UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

**PUBLIC MEETING OF PHMSA'S TECHNICAL**

**PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE**

**STANDARDS FOR INCREASING THE MAXIMUM**

**ALLOWABLE OPERATING PRESSURE FOR GAS**

**TRANSMISSION PIPELINES**

**PIPELINE SAFETY: POLYAMIDE-11 (PA-11)**

**PLASTIC PIPE DESIGN PRESSURES**

Palomar Hotel

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

2^nd^ Floor Conference Room E27-302

Washington, D.C.

1:00 p.m.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

[Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee Members]{.underline}

THE HONORABLE W. ROBERT KEATING, Chairman

Massachusetts Public Service Commission

THE HONORABLE LISA P. EDGAR

Commissioner

Florida Public Utilities Commission

THE HONORABLE LULA M. FORD

Commissioner

Illinois Commerce Commission

DONALD J. STURSMA

Iowa Utilities Board

MICHAEL R. COMSTOCK

Gas System Superintendent

City of Mesa, Arizona

J. ANDREW DRAKE

Vice President of Engineering and

Construction

Spectra Energy

JERYL MOHN

Senior Vice President, Operations and

Engineering

Panhandle Energy

JAMES F. WUNDERLIN

Vice President, Engineering

Southwest Gas Corporation

PETER G. TERRANOVA

UGI Utilities, Incorporated

THEODORE C. LEMOFF

Senior Engineer

National Fire Protection Association

RICHARD F. PERVARSKI

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

Office

[Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Representatives]{.underline}

JEFFREY D. WIESE

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety

BILL GUTE

MARGO KULKARNI

JIM PATES

CHERYL WHETSEL

ALAN MAYBERRY

ALAN RUKIN

VINCENT HOLOHAN

# Other interested parties:

RICK KUPREWICZ

Public Interest

RICHARD SANDERS

Oklahoma City

CHARLOTTE TUCKER,

BNA. INC

VICTORIA PLOTKIN,

PHILIP BENNETT,

American Gas Association

VON McALLISTER

DUSTIN WALLIS,

Kern River Gas

DAN REGAN

TERRY BOSS,

INGAA

SUSAN OLENCHUK,

Van, Ness, Feldman

BRAD BELLINGER,

American Petroleum Institute

JIM MASON,

Arkema, Inc.

DENISE SIMPSON,

American Distribution Co.

A G E N D A

[TOPIC]{.underline}: [PAGE]{.underline}:

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

P R O C E E D I N G S

(1:00 p.m.)

Welcome/Purpose

MR. WIESE: I would just like to remind everyone at the outset that this
meeting is being recorded, so it is helpful to us when you speak, if you
identify yourself and if you are here in the room, I think we know, if
you are a committee member we know who you are and we have the roster.
But, if you are not a committee member, if you could identify your
affiliation, it would be helpful to us and the court reporter.

So, with that, I would like to welcome the committee and in just a
second I will be turning this over to our Chair, Commissioner Bob
Keating from Massachusetts, who chairs the TPSSC. But, I thought I
would, with Bob's indulgence, I would take just a couple of seconds to
welcome you all. And really I thought I would address "why hold a
teleconference".

Originally, I want to be respectful of your time, I think is the short
answer to that question. We have got two significant rulemakings coming
before us in the not too distance future. Our distribution integrity
management rulemaking and our control room management rulemaking. They
are not significant from an economic, but it has taken a long time to
develop those activities. I really think they are complex enough to
require a face to face vote. The timing wasn't such that we could delay
everything and do it all at one time. So, that is why I made a decision
to go ahead with both the PA-11 and the MAOP rulemaking proposals and
seek your advice and concurrence on those through a teleconference.

I think they are a little clearer. We have got a lot more experience.
The Committee has talked about these matters before. So, it was my sense
that, and I am going to have to convene the Committee again probably
October timeframe, plus or minus, depending on how the rulemakings come
out. I didn't want to be convening you back to back and dragging people
to Washington frivolously.

So, with your indulgence, I know teleconferences are not the preferred
method for doing business, but I think it will be, hopefully, it will be
effective for our purposes here today.

All I really wanted to say as I introduce this, is that we are going to
be talking today about two rulemakings that have been under development
for quite some time. Both in the rulemaking phase and in the primarily
phases. And we are here today to kind of refresh everyone on what we
proposed in rulemaking, as well as to kind of summarize the comments.
Most of you should have received this stuff by now. And I wanted to make
sure that we had an opportunity to present that back to you. We will
give you a sense on both rulemakings of what we are thinking about doing
as we proceed to the final rule. And then as usual, we would, of course,
be seeking the advice and consent of the Committee.

We will take an opportunity at the right time in each of these matters
to hear from interested members of the public, but, I will say the, you
know, our primary purposes here today are to get a vote from our
Committee. So, I am asking for any statements that are made publicly to
be relevantly brief and be pointed to the subject matter before us that
we have to vote on.

I have asked two of our technical experts to join us today and to brief
you. So, again, I will turn back to Bob in a second.

The last thing I thought I would say to you is that both of these fairly
novel in that the rules grew out of a provision in our general code that
allows us to experiment. The code is meant to be kind of an uniformed
code nationwide. But, we all know that technology, circumstances are not
uniformed nationwide. It also was meant to allow us, to allow for the
introduction of new technology, new materials, new processes, what have
you. So, both of these grew out of that provision within the code that
allows us to experiment in a controlled way, in a public way, but in a
controlled way and learn as we go through and the logical outcome of
that experiment is to be either to reject the idea that is under
consideration or to modify the code.

We, of course, are very keenly interested in the idea of resolving
matters that we experiment with at some point in time, because special
permits, formally known as waivers, can be a fairly administratively
time consuming matter for us. So, we work with them as long as we need
to, to get the information that we need. We try to share that with
everyone who is affected, and then we proceed forward to rulemaking,
which is where we find ourselves today.

I would also say, the last sort of comment, is I think there becomes a
point in time when you have to act on what you have learned under these
special permits. They take a fair amount of time for us to process and
go through there. And there are some economic advantage being rendered
to those who were first in the door with the special permit request.

Sensitive to the needs to treat all of our stakeholders with, you know,
on a level playing field. So, again, I think when the experiment has run
its course, it is time to evaluate it and move it to the Code, if
necessary. Now we all stakeholders are held to the same standard.

> So, with that and thanks for indulging

me with that, Bob, I would turn this over to Commissioner Keating.

Call to Order

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you very much, Jeff.

I guess this is the formal call to order. Let me just add my welcome to
you all as Jeff just did. And let me just kind of reintroduce myself. I
know I have met many of you at our winter meeting. And my name is Bob
Keating. I am a commissioner with the Massachusetts Department of Public
Utilities. And let me just say that I am honored to serve as your chair
for today's meeting.

I know I have big shoes to fill with the departure of my good friend
Commissioner Don Mason from Ohio, who has moved onto bigger and better
things. But, hopefully, I will somehow get us through today in an
efficient way as possible.

Just a couple of quick comments before we go to the roll call. First of
all, I trust everybody has the agenda in front of them and as I know
Jeff mentioned, you all have received several mailings with all the
pertinent attachments. And hopefully you have had a chance to look at
least some of the materials.

I will note that we are scheduled to adjourn by 4:00 p.m., yet we have
very two important agenda items to consider for action today. So, when
it comes to the Committee discussion and the public discussion, I would
ask that all of you who wish to speak, as Jeff indicated, please
identify yourself. And make your point as efficiently as possible, so
that everyone who wishes to speak will have an opportunity to do so.

