various comments that were

14   received.   And I think Andy has done a good summary of

15   those items that Alan missed or where we may have a

16   slightly different view.

17               The four that I noted that Andy mentioned are

18   grandfathering, number one, ensuring the

19   grandfathering, also acknowledged those permit

20   applications that have been made and that are currently

21   being processed.

22               The second one Andy mentioned was coating

23   temperature.    Both of those were addressed to some

24   extent in Alan’s comments.

25               The third one that Alan didn’t mention was

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   macro etching.    And I am not a metaller, just not a

 2   steel mill or a pipe mill expert, but, I do understand

 3   from explanations that I have received, that what we

 4   are really trying to see whether or not the plate that

 5   the steel is made of, has lamination in it.     It has

 6   layering to it that would weaken the strength of the

 7   pipe.    And a macro etch is something that is done in a

 8   steel mill when the plate is manufacturer, that is more

 9   of a QA process for the steel mill.

10               The rule also requires an ultrasonic test

11   evaluation of the plate, in addition to the test that

12   Andy noted earlier, to verify the integrity of the

13   steel.   And I would ask Jeff and Alan that you guys do

14   consider, as Andy noted, that macro etching requirement

15   that you have written into the proposed rule.

16               The fourth and final item Andy mentioned is

17   criteria for anomaly repairs.    I know, Jeff and Alan,

18   you have commenced some discussion with various

19   technical experts and some industry reps, that look

20   broadly at this challenge of anomaly of repair

21   criteria.   And I am not sure how you would handle it in

22   this particular rule and what you need to go forward

23   from a timing standpoint.    But, I would echo Andy’s

24   sentiment that we should proceed carefully and we

25   should really think about the technical basis for apply

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   class location to anomaly repair criteria as it relates

 2   to what was originally developed in the Pipeline

 3   Integrity Rule and the standard that is used to enforce

 4   that.

 5              I would be willing, Mr. Chairman, to move

 6   forward and acknowledge Alan’s willingness to look at

 7   some changes, if we could also get some consideration

 8   of the four items that Andy went through that I

 9   reiterated.

10              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.   Thank you, Joe.

11              Any more general comments from the Technical,

12   excuse me, from the Committee members?

13              MR. STURSMA:   This is Don Stursma, Iowa

14   Government again.

15              And I understand industry’s interest in being

16   able to operate at higher pressure, and I understand

17   that the B31-A code and other international codes that

18   are out there, about eighty percent, this country has

19   operated at eighty percent for decades, no pressure

20   based problems.   So, I have no fundamental problem with

21   the idea of allowing a higher operating pressure.     But,

22   at the same time, recognizing the existing seventy-two

23   percent, etc., numbers have been around for a long

24   time.   There is a certain comfort level to long

25   established widely accepted standards.     And at least

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   arguably, a higher operating pressure equates to a

 2   lessening of a historic margin of safety.

 3                So, I also agree with the idea that pipelines

 4   being allowed to operate at a higher pressure should be

 5   linked to a higher quality of pipeline material

 6   construction and maintenance.

 7                The question then gets to be what are the

 8   appropriate standards for this showing, and I do have

 9   some problems with the rules as proposed.    And I have

10   got to tell you the first time I read this rulemaking,

11   when I got to the end, I thought something is missing.

12    I finally figured out what it was.    I can't find the

13   kitchen sink mentioned anywhere.    It seems like just

14   about anything, anybody else could possibly think of

15   has been tossed into this rulemaking.    And I have heard

16   that some of these criteria have been conditions of

17   special permits.    They were held up as find, find of

18   why they are in there.    And I am kind of amazed at what

19   these applicants will agree to, to get some of these

20   special permits.    And I guess I would encourage you not

21   to use criteria of corporations into this rulemaking,

22   whether it has been in a special permit or not, but

23   rather it can show technical merit to the individual

24   proposals.

25                And now that I have had my diatribe, and wish

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   I had been on the committee, I am going to mention that

 2   I haven’t, I haven’t really prepared to talk a whole

 3   lot on the tentative proposals.    I figured industry is

 4   a lot better equipped to do than I am.    But, I do have

 5   some concerns over the way the rule was structured.

 6                Proposed Rule 1 for 112, I think is an

 7   obvious one, where the content of that proposed rule is

 8   misplaced.    It should be in a different subpart or a

 9   different appendix.

10                One of my bigger problems generally is that

11   Part 192 has a certain flow of structure to it.

12   Subpart B for materials, C for design, D for welding, E

13   for construction, you know, all along, you get the

14   picture.    And this rulemaking kind of puts a mishmash

15   of things in part of the Code where that subject matter

16   is typically addressed.    And I guess, just maybe it is

17   kind of a purist, maybe because I think clearer this

18   way, certainly my recommendation to be that the rule

19   620, I would basically say, if qualified for operation

20   in an alternative maximum operating pressure, here is

21   how you compute it.     But, the actual determination of

22   whether you are eligible to operate in an alternative

23   MAOP, being a separate rulemaking or perhaps better add

24   appendix.