And also since this is being done by teleconference for a large majority
of us, and I obviously can\'t see your body language or facial
expression, when you have completed your comments, if you would just let
me know by either saying at the end of your comments, either, Mr.
Chairman, or back to Bob, or I am done. Or just some indication so I
know I won\'t be cutting you off. This will allow me to move onto the
next speaker.

Okay, with that, I would like to request Cheryl Whetsel to do the
committee roll call, please.

Cheryl, are you there?

Roll Call

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

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you.

Roll Call

MS. WHETSEL: Okay. Lisa Edgar?

MS. EDGAR: Here, thank you.

MS. WHETSEL: Thank you. Lula Ford?

MS. FORD: Here.

MS. WHETSEL: Thank you. Bob Keating.

Berne Mosley?

\[No response\]

MS. WHETSEL: Don Stursma?

MR. STURSMA: I am here.

MS. WHETSEL: Thank you. Mike Comstock?

MR. COMSTOCK: I am on.

MS. WHETSEL: Thanks. Andy Drake?

MR. DRAKE: I am on the line.

MS. WHETSEL: Jeryl Mohn?

MR. MOHN: I am here.

MS. WHETSEL: Jim Wunderlin?

MR. WUNDERLIN: I am here.

MS. WHETSEL: Pete Terranova?

MR. TERRANOVA: Here.

MS. WHETSEL: Richard Feigel?

\[No response\]

MS. WHETSEL: Ted Lemoff?

MR. LEMOFF: Here.

MS. WHETSEL: Richard Pervarski?

\[No response\]

MS. WHETSEL: Paul Rothman?

MR. ROTHMAN: Here.

MS. WHETSEL: Thank you. Alan Shuman?

MR. SHUMAN: Here.

MS. WHETSEL: Thank you. And let me just double check.

Berne Mosley?

Richard Feigel?

And Rick Pervarski?

\[No responses\]

MS. WHETSEL: No, thank you, they are not here. Maybe they will join us
later. Okay. That is it, Bob.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. And that included participants that are with
you in Washington, correct?

MS. WHETSEL: Actually, no. I think we are going to do an introduction
now.

Is there anybody else on the telephone line that has not been introduced
or called upon?

MR. KUPERWITZ: Well, you have got Rick Kuprewicz, but I am not part of
the committee. I am public interest.

MS. WHETSEL: Thank you, Rick.

MR. SANDERS: And you have got to Richard Sanders, Oklahoma City.

MS. WHETSEL: Thank you, Richard.

Anyone else?

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

Why don't we start with Jim Pates.

Introduction of Participants Present

MR. PATES: Jim Pates, Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA.

MR. MAYBERRY: John Mayberry with PHMSA.

MR. REGAN: I am Dan Regan, Regulatory Counsel with INGAA.

MS. OLENCHUK: Susan Olenchuk with the Law Firm of Van Ness, Feldman.

MS. KULKARNI: Margo Kulkarni, PHMSA.

MR. BOSS: Terry Boss with INGAA.

MR. WALLIS: Dustin Wallis with Kern River Gas.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Could you repeat that,

I couldn't hear, please.

MR. WALLIS: Dustin Wallis with Kern River Gas.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Dustin.

MR. McALLISTER: Von McAllister, Kern River Gas.

MR. BENNETT: Philip Bennett, American Gas Association.

MR. GUTE: Bill Gute, PHMSA.

MS. PLOTKIN: Victoria Plotkin, American Gas Association.

MR. HOLOHAN: Vinnie Holohan with PHSMA.

MS. TUCKER: Charlotte Tucker with Daily Environment Reports.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: We can\'t hear those, I don't know if the other
members can. The last two speakers, could you speak up a little louder,
please.

MR. HOLOHAN: Vinnie Holohan with PHSMA.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Vinnie.

MS. TUCKER: Charlotte Tucker with Daily Environment Reports.

MR. RUKIN: Alan Rukin with PHSMA.

MR. MASON: Jim Mason, Arkema.

MR. BELLINGER: Brad Bellinger with American Petroleum Institute.

MS. WHETSEL: And I am Cheryl Whetsel with PHSMA.

MR. WIESE: And Jeff Wiese with PHSMA.

And I think that concludes. We will have a sign-in sheet here for the
record.

So, Bob, back to you.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Thank you, Cheryl and thank you, Ladies and
Gentlemen for introducing yourselves.

The next item is our first agenda item and it deals with a
Vote-Briefing. And essentially, PHSMA members will be briefed on the
NPRM Polyamide-11 Plastic Pipe Designs. And we have with us or actually
not with us, but in Oklahoma City, Richard Sanders, Director of Training
and Qualifications.

And, Jeff, did you want to do some introductory comments before Richard
starts his report? Richard will provide a background discussion for the
Committee before we go into general discussion of this subject matter.

MR. WIESE: Bob, this is Jeff, the only introduction I will make is,
really it will be the same for both of these, is that I have asked the
technical experts who were lead on these two rulemakings to come before
you today, because it is my desire to have somebody here who can answer
any of your questions. I know I can answer some of them. And if Jim
could help me with others, but I wanted to have the technical experts
here so you could feel free that you would have the resources you need.

So, I think our general approach to both of these is going to be the
same. We are going to kind of give you a quick refresher on where we
have been. We are going to talk to you about what we have done. We are
going to talk to you a little bit about the comments that we have
received in reaction to our proposals. And then we are going to talk to
you about what we are thinking about doing as we go forward to final
rule. Then we will seek your advice and your, Cheryl will at the
appropriate time, will go out for a discussion with the members of the
public. Anybody who wants to comment and then I think, Bob, it would be
you to be seeking, you know, motions for votes or amendments or what
have you. And then Cheryl at that time will call the roll call.

So, we will play that sequence out in both cases. I thought we would
start with PA-11 and if anyone knows plastic pipe inside of PHMSA, I
have got to tell you it is Richard Sanders. So, I am very pleased
Richard was able to lead this effort for us.

So, maybe with that, Bob, with your permission, I would just turn it to
Richard.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: That is wonderful. Thank you, Richard. Thank you,
Jeff. And I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

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

Plastic Pipe Design

MR. SANDERS: Mr. Chairman, Committee Members and General Public, I
appreciate the opportunity to present the PA-11 information to you.

This is a material that has been under test and evaluation for a number
of years. Just some general information about PA-11. It is a nylon
material. It is a thermo plastic material and the manufacturer of this
material has gone before Gas Research Institute and had the materials
tested. It has gone through numerous lab tests for evaluation for use in
pipeline systems. They have, the manufacturer has jumped all the hurdles
that have been put before them, as far as going to the Plastic Pipe
Institute, PPI, and getting a rating for the material and so on and so
forth.

This material is not really a new material. It has been used on
airlines, on trucks, on a transport trucks for a number of years. So, it
is now trying to come into the toolbox, I will say, for pipeline
operators to use in pipeline systems.

This material underwent evaluation and an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking where there were thirteen comments, ten specific individuals
and all but one were positive in favor of the material. The negative
voter or negative comments were addressed and after further review, it
is my opinion that the issues on oxidation associated with the addictive
package for this particular material, have been addressed and certainly
have been changed consistent with test data, etc.

This material is proposing also under the design formula section, under
192.121 and 192.123, to change the de-rating factor or safety factor, if
you might, from a .32 to a .4 for this material. It also had a proposal
to add an additional requirement for a pressure tape or an evaluation
tape prior to digging down to the pipe. After review of all the
commenters on this particular issue, I have to concur that I believe it
would only confuse the issues if it were required under the regulation.
And it would be my recommendation that we go forward without the
192.123(f)(4) changes.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn the program back over to you.

Committee Discussion and Public

Discussion and Call for Motion

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, thank you very much, Richard. I
appreciate your discussion.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are now going to open this up for discussion.
And the way we would, I would like to do this, is Committee members will
be, will given the opportunity to speak first. After Committee members
have spoken, I will open it up to public discussion. And then after
that, I will call for a motion.

Keep in mind on one of the documents you received via email within the
last several weeks, is the voting sample. And there are three options on
there. One of the options obviously is a motion to accept the proposal
as written. And the other options are to either deny it or to amend it.
Hopefully, we can move forward in an efficient time as possible.

So, with that, I would ask for any Committee members who would like to
make some comments, please identify yourself and let me know when you
are finished your comment, please.

MR. WUNDERLIN: Mr. Chairman, this is Jim Wunderlin. I am a TPSSC
Committee member representing the industry. I work for Southwest Gas
Corporation, which serves approximately 1.8 million customers in the
Southwest. The majority of those are distribution customers.

I want to say that I certainly support the proposed rule for PA-11. I
think it is important that we incorporate new technology into our
pipeline infrastructure. I think there are advantages to do that more on
end-cost, etc. I concur with Richard Sanders that the research has been
extensive, significant and pretty much ongoing since 1991.

The field testing, I have reviewed the document, have been successfully
completed and any issues in the draft. And, bottom line, I support the
document.

The other thing, I also support Richard Sanders' comment about the
warning tape or other safety devices. I will just make a brief comment
that supports that and the fact that there is really no reason to
identify PA-11 by itself or warning tape or other safety device.

As an operator, we have many different pressures within our system, and
I have reviewed our marketing requirements, and we require that, the
marketing requirements for excavators include a designation of high
pressure or HP on the surface of the ground on any pressure system above
sixty pounds within our distribution system. I think that adequately
covers any concern about the excavators that would be digging above this
pipe. In fact, adding warning tape just for one material actually maybe
somewhat confusing, either for the company, their operators or the
contractors.

So, I would recommend also then, that 49 CFR 192.123(f)(4) be deleted
from the proposed vote for this rule. That concludes my remarks, Mr.
Chairman.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Jim. Just because you had a specific
recommendation, let me just go back.

Jeff Wiese or Cheryl, did somebody get that specific section down that
Jim Wunderlin suggested?

MS. WHETSEL: Yes.

MR. SANDERS: Mr. Chairman, this is Richard Sanders. I have that
information.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Fine.

Richard, did you want to comment on that, on Mr. Wunderlin's suggestion
or anything at this point?

MR. SANDERS: I concur with Jim's appraisal. I think there are other ways
that safety is promoted through good third party damage programs, etc. I
don't think it is necessary at this time.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Other Committee members who wish to speak,
please identify yourself.

MR. STURSMA: Don Stursma from Iowa. I am one of the Iowa Utilities
Board, one of the Government representative.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Could you speak up a little bit louder or move
closer to the phone, Donald.

MR. STURSMA: Okay. Don Stursma, Iowa Utilities Board. I am one of the
Government people. And I will start off by saying, excuse me today, I am
not as prepared as I would like to have been, but we have got word this
morning that we needed to get everything in our building off of the
floor and lower shelves and file drawers because we might get flooded in
the next day or two.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Oh, that is really bad. Well, I am sorry to see
what is happening in Iowa and I hope that you and family and your
friends and neighbors are all safe. God Bless.

MR. STURSMA: But, on the same issue we have been talking about, on the
warning tape, I would like to make two comments on that.

First of all, well, three actually, because first I am going to say I
agree with getting rid of it. But, also pointing out that when this
particular rule was proposed, it was certainly proposed to be in the
wrong place. As one of the commenters noted, this is not a design
requirement. It is a construction requirement. And as you will probably
find out later when we talk about the MAOP rules, I am kind of a
stickler for putting things in the appropriate places in the Code. So, I
thought I would make that point and make a point of future reference for
personnel when they draft rules on being careful about rules are placed
in a location that is appropriate for their subject matter.

The other thing that I don't think we have anticipated by that
particular rule was that most plastic pipes in urban and residential
areas, it is probably not direct, it is probably a bore place, and how
are you going to use marking tape when you bore a plastic line in or
directional drill might be a better word for it. Marking tape, or excuse
me, pressure wire, you tape it to the pipe and even though contact from
tracer wire and pipe is generally not a very good thing. You don't
really have any choice, but you tape marking tape to the pipe and bore,
obviously, you have accomplished absolutely nothing.

So, to cut to the chase, a lot of plastic pipe is installed by
directional drilling or boring. There is really no practical way to
include marker tape with the pipe when you do that, unless you do a
whole separate operation to try and add it somehow. But, that is being
maybe a practical reason why you are requiring marking tape. In this
instance is not a good idea.

And that is the end of my comments.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Don.

Other Committee members who wish to comment, please.

MR. LEMOFF: This is Ted Lemoff, NFPA, a member of the Committee. I just
wanted to point out that we have added this material, NFK-58 for propane
and I don't know if people are using it, but we are not having any
problems. I think with any polyamide materials, the key is you don't
know the failure modes until you have failures, yet we have had enough
experience with these, so I think it is appropriate to move to the next
step. So I am in favor. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Ted.

Other Committee members?

MR. COMSTOCK: Mr. Chairman, this is Mike Comstock with City of Mesa. And
I represent the American Public Gas Association on TPSSC.

I just wanted to say that I concur with Mr. Wunderlin and Mr. Sanders'
remarks earlier. And as a member of the pilot project, City of Mesa was
intimately involved with the exploration of this material. And I did
want to acknowledge the cooperative efforts between industry and PHMSA
in this case to help bring new technologies to market. I think it was a
positive experience overall. I encourage us to continue to do that in
the future, to help bring these new technologies out and help industry
move forward with their needs.

That concludes my remarks.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you.

Other Committee members?

Did we have somebody new just join the call?

MR. WIESE: Stacey Gerard.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Oh, hi, Stacey. Welcome.

Other Committee members who wish to make a comment? Okay. Are there
members of the public who wish to make a comment?

All right, well, hearing none, as your Chair, what I would ask is if a
member of the Committee would wish to make a motion. And I believe an
appropriate motion based on the discussion I heard, but you can make
whatever motion you wish, of course, would be one consistent with Mr.
Wunderlin's original comments and the amendment that he offered that the
section which I didn't write down in front of me, be deleted. I believe
the other speakers all supported that. If they didn't, they can address
it. So, could I have a Committee member make an appropriate motion and
then a second by whoever wishes to second it?

MR. WUNDERLIN: Mr. Chairman, this is Jim Wunderlin, Committee member, I
will make a motion for the approval vote on the use of PA-11. And I
would use the tamper language, Item number 2, which says the proposed
rule as published in the [Federal Register]{.underline} and the draft
reg evaluation are technically feasible, reasonable, cost effective,
practical, if the following changes are.

I would recommend deleting Section 192.123(f)(4) in the [Federal
Register]{.underline} from the Design Limitations for plastic pipe.

That is the end of my motion.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you. Do we have a second?