25                I think that would do a lot for maintaining

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   the flow of structure of Part 192.    And keep things,

 2   keep the subject matter from being mislocated in the

 3   structure of Part 192.

 4              That is the general comment separate from

 5   anything I might add-on of specific issues both in the

 6   regulations.

 7              And that is all for now.

 8              COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Thank you, Don.

 9              Any other Committee members who wish to

10   comment?

11              Okay.   Are there any public members who wish

12   to make a general comment?

13              MS. GERARD:    You mean the public, not public

14   members?

15              COMMISSIONER KEATING:    The public, yes.   I am

16   sorry.   Thank you.

17              I am a very inclusive guy, everybody is a

18   member of my club.

19              MR. WIESE:    Bob, we have one.

20              MR. BOSS:    This is Terry Boss with INGAA.   I

21   just want to kind of clarify process wise.

22              You are trying to get the concept across, any

23   possible changes that are going on, but, essentially,

24   this will not be reviewed by TPSSC after this session.

25              MR. WIESE:    No.

                             (301) 565-0064

 1                MR. BOSS:   Okay.   Just wanted to clarify

 2   that.

 3                COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Terry, can you speak

 4   up, we are losing you?

 5                MR. BOSS:   I just wanted to clarify that this

 6   rule is not going to be discussed by TPSSC after this

 7   session as they are presenting it.      Just to clarify

 8   that, and Jeff agreed with that.

 9                MR. KUPREWICZ:   I don’t know if there are

10   public members here, but I do have some comments.

11                COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Would you identify

12   yourself?

13                MR. KUPREWICZ:   Oh, I am sorry, it is Rick

14   Kuprewicz.    And before I get into that, either, we have

15   got a bunch of smart people working technical issues

16   and moving forward over a bunch of lames running over

17   the cliff.    I would like to say given the effort that

18   has gone forward here, it is probably the earlier

19   perversion here.

20                Anyway, my name is Richard Kuprewicz and my

21   comments today represent observations on PHMSA proposed

22   increase MAOP rulemaking of March 12, 2008.

23                I have canvassed representatives of the

24   public on this matter, such as the Pipeline Safety

25   Trust, Washington State’s WUTC Pipeline Safety Leaders,

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   and others such as some of the representatives on the

 2   Washington State Citizens Committee on Pipeline Safety.

 3    My comments today reflect observations, my personal

 4   observations’ perspective, considering the input and

 5   comments from these public representatives.

 6             I would characterize PHMSA’s March 12

 7   rulemaking effort related to increasing MAOP on gas

 8   transmission pipelines rulemaking as somewhere between

 9   a B+ and an A-.   This not a criticism but on the

10   contrary, emphasis the amount of technical knowledge

11   and work effort that PHMSA and many in the industry

12   have obviously put into and gained in this area in

13   granting a run of recent waivers now called special

14   permits related to higher design factors, and MAOP

15   increases on gas transmission pipelines.

16             There are many important core concepts

17   captured in the March 12, 2008 proposed rulemaking that

18   strengthens proper management requirements of pipelines

19   through their extensive life cycle stages that easily

20   span many decades.   I believe the lack of recent public

21   comments of the docket is reflective of PHMSA’s good

22   efforts in the proposed rulemaking.

23             The fundamental principal governing MAOP

24   increases today relate to considerable advances in

25   technology in the last twenty years or so.    In all

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   phases of a pipeline life cycle that is prudently

 2   applied and managed, can act as safety webs assuring

 3   the pipelines and their welds maintain sound and do not

 4   fail.

 5             It is a well known technical fact that sound,

 6   modern pipelines can take pressure stress forces well

 7   beyond one hundred percent SMYS.

 8             As a public representative, I am also guided

 9   in this matter by the principal that safety regulations

10   are not there to run up the bill.   They need to be cost

11   effective and efficient.   From my perspective and the

12   perspective of many of those I had solicited comments

13   from, PHMSA in this proposed rulemaking has addressed

14   the core critical process issues that are needed to

15   provide adequate safety nets or a web against failure.

16    The public comments I received have no problem with

17   dealing with this issue by rule regulation, provided

18   identified the core issues are prudently addressed.

19             In fairness to the industry, there are

20   certain detailed issues that provide plenty of room for

21   a prudent compromise in the final MAOP increase rule,

22   without defeating the core process principals

23   identified in the proposed rulemaking.

24             Some specific examples of core issues should

25   prove helpful and time does not permit me to identify

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   all the core issues or details, that might be

 2   candidates for some tuning.    For example, construction

 3   QAQC, documentation, audibility and record retention

 4   are critical.    We need to avoid a contractor or a

 5   subcontractor going brain dead.