MS. FORD: Lula Ford, second.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Lula.

We now have a formal motion. I would like to open it up for discussion
among the Committee members.

(Pause.)

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Going once. Anyone? Not hearing any further
discussion, I would like to move to question.

All those in favor? Aye.

(Whereupon, a chorus of ayes was heard.)

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Any opposed?

MR. WIESE: I think, Bob, as a matter of procedure, with your indulgence,
we will have to take a roll call vote.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Oh, that is true. Okay.

MR. WIESE: Oh, no, you got to the place where we needed to go. Just for
purposes of the record, I think we are required to take a roll call.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Yes, you are correct, I am sorry. First day on the
job.

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

Roll Call for Vote

COMMISSIONER KEATING: I will call for a roll call vote. And I am just
going to go down the list here.

Lisa P. Edgar.

COMMISSIONER EDGAR: Yes, this is Commissioner Edgar, and I vote in favor
of the motion.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Commissioner.

Lula M. Ford?

COMMISSIONER FORD: In favor of the motion.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you. Robert Keating, in favor of the motion.

Did Berne Mosley show up yet? Okay.

Don Stursma?

MR. STURSMA: In favor of the motion.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Michael Comstock?

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

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you. Andrew Drake?

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

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you. Jeryl Mohn?

MR. MOHN: I vote in favor.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: James Wunderlin?

MR. WUNDERLIN: I vote in favor of the motion.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Peter Terranova?

MR. TERRANOVA: I vote in favor of the motion.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Has Dr. Richard Feigel showed up yet? Okay.

Ted Lemoff?

MR. LEMOFF: In favor.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Did Mr. Richard Pervarski show up yet? Okay.

Mr. Paul Rothman?

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

COMMISSIONER KEATING: And Mr. Alan Shuman?

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

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you. Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Cheryl or Jeff, is there anything else you need with regard to the
process standpoint on this subject?

MS. WHETSEL: We had twelve in favor.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: I am sorry, Cheryl, I can\'t hear you. Can you get
closer to the phone?

MS. WHETSEL: Bob, I was just saying that we had twelve in favor out of
those that are currently on the line. That is everyone.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: That is correct. It is an unanimous vote of
everyone who indicated that they were here. So, the three people who
were not here, did not vote. Everybody else voted in the affirmative.

MS. WHETSEL: We are good to go.

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

Bob, I thought I would, with your permission, before we move onto Agenda
Item 2, really correct kind of a deficiency here. I note there are
logistical difficulties because we are on the phone. But, Cheryl did
provide a lot of information to you in the warm-up to this meeting. And
I wanted to just reiterate for folks, if you hadn't, that we have before
you, for both of these cases, and we can talk about them as we proceed
onto talk about Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure, a briefing paper,
a summary of comments that were there, a copy of our proposal, the
regulatory analysis. And all that material that is supporting
information should have been to you by now.

So, just making sure everyone knew they had it and had reference to it.

Also, I would welcome Stacey Gerard to the call. I heard Stacey. I heard
you dial in, Stacey. For those of you who don't know, we have members of
the public here as well. Stacey is PHMSA Chief Safety Officer and the
former Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety with a fairly long
history in pipeline safety and direct personal involvement, I think, in
both of these efforts.

So, thank you for joining us today, Stacey. I know you are also moving
in one hundred degree weather. So, that can\'t be a lot of fun.

And our best to Bob, he is in the background, I heard him barking.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: I just realized, Jeff, I also make a mistake. I
was looking at my handwritten notes and I realized that Cheryl Whetsel
was suppose to do the roll call for a vote. I am sorry, Cheryl, I didn't
mean to take your job. You can do it on the next agenda item.

MS. WHETSEL: As long as they still pay me, Bob, it is okay.

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

All right. With your permission, Bob ---

COMMISSIONER KEATING: The Agenda Item is Agenda Item number 2, is a
Vote-Briefing that will be provided on PHMSA. We will brief the members
on NPRM Standards for Increasing the Maximum Allowable Operating
Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines. Alan Mayberry, the Director of
Engineering and Emergency Support will provide a briefing on that.

But, once again, I will ask Jeff Wiese, if he wishes to make an
introductory. I know you said, your first comment would serve as an
introductory, but, I give you another shot in case there is something
else you wish to say, Jeff.

MR. WIESE: Thanks a lot, Bob. And with your permission, I will allow
Stacey to add any notes that she might care to as well.

Stacey, for your benefit, we had some opening remarks that I think apply
in general to both of the actions before us today for a vote that regard
why we undertake a special permit/waiver process and how we proceed
along those lines. And, you know, when it finally culminates with our
having gained the experience necessary, we try to move it to modifying a
regulatory code, to sort of incorporate the lessons learned in that.

On this particular issue, I will beg your indulgence to reach back a few
years and say that we have been talking about this issue. I have been in
PHMSA now ten years. We have been talking about it the entire time that
I have been here. We have literally. And I remember talking about it in
Regional Director meetings and having whitepapers, discussing it for ten
years. These aren't matters that develop quickly, overnight without
consideration. There is substantial effort that goes in this. We have
talked about this with our state partners. It is still takes a long time
to change the code. People are comfortable with things once it gets
etched in there.

I think PHMSA, there are a couple of our hallmarks, as those of you who
had an opportunity to take a look at our strategic plan, will
understand. We very much believe in kind of a risk informed data driven
approach to managing for pipeline safety. We take our responsibilities
to the public very seriously. We don't approach any waiver or any
special permit cavalierly. We try to do our efforts as transparently as
possible. In this particular case, I would like to highlight just a
couple of things, besides the ten year history that I am aware of, you
know, and it probably pre-dated me.

After talking with a lot of people behind the scenes, one on one, we
decided to convene a public workshop, which I know Alan will touch on,
so I won\'t go into detail on that, short of saying it is our way of
trying to get these things out into the public for discussion. And
let\'s develop things on top of the table, let everybody have a shot and
having their say in there.

A very popular, very well attended meeting that was held out in Reston,
had a lot of people from across the globe. We had international
delegates there from, as I recall the UK, certainly the Canadians were
there, the Australians could have been there. We brought technical
experts in. We had state representatives and others. Debated this stuff
in a fair amount of detail and a very good discussion. That led to what
I would just say, the approach that really kind of hallmark of our
modern approach to doing special permits and waivers, is to have a
criteria driven process. And I think that PHMSA believes very deeply
about that to feed two things. One is regulatory clarity for operators.
They ought to know what their ground rules are. And the second one is a
level playing field. So, that everyone is treated the same. And I guess
I should have add the third one, so that anybody who has something to
say in the matter, has an opportunity to come forward with it.

So, I would like to say that this process has been very longer perhaps
then we even connote in here, and does discuss for sometimes. I am
particularly thankful that we can bring this to a discussion before the
Committee because I will say that I think it was Rick Kuprewicz, who has
cautioned us before about special permits consume a lot of time. And
when we have learned what we need to learn from them is probably time to
move on.

So, with your indulgence, Stacey, is there anything else you would like
to add? Well, maybe she dropped off. I think Bob bite the cord.

Well, at any rate, Bob, with your indulgence, then I turn it over to
Alan Mayberry.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay, great. Alan, you are on.

Vote-Briefing: NPRM: Standards for

Increasing the Maximum Allowable Operating

Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines

MR. MAYBERRY: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee members, members
of the Public. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk
about the proposed rule, Standards for Increasing the Maximum Allowable
Operating Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines.