 6             Related to right of way patrol, damage

 7   prevention and right of way management.    Right of way

 8   management is the core issue that will provide the

 9   solution, such as patrol frequency and damage

10   prevention issues.    We don’t believe prescriptive

11   detailed issues will deal with this issue

12   appropriately.   And so will go the right of way

13   management.   And that is addressed in this rulemaking.

14             Regarding internal corrosion.     This isn’t an

15   issue for many pipelines.     For those at risk, however,

16   they require some sort of guideline to be sure that

17   they are handled risks of internal corrosion

18   adequately.

19             Regarding risk matrix, pipeline inspection,

20   both baseline and periodic assessments in intervals,

21   and reinspection intervals, they are all intertwined.

22   The risk matrixes be the key.

23             So, I think, Andy, this will help address

24   some of your concerns as to what is the best technical

25   way to deal with anomalies and flaws and all of that.

                            (301) 565-0064

 1               That said, I believe that PHMSA and the

 2   industry should be able to develop more efficient,

 3   compromised language regarding appropriate baseline and

 4   especially periodic assessment periods.   And in this

 5   inspection matter, I am guided by the critical issue

 6   from the public that quality of inspections matching

 7   against a proper risk management, not over frequency of

 8   misguided inspections or the use of poor tools, is the

 9   controlling issue to assure pipelines don’t fail from

10   certain risk threats.

11               Regarding emergency response, I would advise

12   listening to the industry on the real effect of this,

13   of some of these proposals in the rule.   On this core

14   matter, I am guided by the more critical concepts that

15   resources should be placed on life cycle core issues

16   related to prevention of pipe failure rather than

17   illusionary effectiveness related to reactions of

18   failure.

19               In conclusion, concerning existing pipelines,

20   existing pipelines need special precautions to assure

21   that critical information about such pipelines is

22   adequate.   Given the huge economic incentives to raise

23   pressures on pipelines and can be easy under the guise

24   of risk management to take imprudent risks from safe,

25   regarding   missing information that is not warranted.

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   Note that there is more than one way to get to the

 2   right solution and I think some of the people mentioned

 3   that this afternoon.

 4             One last issue, database and public

 5   information.    This is a very important issue to many of

 6   the public people that gave me input.    The recurring

 7   theme that I keep hearing from the public that may not

 8   be adequately captured in the proposed regulation is

 9   public assets of PHMSA audits, inspections, accidents

10   and the repair records related to pipelines.

11   Especially as they relate to MAOP increases.     Quite

12   simply this is an area that needs work.    There is a

13   balance in providing proper information to the public

14   that can be most affected by a pipeline event and

15   overwhelming an audience with irrelevant unrelated

16   detail noise.    The public position on this matter is

17   consistent.    Performance or risk base system approaches

18   are only credible if the public is granted access to

19   core data based information that instills confidence

20   that the pipeline management team has their system

21   under control through all the pipeline life cycle

22   stages.

23             Risk based approaches will not work if such

24   core information is denied to the public for

25   independent review.    For example, a breakdown of the

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   2,883 repairs identified in the first cycle of gas

 2   integrity management inspections in the proposed

 3   rulemaking by thread type, would provide a variable

 4   benchmark or reality check.

 5              And I appreciate your patience in this rather

 6   long winded, but, you can tell I have got a lot of

 7   input from these folks, so.

 8              But, the bottom line is, move forward with

 9   the rulemaking and I think you, guys, are all on the

10   right course and I sense a real effort to do the right

11   thing here.

12              That is all I have.    Thank you.

13              COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Thank you very much,

14   Richard.

15              Richard, if that is a written statement just

16   to assist our court reporters there or note takers, you

17   might want to provide her that so she could –

18              MR. KUPREWICZ:    I sure will.   Thank you.

19              COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Okay.   Thank you.

20              Any other comments?    Okay, hearing none, what

21   I would like to ask now is –

22              MR. McALLISTER:    Mr. Chairman, may I make a

23   comment, please?

24              COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Yes, who is that?

25              MR. McALLISTER:    This is Von McAllister with

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

 2              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.

 3              MR. McALLISTER:   And this is just two things

 4   that have already been discussed, but, in the matter of

 5   the anomaly response criteria, we had a summit meeting

 6   last week and I think that INGAA has the committee

 7   working quite feverishly to propose an alternative to

 8   this criteria, that is more similar and based on B318S

 9   and Kiefer’s work in the foundation, has been done in

10   this.   And I wonder if there is some way that we can

11   consider that in this process as an alternative.   We

12   strongly feel that it is inappropriate to apply these

13   class location factors and that there will be very

14   expensive and result in having to investigate some very

15   small anomalies even to ten percent.