What you should already have is the briefing paper I prepared a couple
of weeks ago, as well as the summary of comments.

And just to reflect and touch on the bit of what Jeff had talked about,
a little bit of history here. In March of 2006 we conducted a public
meeting here in Washington, to survey the interest and to hear technical
topics related to the possibility of allowing operators to revise the
MAOP established for pipelines.

In attendance at that meeting, what is essentially the who's, who's on
this subject, from both the U.S. and overseas. And based on the results
of that meeting, we worked in a favorable response, we worked toward
developing criteria to allow operators to operate up to eighty percent
of SMYS which I will explain in a minute, in Class I areas.

And I might as well mention that right now. The rule basically proposes
to allow operators to go from seventy-two percent, which is the current
regulatory maximum in Class I areas, sixty-seven percent, up from sixty
percent in Class II areas, and then fifty-six percent up from fifty
percent in Class III areas. And as most of you know, the class location
system is how we categorize pipelines operating through. In the case of
a rural area, Class I area, if you are most urban or through the most
urban area, which would be Class IV areas.

Under the proposed rule and furthermore the special permits or waivers
as we used to call them, we didn't consider Class IV urban areas. And
after developing or in conjunction with developing the criteria, we have
since granted six special permits to operators who operated up to eighty
percent of SMYS in Class I areas.

The basic concept on the criteria that was developed are conditions for
the special permit, was the life cycle approach. That is a buzz phrase,
if you will, that came up often during the public meeting. And it is a
phrase that is used to describe management of the pipeline from the
material procurement stage and material standards to construction
through operations and maintenance and integrity management of the
pipeline, itself.

So, that is the theme, is a life cycle management approach for the
criteria for special permits.

Based on the success of that program and also to Jeff's point, it has
been a popular, if you will, request from operators because of the
benefits of increased through put for existing pipelines and the
material cost savings for new pipelines. It has proven to be an option
that many new projects, I would say are primarily going to eighty
percent. And we have granted special permits so far to two existing
pipelines to operate at up to eighty percent SMYS.

But, based on the success of that program, we did decide to go to
rulemaking last year and over the course of late last year and up until
we published the rule this year, we worked to convert the requirements
from a special permit into the regulation. And we decided to work within
the existing structure of the regulation and to breakdown the
appropriate parts of the criteria and place them into the appropriate
parts of the regulation, beit, design construction or operation in
maintenance.

And there were a few exceptions, four to be exact between the criteria
for special permits we had issued and the notice of proposed rulemaking
or the proposed regulation, I will get into that as they come up a
little bit later.

And today, what I would like to do is to discuss the comments that we
received back. We did receive a hundred and fifty-nine comments.
Obviously, I won\'t go through every comment, but, I plan to touch on
the key comments or the ones that may be considered the more
controversial in nature. And obviously, if you have any questions on
other comments, I would be glad to address those as well. And of course,
I will be seeking input from the Committee for a path forward on many of
these areas as well. But, I will provide some thoughts that we have on a
path forward on these key areas that I will bring up.

First off, with the preamble to the regulation, we had a number of
comments on that section. And first off, with the question that we had
in the preamble regarding how to handle existing special permits, the
response overwhelmingly was that the special permits should stand on
their own and that we should not roll them into the proposed rule. We
think that is a reasonable approach, but, again, I will be looking for
guidance from the Committee. But, that is our view right now. That seems
to be a reasonable approach.

There are a number of comments on the structure of the rule and the
misplacement. To Don's point earlier, we had a number of comments, Don
would probably be familiar with regarding just that. And we think that
we can address many of those concerns by putting the areas that deal,
for instance, with operations and maintenance that were inadvertently
placed in construction. We can move those over to their appropriate
area. I am sorry, if it was in construction, it belongs in establishing
MAOP, Section 620. We can address that.

But, a lot of comments were related to the structure. A lot of comments
were editorial in nature on the preamble and accuracy related and we are
appreciative of those comments. And should we go to final rule, we plan
to address those inaccuracies or those clarifications in the final rule.
But, I think, I mean, it was very good input and I think we can improve
the document by addressing it as we go forward to add clarity and
accuracy.

Okay, moving onto Section 192.7, which is the incorporation by
reference. It is just one change. We modified in existing section there
where we added a reference to a ultrasonic inspection technique for
steel plate. And the main comment on that was why are we only
referencing one standard. We think that is a reasonable comment and we
will add some language to allow suitable affirmatives that and/or equal,
if you will to that section.

Moving onto 192.112, which is just behind the current section for design
111, 112 is the new additional design requirements for steel pipe using
the alternative maximum allowable operating pressure. A number of
comments referenced were in our Reference API 5L and mention of the
revised 44th edition that will be coming out or that is out, but, will
be effective in October. And as these reference standards come up, PHMSA
refused these standards and if PHMSA agrees, we tend to incorporate
those by reference through a revised section. And we have made note of
that. We are currently reviewing the 44th Edition, but, we will address
that appropriately. You know, after our review, I anticipate, you know,
if everything works fine, we will incorporate that by reference. And
obviously we know industry is very interested in that and because there
are some significant changes in the 44th Edition from the 43^rd^
Edition.

Having said that, I realize also the people that developed these
standards also know the regulatory lag that exists. So, we will just
have to deal with that and address the issues as they come up on that.
But, we acknowledge the issue that is presented there with the revision
of that standard.

There were a number of comments on the specific material properties in
the design section, such as carbon equivalent, hardness and D/t ratios.
These are numbers that deal with weldability of pipe and just the
general diameter or the diameter to wall thickness ratio, which affects
the susceptibility to dense. The number for that one is, for instance,
the pipe should be no more than D/t 100. We are willing to work with
alternative numbers. We have seen some proposals in there. We think we
have good numbers based on what is out there, but, we are open to
considering alternatives on that.

Related to the comments on the requirement for Fracture Control Plan.
There were comments on requesting the allowance of crack arrestors other
than the mechanical. And there was an example used allowing a clock
spring. And I think, you know, we were honestly thinking that was the
mechanical arrestor, and I think we would be okay with or we can modify
the wording on that to, I mean, we understand the goal of arresting a
crack and how we do it, I think, we can modify the language to both
meaning the same thing.

There was also a comment related to allowing an engineering analysis for
Fracture Control system. We are little bit concerned about leaving the
door open for variability in this type of design or crack arrest design,
I believe, as it was stated. We may have a requirement for PHMSA review
on that type of provision in there, if that is, if that is the path
forward.

The other alternative is that really it would have to meet the fracture
properties that were calculated or provide a crack arrestor and know
this engineer design. So, we really have two alternatives on that. And I
will seek guidance from you on that.

Next on Coating Requirements. First off, there is a concern over only
allowing adhesive and bonded epoxy coating. And possibly stopping
innovation by not allowing other coating types. And that is a reasonable
comment. We will have language that addresses the material properties we
are looking for there.

Also related to the temperature limit on coating systems, we will
probably change the wording slightly to accept testing and research,
although we are not so sure that the existing research we have seen
really supports this. We have been successful in our existing special
permits, where we have this limit in there, it has not been a big ticket
item for operators. And if there are areas that have a temperature
concern, if there is an inspectional requirement, that seems to have
addressed this issue. But, we don't see that to be a big issue or it
hasn't really been a big issue on our special permits.

I would like to address, the last item, I wanted to bring up on 192.112
is the revised requirement in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a
twenty second mill hydrostatic test. We really had a lot of discussion
internally about that issue. We, in the special permits, had the
requirement of a ten second mill hydrostatic test. We did want to seek
comment from industry and obviously the comments overwhelmingly were,
well, what is wrong with the ten second test. So, we are taking that
under advisement, I think, in our path forward on that.

There are some operators that require the twenty second mill hydrostatic
test or many that require the ten. But, we wanted to gauge industry
input and that I what we got.

Okay, moving onto the Construction Session, 192.328. There is general
support for the construction quality assurance plan that we discussed in
the regulation, that Section. On the initial strength test, there was
the concern over a failure of a hydrostatic test kicking out a potential
project for going to the Alternative MAOP. And we acknowledge that
comment and actually had an allowance for a root cause analysis if there
was the hydrostatic test failure on the initial hydro that we had in the
initial special permit, but when we converted the language to
regulation, somehow it made it where if there was any failure on a
hydro, that you would not be eligible for the ultimate pressure. So, we
will change the wording accordingly. Or we propose a change of wording
accordingly as a path forward on that.

Late Interference Currents, and the addressing of issues with AC. And
for the benefit of everyone, this is where, typically where this is an
issue is where pipelines are installed along power line right of way,
and you have issues of the, what is called induced AC current where the
pipeline becomes charged due to running parallel to the power line. And
it can create corrosion issues. PHMSA is aware of this and we have seen
this as a major issue to address and we have a requirement to, in the
regulation as it is written, to address these issues within six months.
We feel that that is an appropriate requirement. But, there were
comments that that was a bit too stringent.

But, I just have to remind the Committee that we had a number of
projects where corrosion before activation of CP and before this sort of
issue was mitigated, has been quite severe. Even as recently as this
past year. We have seen it on projects.

Other comments on 328 were just from general comments on moving sections
to 620, because they were misplaced.

I thought I would move onto the next section, 619. There were no
comments on, it was just a miscellaneous provision there to address the
new rule.

Moving onto 192.620. There were a number of comments on allowing for
class location changes and what is commonly referred to as one class
bump. And the existing regulation allows the one class bump. And what
that means is, if an operator tests under the existing line, if he tests
his pipeline at ninety percent of the pipe specified minimum yield
strength, down the road its population increases around the pipeline and
it goes from say a Class I to a Class II. Since he has tested it at that
level, he does not have to replace the pipe or down rate the pipe. We
think that is a reasonable allowance and we would suggest that that
would be, we would be okay with that, to the level one class bump.

There were comments on allowing for an engineering analysis if the pipe
was not tested to a factor of 1.25 in a Class I location. While we have
granted a number of, well, I am saying that we have granted two special
permits on pipelines that didn't meet this minimum requirement, we did
review those pipelines. And going forward, we want the ability or we
would recommend that we retain the ability to review these types of
situations. We don't want just open the door up for or we think it would
be unreasonable to open the door up for just preparing an engineering
analysis without some sort of check by PHMSA that either, through one
option would be requiring the operator to come back to us for a special
permit or Option B, would be to require the operator to prepare an
analysis to PHMSA with a notification requirement where we notify the
operator of our acceptance of that analysis within 180 days. So, there
are really two, two options for that.

Moving on, the Anomaly Assessment and Repair. There was concern that
that was too stringent. We have worked on that quite a bit since we
developed the criteria for MAOP Special Permits. And we have good vibes
from the operators that we have been dealing with. And it was our intent
to make it more stringent than the anomaly repair requirements currently
in Sub-Part O, which is the portion of our regulation dealing with high
consequence areas.

And there was concern over the tactical basis of this and our contention
really is that really the factors that are used or the failure pressure
ratio, if you will, in Sub-Part O, while it is based on actual burst
test data or the calculation based on actual data from burst tests, the
actual 1.1 ratio is arbitrary. And our anomaly assessment requirements
in the regulation, that part, I mean, it is based on the logic of you
have increase in requirements based on your class location. That is
really what it is all about.

The other issue is we see that if we are seeing these types of pipelines
and keep in mind these pipelines we are talking about here are late
model pipelines, generally post 1980 or post 1990 construction. So if we
are seeing a lot of issues related to anomalies in these pipelines then
that would be cause for concern. So, we would recommend that we keep
that as it is.

Along the same lines, there were comments on the dent repair
requirements in the proposed reg. Well, the concern there was requiring
existing pipelines to meet the dent repair guidelines in the
construction section. That is a reasonable request or comment. And, in
fact, our existing special permits for existing pipelines, we didn't
have that requirement. So, for an existing line, the dent criteria would
be what is in Sub-Part O or consistent with what is in Sub-Part O,
whereas, for a new pipeline, we would still have the guideline from the
construction section since it is a newly constructed line, which is more
stringent.

Lastly, I wanted to bring up the revised requirements from 620 that were
not incorporated into the special permits that were changes.

One is the patrolling requirement. We went from monthly to twice monthly
in the proposed rule. And here again, based on internal deliberations,
we really wanted to gauge the feedback we were had received on that and
gather input. And obviously we did. A number of comments that thought
that was too stringent and we had a variety of other proposals for
patrolling.

Also as far as the revised requirements, there was reference to damage
prevention standards and practices. In the special permits we issued, we
reference the common ground alliance or an operator had to apply
applicable, best practices and common ground alliance. When we went to
writing this into the regulation, however, we really couldn't reference
the common ground alliance since it is really not a reference standard,
if you will, so we changed the wording to address that. But, if there is
alternative wording that work better, we would be fine with that.

The other difference was with the coating assessment. We had an
additional requirement for a coating assessment. And we added this based
on our experience with some construction projects over the last couple
of years, where we have seen incidents of coating damage after the pipe
has been buried. And frankly it was a requirement we considered when we
were initially developing requirements for pipelines. A lot of operators
require this anyway for new pipelines. And it hasn't been an issue or a
major issue here recently. We have been talking with operators about
adding this. And what I mean by that, it wasn't initially part of our
criteria for special permits, but recently we have added it as a
requirement for pipelines. And it actually has been a benefit. A lot of
operators perform that anyway and because the contractor for a new
pipeline, in particular, would still have to come back and make repairs
in those cases.

So, our feeling there was that, that was a good requirement based on our
experience with construction over the last couple of years.

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

regulation, that requirement is lumped in with another requirement for
an indirect examination called close interval survey. And I would
propose that we separate the two and that requirement would stay in, but
we would also have this coating assessment survey, which is also, as
many of you know, it is called, commonly referred to as DCVG Survey.

Realize there are numerous comments that were posted to the docket.
Perhaps you have questions on those, but, what I have done is summarize
what I believe were the major issues.

And Mr. Chairman, this completes my remarks.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you very much, Alan. Obviously you and the
other members have done a tremendous amount of work on this issue to
date.

Alan, before I open it up for discussion, I have a question. It is more
of a clarifying point. As you were going through your discussion here,
you indicated that, if I heard it correctly, and that is what I need to
get a clarification on, if I heard it correctly, you indicated there
were a number of comments where I thought you were going to make changes
and then I thought I heard there were comments that were made where you
had made changes. And the clarifying question I have is are the comments
that you received, where people had suggested changes, where they
thought they were appropriate, are they already in this docket, the
[Federal Register]{.underline} of proposed rules? Are they already
reflected in there or are you going to add them, some of these changes,
in a future write-up?

MR. MAYBERRY: The changes were clarifications and to answer your
question, this document or the reg that we have before us has not been
modified in any way. It is still the original regulation that was
published.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay.