16              And just once again, I wanted to mention that

17   we feel that the coatings are not hurt. In our case, we

18   have only operated up to one hundred and thirty

19   degrees, but, we have done that for seventeen years

20   without damage.   We think there should be some more

21   leeway there.

22              Thank you.

23              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Thank you very much.

24              Any other comments?

25              I am sorry, I didn’t hear that.

                           (301) 565-0064

 1              MR. WIESE:   That is someone in the

 2   background.

 3              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Oh, okay.

 4              MR. WIESE:   At the right time, Bob, I think

 5   with your indulgence, I think Alan and I could at least

 6   give some initial response to some of these points

 7   before we move onto motions.

 8              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.   We can do that.

 9              MR. WIESE:   I guess I should give you the

10   opportunity to make sure that we don’t have any other

11   issues that should come forward.

12              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Well, do you want to

13   hear a motion first and then make some comments or

14   would you like to make some preliminary comments before

15   I ask for any motion from the Technical Committee

16   members?

17              MR. WIESE:   Well, in the interest of

18   expediency, it might be helpful if we kind of give you

19   some initial response on some of these things.     So,

20   when you are ready, we will do so.

21              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.   I think we are

22   ready now, Jeff, if you and Alan wish to, you know, do

23   that now, that would be great.

24              MR. WIESE:   Well, again, what I think I will

25   do, if you will permit me, and I will allow Alan to

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   comment on it and technically correct me where I am

 2   wrong.   There are a couple of things that I would like

 3   to address.

 4              As was just noted, we had begun a discussion

 5   with INGAA and INGAA members and some technical people

 6   about the anomaly repair criteria and class locations.

 7    We had a lot of our people involved in that.    Everyone

 8   from our regional directors, to Alan, to Bill Gute, our

 9   Deputy here, a lot of people.    And I think it was a

10   very promising start to that enterprise.

11              And I am hopeful, Andy and Jeryl, since I

12   know you both commented and Mr. McAllister, that, you

13   know, that can bear fruit.    But, I would be, I think,

14   it is my personal view that I would be misleading you

15   if I believe, led you to believe that we could modify

16   that in time to finish this rule.    The rule, in order

17   to do that, what we have proposed and been talking

18   about internally was, I think that needs a little bit

19   of public discussion.   And our state partners are

20   critical parts of this.   This is not just a matter for

21   interstate pipelines.   It is a matter that will affect

22   states as well.   And I would be, I would feel nervous

23   about moving ahead without the state partners being

24   heavily involved in that.    As well as having the

25   general public have an opportunity to comment on it.

                            (301) 565-0064

 1                So, while I don’t want to shut it down, I am

 2   quite sensitive to the fact that there are plenty of

 3   technically sound reasons to move forward with that.

 4   My personal reaction is that it hasn’t been vetted

 5   enough in a public way.    So, I am a little disinclined

 6   to, I mean, I will certainly take the advice of the

 7   Committee.    I want to make sure I say that the right

 8   way.   We are here to seek your advice, but, I do feel

 9   like that one is underdeveloped.

10                The other thing I wanted to comment on and

11   then I could certainly turn to Alan, was the

12   grandfather and if they already filed special permits.

13    I guess we will have to debate that internally.    I

14   mean, the way I see it that the special permits that

15   are filed, are following the criteria that we developed

16   in public.    There are fairly parallel with the NPRM

17   that we put forward with some minor exceptions,

18   relatively minor exceptions that we had discussed to

19   you.   And some of those we are considering in the, in

20   the NPRM, we are considering adjusting, you know, I

21   don’t consider any of those to be very major

22   adjustments.    So, there is not that huge of a delta

23   between the already existing special permits as well as

24   though that are filed in the NPRM. So, I think that is

25   something that we could certainly take under

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   consideration.

 2                Alan, I don’t know if you wanted to take on

 3   some of the others like the macro etching and the

 4   coating temperature.

 5                MR. MAYBERRY:   Yeah, I appreciate it.    Andy,

 6   and Jeryl, I appreciate your comments on the technical

 7   requirements there.    And, you know, these comments that

 8   received were very helpful as we looked to making this

 9   a better document or a better regulation.

10                Related to the coating temperature rating.

11   You know, we are not precluding the operation.        I think

12   we were clear on that.       A pipeline with a temperature

13   above 120.    And we are willing to accept research.     And

14   I have reviewed the White Paper, but we just, you know,

15   perhaps we can address the end result we are both after

16   in the language.

17                But, I wanted to make sure you understood, we

18   do acknowledge that pipelines would be able to operate

19   above 120.    We just, we are thinking of some sort of

20   coating assessment if needed, if there is not research

21   that we are able to hang our hat on.

22                Related to the macro etch test, specific line

23   existing pipes, I think that is a reasonable request.

24   When I kind of lump together some of the specific

25   requirements in 112, that was one I was thinking of.