MR. MAYBERRY: We had just comments. Really they are proposed
clarifications.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: So, then at some point in the future a newer
document with the appropriate amended changes would be written up, is my
understanding correct?

MR. MAYBERRY: Well, it wouldn't be a new document. It wouldn't, well, it
would be new in the sense that it is the final version, but, it is
really, it does not change the document that we have other than wording
things so that they are clearer. And so that everyone understands what
we are accomplishing.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. All right, let me restate. I understand that
the purpose and the intent would not change, but some of the clarifying
language in the document would change, is that correct?

MR. MAYBERRY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WIESE: Commissioner Keating?

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Yes.

MR. WIESE: This is Jeff, could I add just a note on there, if I could?

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Sure.

MR. WIESE: Our normal protocol and I know we have some new members on
the Committee, too, so it is probably, if you will bear with me, since
we will do this again coming this Fall. Our normal protocol is to try to
talk to the Committee as things are developing, with no votes necessary.
Seek their advice and consent at that point as we are developing our
activities. Many of the members of the Committee are involved in the
developmental activities that go forward.

We, then, actually enter the more formal stage of rulemaking, where we
make a proposal on the record that we are seeking comment on, as we did
here. And then our protocol is to come back to the Advisory Committee,
from whom we are seeking counsel and to refresh you on what our proposal
were, what the general gist of the comments that we received are and our
thoughts going forward. We are not trying to pre-stage the Committee's
judgment. We are here to solicit the comments from the Committee on how
they think we should best proceed.

Alan has, I think, done a great job of giving you a sense of our
thoughts going forward. As, you know, myself characterize and Alan and I
have spent a fair amount of time talking about this, I think we are
really, we received a lot of good comments. But, I will fall back to say
that I think we had a very strong proposal that was pretty well
developed, you know, criteria driven and we have gotten some field
experience with them, which has been very important, you know, and tried
to develop all of that in a very transparent way.

So, what I am really trying to say to you is, I think in short, we
received a lot of good comments that will be helpful in making
clarifications and technical corrections. It will make the regulatory
intents clearer for operators. I think that we had a fairly forward
leaning in parameters. As Alan pointed out in several areas. We tried to
seek information and technical information from anyone, really, on a
number of issues, having gotten that. I think there are some relatively
minor changes that we can make to this. But, that they are still very
compatible with the criteria that we developed in that public process,
you know, for each of the special permits. They are at or above those.

And then my closing note on that whole thing, and I mean this seriously,
is that the Agency has taken seriously all of the oversight
responsibilities for these special permits. We have spent a fair amount
of field time with operators reviewing, you know, implementation of the
special permit criteria. And I would just tell you that it is already in
our inspection priorities for next fiscal year. So, I am just here to
tell you that regardless of the rule, the special permit criteria are
pretty well developed. Anywhere they are applied will be applying a
fairly significant amount of oversight.

So, that is it for me, Bob, thank you for indulging me.

Committee Discussion, Public

Discussion and Call

For Motion

COMMISSIONER KEATING: No, thank you, Jeff. I appreciate the explanation.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time for discussion. Once again, I would ask
Committee members, have Committee members, to give the Committee members
the first opportunity for discussion and then we would go to the public
members.

So, are there any Committee members who wish to make comments. Again,
please identify yourself.

MR. MOHN: Mr. Chairman, this is Jeryl Mohn. I am PPSC member. I am
employed by Panhandle Energy and certainly represent, in my view, our
industry.

I would just like to go on the record to commend PHMSA for moving this
rulemaking forward. It has been largely a collaborative effort as a
consequence, as both Alan and Jeff said, of the various special permits
that have been reviewed and ultimately issued. And I would agree with
Jeff, that we are very close from our point of view in having a rule
that memorializes the requirements in the form of regulation that would
enable continued utilization of this design alternative.

I would pose a question to you first, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps my
colleague, Andy Drake has some other ideas, as to how you would like to
proceed and I pose these alternatives to you.

As Alan reviewed the comments to the rule, he noted many times, as you
said, that there are changes that PHMSA intends to make, in some cases
was pretty explicit about the changes. And honestly, for the comments
that I think we have, those changes that he discussed are responsive to
our concerns, the comments of our individual companies as well as our
INGAA comments. There are, however, a few sections that we would like to
discuss further.

So, in the interest of brevity here, I am not sure the best way to do
this. Is it to go back through Alan's discussion and only try to
highlight those particular sections where Alan said there would be a
change and then we discuss that change? Or do you want to just open it
up for a general discussion about the rule as a whole?

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Thank you, Jeryl, for your comments.

Let me say, I think we, you and I anyway, are in the same wave length.
My concern is, well, first of all, let me say, I certainly support the
intent and the approach and the entire gist of this rule. And it is my
concern when I raised the question for clarification, was just that
unlike the first item where there was one very specific item, where we
wanted to do an amendment and people could focus on it and we all knew
what we were agreeing to and what would be included in there.

On this subject matter, again, I tend to agree with Alan. He certainly
is on top of this. And I have great confidence in the PHMSA folks. It is
just that there were so many potential changes. If we can focus on them
and get through them within the allotted time, that would be fine. If
not, we could and again, I want to hear what other members have to say,
but, we as a committee, could discuss other points of concerns from
other Committee members and then find out if we could make kind of a
tentative positive recommendation that we see the final draft.

This may be unique to those of us that are public utility commissioners,
but, in dealing with auditors, we many times will, before we get our
public utility auditor out to review it, but, we are always reviewing
that last audit to make sure the language is what we thought we were
saying. And I just want the Committee members to be comfortable with
whatever it is they wish to vote. And I will support whatever the will
of, obviously, what I am saying, I will support whatever the will of the
Committee is. It was a just clarification.

So, before we go to your suggestion of a section by section discussion,
I would just like to find out if any other Committee members have any
comments.

MR. STURSMA: This is Don Stursma, Iowa Government. As you may have, if
you look at my written comments, you know, I have some problems with the
way these rules are structured in addition to comments on some of the
individual issues in there. And I don't know what would be an
appropriate point to see if there is any discussion or how people feel
about that.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. With all the material I have here, Don, I
probably have your comments somewhere in them, but, I would be
disingenuous if I told you I have read them. I haven't had a chance to
read them all.

MR. WIESE: Commissioner Keating, this is Jeff Wiese, again. Could I ask
a question?

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Sure.

MR. WIESE: Would it be helpful to you and the other members of the
Committee, recognizing there a few new ones, if we kind of review, I
have got our Counsel here, if we kind of review for you what we are
asking of the Committee today. There is really, I mean, besides the fact
that first we will deal with any discussion you want on these subjects,
happy to restructure any kind of representation of the primary changes
that we are considering. You know, I think, and they would always want
Counsel want me when I am talking, is to tell you that I think that our
general view here is that we are asking you for your general advice on
our thoughts preceding to final rule.

We are not going to be in a position to prepare a final rule and send it
to you for comment. It is not part of that Federal Regulatory process.

Jim, any comments on the items before us?

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Jeff. I guess, I am certainly one of
the new members and do need some education, guidance on that. Okay.

MR. WIESE: Okay.

MS. GERARD: This is Stacey, typically, what happens is that, you know,
the Committee identifies areas of the proposal which they would ask that
modifications be made to. And then, you, as the Chair, could keep a list
of what those modifications are. And you are voting on the NPRM with
those modifications as proposed, you know, after you deal with them one
by one and sort of band them together as a package and say, this NPRM
with the following modifications, as the Committee vote, can the
Committee vote that it is reasonable, feasible, etc., etc.