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   And I think we have some room to develop an appropriate

 2   language that addresses existing pipes.     And perhaps

 3   the performance for new pipes, for new pipe or specking

 4   of new pipe as well.

 5               Related to anomaly repair.   I want to make

 6   sure I was clear.   I may have misspoken.   Really we

 7   vary by, the requirements by operating stress levels

 8   opposed to class level.    That has been a point of

 9   confusion quite often with people when we are talking

10   about an anomaly repair.    And it makes a big

11   difference.   I have literally done hundreds of

12   calculations of anomaly assessment and I don’t see

13   where this is a big issue, but, at the same time I am

14   willing to listen to this.    It is really not that large

15   to us as we see it.    But, like I said, if there are

16   some other information I can look at, we are willing to

17   talk or listen.   As Jeff had mentioned, we are, you

18   know, it is part of a larger issue going forward as

19   well.

20               Related to the State of Iowa’s comment on the

21   structure and organization, you know, Don, I have had

22   some discussions internally about maybe adding an

23   appendix.   I understand that is really not other the

24   cleanest way, not really how we structure these things

25   when we are writing regulations.    You know, maybe there

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   are some other options to make this more readable, but

 2   this is just the way we had to break things down to put

 3   it into the existing regulation.      But, your point is

 4   noted and you know, as we prepare the final document

 5   and put things in the right place, I think it will be

 6   much improved over what you have seen currently.       But,

 7   I appreciate those comments.

 8                And that is all I had.

 9                COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Thank you, Alan, thank

10   you, Jeff.

11                Jeff, did you have any other comments or can

12   I --

13                MR. WIESE:   I think just my concluding

14   comment on that.    And I don’t want to shutdown

15   discussion, you know, we still have time to discuss and

16   I think that is the point of talking and seeking the

17   advice from the Advisory Committee.

18                I would just comment and thank Rick

19   Kuprewicz, that was a lot to chew on in Rick’s

20   comments.    And Rick, if you provide those into Cheryl,

21   I know Rick is on other Advisory Committee, and he

22   knows how to do this, that we will docket that since it

23   was fairly substantial.

24                There is a lot to chew on there and there are

25   a lot of things that are underway.      There is fairly, we

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   certainly agree with and I hope we will be documenting

 2   fairly soon, particularly your discussions as it

 3   relates to liquid pipelines on internal corrosion.     And

 4   you will be seeing kind of our views on that very soon

 5   in our report.

 6              But, otherwise I just wanted to thank Rick.

 7   That was pretty thoughtful and substantive public

 8   comment.   So, thanks, Rick.

 9              COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Thank you, Jeff.

10              All right, Ladies and Gentlemen, and the

11   Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, we are at that

12   point in time where we need to move forward with at

13   least giving guidance and direction.    And I would ask

14   for, we have heard a lot of very good discussion, very

15   appropriate and pertinent discussion with a lot of

16   consistent views supporting the concept.    But, with a

17   few specific questions here and there.

18              So, I think the immediate issue before us, if

19   we could have a motion and you have three options that

20   are suggested.   Option 1 is obviously to accept the

21   rule as written.   Option 2 is what we did in our

22   earlier Agenda Item 1 is, the proposed rule is

23   published with some amendments and in which we have to

24   take time to discuss out, which we certainly do have

25   some time available to us.     Option 3 is obviously to

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   not approve it.    And I think there is always, you know,

 2   the fourth option and by the way these are just options

 3   and our recommendations, is whether you think you need

 4   more time to discuss this at a future meeting.     But, I

 5   say that with some trepidation.    One doesn’t like to

 6   delay.   This has been in the process for a long time,

 7   but if there is a reason to table discussions, but with

 8   specific recommendations as to what needs to be

 9   addressed at a future meeting, then that is certainly

10   another option.

11               And then I am sure there are several options

12   that I haven’t even thought of.    So, with that as just

13   a little guidance, I would welcome any member of the

14   Committee or members of the Committee who wish to make

15   a motion.

16               MR. DRAKE:   Mr. Chairman, this is Andy Drake

17   with Spectra Energy and I propose a motion.     And

18   possibly to set up that motion, I think just to clarify

19   to Jeff’s point.

20               I would agree that the anomaly repair issue

21   is a bigger issue and does not need to be or cannot

22   actually be addressed inside this rulemaking adequately

23   and that we just table that issue for a separate

24   discussion on a bigger basis.

25               And the issue of the special permit is an

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   issue about, you know, a little bit of concern maybe on

 2   industry’s part about the stability of those special

 3   permits because the liabilities and the financial

 4   consequences around them are huge.    And so, they are

 5   probably just hearing us get very excited about making

 6   sure the permits that are in place, are going to be

 7   protected and stable and that the ones that are pending

 8   are not going to have to be retracted or revised.

 9               So, with that, I would make the motion that

10   we accept the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as they

11   have put it, with the caveat that the comments that

12   Alan Mayberry has made in his presentation on the

13   comments that they have received and the written

14   comments that they have taken, be incorporated into a

15   revision.

16               And the four specific issues that we talked

17   about regarding the grandfathering, if you will, the

18   macro etching, the coating and just a note about that

19   anomaly acceptance criteria discussion will be taking

20   place on a different schedule, on a bigger scale, be

21   added to this discussion and this rulemaking proposal.

22               And that would be my proposal or motion at

23   this point, Mr. Chairman.

24               COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Okay.   Thank you,

25   Andy.   Just before I ask for second, and clarify that,

                            (301) 565-0064

 1   that would be Option 2, accept the proposed rules with

 2   the amended statements as you described, is that

 3   correct?   Andrew?

 4              MR. WIESE:    Andy, is it helpful, Andy, if you

 5   just read back your statement to us?        By the way, Bob,

 6   I apologize, if you will forgive me.

 7              COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Sure.

 8              MR. WIESE:    What we are actually doing is

 9   voting on a proposed rule as published and a draft reg

10   eval and just basically saying are technically

11   feasible, reasonable, cost effective and practicable if

12   the following changes are made.

13              COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Yes.    That is Option 2

14   in the sheet before the Committee members?

15              MR. DRAKE:    Yes, that would be it.

16              COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Okay, could I have a

17   second to that motion, please.      Hello?

18              MR. LEMOFF:    Second.

19              COMMISSIONER KEATING:     And who is that?

20              MR. LEMOFF:    Ted Lemoff.

21              COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Thank you, Ted.

22              We have a motion and a second before us.       I

23   open it for discussion and if any Committee members

24   wish to make comments.

25              (Pause.)

                           (301) 565-0064

 1             MR. STURSMA:   This is John Stursma, can I

 2   repeat my two cents worth.

 3             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Sure.

 4             MR. STURSMA:   Can you hear me?

 5             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Yes.

 6             MR. STURSMA:   Okay.   A lot the individual

 7   proposals in this rule, I felt, didn’t really have a

 8   clear justification or clear technical justification

 9   for why they were in there.   I will use as an example

10   the one on internal corrosion, on why additional and

11   different criteria are being proposed in this

12   rulemaking versus the recently adopted general criteria

13   on internal corrosions that are in the regulations.

14             And I had some issues like that with other

15   areas of this rulemaking where here this is being

16   proposed, but, I am not really understanding why these

17   additional criteria are being proposed, you know, what

18   is inadequate in the current regulations that

19   additional rulemaking is due address.

20             And I guess I would encourage PHMSA when it

21   does write a final rule, to look for that technical

22   justification, the experience justification, whatever,

23   or why that particular new added rule is needed.    And

24   if you can't find it, start asking some questions about

25   whether that particular provision is really necessary.

                          (301) 565-0064

 1             MR. WIESE:    Bob, this is Jeff.

 2             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Any clarifying

 3   comments from either Jeff or Alan?

 4             MR. WIESE:    Just a moment, and maybe I will

 5   turn to Alan if I can and always happy to get comments

 6   from our friend from the great State of Iowa, where I

 7   also hail from.

 8             I think the point in which we are at right

 9   now and these are, you know, well received.    So we are

10   sort of taking them out of order because at this point

11   what we are really do is we are entertaining a motion

12   that Andy had put on the table, which Don can't

13   procedurally, if I understand and I have got my counsel

14   and others and in particular, the Commissioner who runs

15   these all the time.    My understanding is we are

16   commenting on Andy’s motion for, and again, somebody

17   clarify, whether or not we can introduce other motions

18   or if we just take these procedurally.

19             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Okay, let me clarify,

20   let me, I didn’t think Don Stursma was introducing a

21   new motion, at least I didn’t hear that.     I thought he

22   was just commenting on the motion and commenting about

23   his concerns.

24             MR. WIESE:    Okay.

25             COMMISSIONER KEATING:    The motion obviously

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   supports the proposed rule as published and the draft

 2   reg evaluation is technically feasible and reasonable,

 3   cost effective, etc. with the following addendum items

 4   that Andrew Drake identified.      My understanding, he was

 5   just giving his views on that.

 6                MR. WIESE:   Okay.   That is fine.

 7                COMMISSIONER KEATING:    And so he and other

 8   members when they vote, they can have that for

 9   consideration, if it influences their vote one way or

10   the other.

11                You weren’t making a motion were you, Don, I

12   didn’t hear it as a motion?

13                MR. STURSMA:   No, my intent was, it sounded

14   like we were looking at a motion, basically, I am in

15   favor of the rulemaking with some additional comments.

16   And I was basically adding a comment to what I hope you

17   mentioned -- I am not quite procedurally how this is

18   handled.

19                COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Oh, you wanted to add

20   an amendment?

21                MR. STURSMA:   No, I am not amending the

22   motion.    I thought it was consistent where we were

23   adding the rulemaking with comments.      And if the

24   rulemaking was so specific, that an individual, that

25   what I had said would have to be in the form of an

                             (301) 565-0064

 1   amendment to the motion, then I will back up and think

 2   about how best to do that.       But, I was making more of a

 3   comment and when this rulemaking comes out, I hope

 4   certain things are a little more clearly stated than

 5   what they were in the current rulemaking or in the

 6   advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.

 7             MR. WIESE:     So, we can take that as an

 8   informal, you know, advice from our colleague.      Okay.

 9             And, Cheryl was saying that she has done this

10   more times than I have and I should defer to that

11   judgment, that for the purposes of clarity for the

12   Committee, who has to vote on this.

13             Andy, I think I have it, but, I am sure you

14   would be more elegant.    Would you mind repeating the

15   motion that you put on the table, just we are sure we

16   have it for the record?

17             MR. DRAKE:     I didn’t write it down.

18             MR. WIESE:     Okay.

19             MR. DRAKE:     But, I can take a shot at it and

20   for the record, I agree with Don Stursma’s point.         I

21   think that is prudent regulatory practice and an

22   obligation that we have technically in this forum.            And

23   I think that is fair counsel to the DOT on this

24   rulemaking and if we wanted to add that to the preamble

25   or to even this motion, I am agreeable to that.       I

                          (301) 565-0064

 1   don’t think that it is, I think that is diligent

 2   counsel to them in this matter.    And I think I heard

 3   the same thing in Mr. Kuprewicz’s comments.

 4              MR. WIESE:   Okay.

 5              MR. DRAKE:   But, my motion was basically that

 6   we would accept under Option 2, the Notice for Proposed

 7   Rulemaking and recommend that DOT move forward with

 8   that, with the caveat that they consider to implement

 9   the comments that Alan Mayberry has provided us in his

10   presentation today, that they consider the comments

11   that they have received from a written standpoint to

12   date.   And that they specifically consider the

13   technical discussions we have had on this telephone

14   conference with regard to the grandfathering issue, the

15   macro etching issue, the coating temperature issue and

16   anomaly acceptance criteria review technical session or

17   public meeting on a separate channel.    That the

18   rulemaking would not actually be slowed down or caveat

19   on having that resolved, but, that a technical meeting

20   will be held to discuss that issue on a separate,

21   bigger basis.

22              And if we want to incorporate Don’s comment

23   about, you know, trying to continue to due diligence on

24   the technical merits of the requirements as

25   technologies change and requirements are considered to

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   be added, or dropped for that matter, then I would be

 2   glad to add that as well.

 3              MR. WIESE:   Okay.

 4              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   All right.   Members of

 5   the Committee, any other comments with regard to the

 6   motion?

 7              MR. MOHN:    Andy, this is Jeryl Mohn, do you

 8   intend your motion to result in the current section in

 9   the NPRM dealing with anomaly repairs to be excluded

10   from the final rule or rather clarified as or amended

11   as possible in the time, in the little time remaining?

12              MR. DRAKE:   I think at this point, my

13   proposal is that we accept that anomaly repair criteria

14   as it is written, pending a technical review of anomaly

15   acceptance criteria on a bigger basis.     And pending

16   that technical outcome of that bigger basis, the IPM

17   rules would be, and the enforcement criteria around the

18   IPM rules and the criteria here would be modified.       And

19   that is really all I am proposing.    I don’t think we

20   will have time to sufficiently address the anomaly

21   issue between now and this NPRM would need to move

22   forward.

23              COMMISSIONER KEATING:   Thank you.   Any other

24   comments from the Committee members?

25              All right.   Hearing none, I would like to

                           (301) 565-0064

 1   call the question and ask Cheryl Whetsel to do a roll

 2   call, please, on the vote.

 3                       Roll Call for Vote

 4             MS. WHETSEL:   Okay, so we have a motion by

 5   Andy Drake and a second by Ted Lemoff.    And that is

 6   what we are voting on is the MAOP rule is technically

 7   feasible, practicable and whatever else, and the draft

 8   reg eval bill, and we are going to insert what Andy has

 9   suggested based on what Alan’s comments were made in

10   his presentation.   Is that good?   All right.

11             MR. WIESE:   And the four issues that Andy

12   identified.

13             MS. WHETSEL:    Okay, and the four issues.

14             MR. WIESE:   Right.

15             MS. WHETSEL:   Okay.   And that is in the

16   record as we are taping this.

17             MR. WIESE:   All right.

18             MS. WHETSEL:   Okay.   Lisa Edgar?

19             COMMISSIONER EDGAR:    I vote in favor of the

20   motion.

21             MS. WHETSEL:    Lula Ford?

22             COMMISSIONER FORD:     In favor of the motion.

23             MS. WHETSEL:   Bob Keating?

24             COMMISSIONER KEATING:     In favor of the

25   motion.

                            (301) 565-0064

 1              MS. WHETSEL:    Don Stursma?

 2              MR. STURSMA:    In favor of the motion.

 3              MS. WHETSEL:    Mike Comstock?

 4              MR. COMSTOCK:    In favor of the motion.

 5              MS. WHETSEL:    Andy Drake?

 6              MR. DRAKE:    In favor of the motion.

 7              MS. WHETSEL:    Jeryl Mohn?

 8              MR. MOHN:    In favor of the motion.

 9              MS. WHETSEL:    Jim Wunderlin?

10              MR. WUNDERLIN:    In favor of the motion.

11              MS. WHETSEL:    Peter Terranova?

12              MR. TERRANOVA:    In favor of the motion.

13              MS. WHETSEL:    Ted Lemoff?

14              MR. LEMOFF:    In favor of the motion.

15              MS. WHETSEL:    Paul Rothman?

16              MR. ROTHMAN:    In favor of the motion.

17              MS. WHETSEL:    Alan Shuman?

18              MR. SHUMAN:    In favor of the motion.

19              MS. WHETSEL:     And I just want to clarify,

20   nobody else from the Committee has joined us.       Is that

21   correct?   Okay.   Thank you.

22              COMMISSIONER KEATING:    Thank you, Cheryl.

23              Well, gee, we have got forty-five more

24   minutes.

25              MR. WIESE:    We have plenty to talk about.

                           (301) 565-0064

 1             COMMISSIONER KEATING:      We can leave early,

 2   right?

 3             MR. WIESE:    Nobody is going home early.     We

 4   have other things, no, I am kidding.

 5             COMMISSIONER KEATING:      Okay.   First of all,

 6   let me thank the members of the Committee and the

 7   members of PHMSA for all the outstanding work they did

 8   in preparation for this meeting and for the Committee

 9   members for doing their work so well and listening so

10   well and participating.   And let me turn this back over

11   to Jeff Wiese for any concluding comments.

12             MR. WIESE:    All right.    Well, thank you very

13   much, Commissioner Keating.   And I think you did a

14   great job by way.    I thought your first full committee

15   that you chaired for us, I think you did quite well.

16   So, thank you.

17             COMMISSIONER KEATING:      Well, thank you.   I

18   think there were a few procedural issues I had to get

19   under my belt, but, hopefully, as they say, it is not

20   six o’clock at night, so at least on the East Coast, so

21   we are doing well.

22             MR. WIESE:    That is right.    Well, we are a

23   fairly informal lot.

24             I want to thank you anyway for your

25   leadership there.

                          (301) 565-0064

 1              I want to take time, if I can, to recognize

 2   that Committee members, it is a lot of your day to ask

 3   of you and I appreciate the fact that you spent a lot

 4   of time looking at the materials and prepping for and

 5   you can tell in some of the comments and discussions

 6   that we had.

 7              You know, I appreciate your tolerance also

 8   for the idea of the telephone.    We will take your

 9   feedback individually.    Don’t hesitate to talk to me or

10   Cheryl any time, you know, about what works best for

11   you as a committee.    I think we got what we needed

12   today.   I appreciate that.   We had a public discussion

13   of these issues, which was very important.       But, I

14   don’t want to take them lightly.

15              So, if you don’t feel that telephone

16   conferences work for you on matters like this, you

17   know, please let us know.     On things that we think will

18   require a lot of discussion, we would probably request

19   a face to face meeting.

20              So, I want to be respectful of your time as I

21   can.   I also want to thank Alan Mayberry and Richard

22   Sanders, who spent considerable time and Cheryl as well

23   for organizing the materials and getting things out to

24   you.   So, my thanks to them and Jim Pate as well for

25   being Counsel.

                             (301) 565-0064

 1               So, with that, and with thanks to all of you

 2   for your time this afternoon, I would bide you

 3   farewell.

 4               COMMISSIONER KEATING:     Thank you, Jeff.

 5               MR. WIESE:   All right.    Take care.

 6               (Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the meeting was

 7   concluded.)



















                            (301) 565-0064

 2                    REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE


 4        This is to certify that the attached proceedings

 5   before:

 7                        In the Matter of:

12                      TRANSMISSION PIPELINES
13             PIPELINE SAFETY: POLYAMIDE-11 (PA-11)
16        Were held as herein appears and that this is the

17   original transcript thereof for the file of the

18   Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge

19   or the Agency.

20        Further, I am neither counsel for or related to

21   any party to the above proceedings.

24                       Wendy Greene
25                        Official Reporter

26   Dated:    June 20, 2008


                          (301) 565-0064

To top