MR. PATES: Yes, this is Jim Pates. Procedurally, probably the best way
under Robert's Rules is to entertain a main motion to recommend support
for the NPRM and then once that is seconded, it is open for discussion,
then to accept any sort of amendments or suggested changes and then vote
on those individually. And then vote on the total package at the end.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay.

MR. WIESE: But, this is Jeff again, I don't want the Committee to get
the sense that we are going to shutdown discussions. So, you know,
before you get a point where you feel like you need to move to that, if
there is a specific matter or, you know, a number of specific matters,
you just want Alan or someone else here to expound on for a second, we
are happy to do so.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Why don't we then follow this order then.
Following along with Jeff Wiese's comments, just open it. If there are
some general comments and clarifying questions that Committee members
would like Alan Mayberry to discuss, we can do that. After that
discussion is concluded, we can then ask for a motion. And then we can
go through, if there are any specific points in that motion that need to
come up.

So, with that laid out as what we are going to do for our next time
period, are there Committee members who have some specific questions,
clarifying questions for Alan Mayberry?

MR. DRAKE: This is Andy Drake with Spectra Energy. I have some specific
comments, if this is the appropriate time to go through those. I also
have kind of a general comment, maybe in reference to some of the
conversation that has already happened.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay.

MR. DRAKE: Certainly, generally, we are supportive of this. I think this
is a good idea. It has been well technically vetted over a long period
of time. And there has been a wide spectrum of involvement from other
countries and technical experts. I think this is very well founded. And
I appreciate Alan accepting this to comment. Certainly one of the prime
tenants here is to minimize special permits. And I think that goes a
long way to that.

There are a couple of things here that we have to, I think, take into
consideration. We are trying to facilitate, you know, or minimize these
special applications. We are also trying to make sure we have got a
technically valid rule. And something that is practicable. If it is not
practicable in the interest of being perhaps more conservative, I think
what is going to happen is we are just going to right back at the
beginning, which is not where any of us want to go. And we really need
to slow down and make sure that these provisions, the wording choices,
in particular, don't create situations that inadvertently cause people
to have to bail out to a special permit.

A couple of those, in particular, I think that we need to be thinking
about is, the basis for the coating, the temperature restriction to 120
degrees Fahrenheit on FBE coating, most of the manufacturers' coatings
that I am aware of right now on FBE have temperature recommendations of
150 to 160 degrees as minimum for standard FBE. To throttle that back to
120 degrees is not a trivial matter. And especially for existing
pipelines. That is going to be, that is going to be impracticable. So,
they are going to be right back in the special permit bucket.

I would say we need to at least look at that number and move that up to
a little bit more practicable number and/or put some sort of coating
tests that you do in areas where that, you know, that coating is
monitoring tests that you even put into place in those areas where that
temperature may be present.

The other thing, I think, that we might need to look at is these macro
etching requirements for the pipe manufacturer, certainly for a new
pipeline that has not been built yet. That is something that can be
instituted as the manufacturer. But, it has not been a standard practice
historically. So for any existing pipeline that was even thinking about
doing this and may meet every other technical requirement, that
requirement needs to be exempted as it is basically proven out in the
hydrostatic test and the 100 percent x-ray requirement. So, it is a moot
point for an existing pipeline that meets the other parts of this
requirement. And I think you really are just looking for one word that
says, macro etching for pipelines that haven't been built yet. For
existing pipelines, these other requirements cover that.

I think that, you know, the other comment that I think we might want to
make some special consideration over, is the issue of coverage or
applicability or grandfathering of pipelines that currently operate
under or have been granted or have applied for a special permit, but
have not been granted it yet.

Now the industry is experiencing a huge growth spurt right now. And
these permits are helping, you know, helping basically foster the
pipelines to get to some of these demand markets. And I know there have
been a lot of applications submitted. I wouldn't want to see the passage
of a rulemaking preempt or nullify or require that waivers that are
being considered or have been filed to be refiled. I think that would be
huge, a huge waste and disruption to the marketplace and this process.

So, I hope we can get something there. I don't think that is a big
consideration. I don't even think that is a big consideration from a
regulatory precedent standpoint. But, if we don't get that penned in
there somewhere, I think we will end up really throwing a big wrinkle in
a lot of projects timelines, which is a big, big issue right now.

The only other significant comment that I see right here is this issue
about evaluation mediation of anomaly. The criteria that PHMSA is using
right now, is not just unique to this MAOP waiver. It is an issue that
is an issue that we are kind of in discussion with and I think
technically on a broader scale, and that is related to the integrity
management rule and here by reference.

But, I think we need to call some kind of technical summit to talk
through this. The application of class location, design factors into the
repair criteria, the acceptance criteria of anomaly, is a technical
breakdown in the basis of the flaw evaluation criteria. I mean,
fundamentally. And we have talked to John Kiefer about this, who
developed the B-31G basis. And I think we need to just slow down and
talk about that on a bigger scale.

So, that is not just unique to this MAOP operating issue. That is across
the spectrum. And that is really a technical misapplication on a very
fundamental level that we need to remediate, because that is going to
have a huge, huge impact beyond this particular rulemaking.

So, I would just kind of put an asterisk next that comment, that that
actually is something that is not just unique to this rulemaking. That
is something that is more systemic in nature.

You know, the comments that Alan said he has received, and they have
addressed or intend to address through language, I appreciate that. You
know, there has been a lot of dialog on this rulemaking to date. And,
you know, I certainly know that Alan does not have language at his hand
right now to propose on some of those changes. And all we can say is, we
appreciate your consideration in those regards and that if, you know, we
or I or any members of the Technical Committees can help in hammering
out language to address those comments and concerns, we make ourselves
available to that end.

And I appreciate your efforts here on this rulemaking. I know there has
been a lot technical discussions to date and it is a very complex
rulemaking, but, I think it really will help us make pipelines much
safer and much less expensive for customers.

And that is my comments, Mr. Chairman.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Andrew. Andrew, if I may just as I was
taking notes listening to you, I am going to try to recap the thrust of
you said and please correct me if I misstate it, because I just want to
make sure I understood it.

Basically, you are supportive of the rule. You feel the comments that
Alan has received and will make changes to would be appropriate. But,
did I hear in the middle of this, that you felt, you said you call for a
technical summit to talk through this, are you suggesting that there are
some mega issues that need to be discussed that are larger than what we
have specific comments before us today? I just want to understand that.
I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I just want to know what you
are saying.

MR. DRAKE: I think that, you know, honestly at this point, I don't know
that we will mediate this anomaly issue prior to the development of this
rulemaking. It is a bigger issue. And I don't intend to recommend
slowing down this rulemaking for this singular issue, but, I think we
need to have a technical summit on anomalies as a separate matter to
deal with it on a bigger scale. Because it is bigger than just this
rulemaking. So, I wouldn't, I am not recommending that we have a
technical summit, you know, during this process, because I think we are
on an expedited basis here and I appreciate that. But, I do think we
need earmark some chance to sit down and talk through the basis of that
on a bigger scale.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate
it.

Other members of the Committee?

MR. MOHN: This is Jeryl Mohn again, Mr. Chairman, I would echo Andy's
comments and I tried to follow as Alan was going through his summary of
the comments, where he indicated that the Agency was willing to be
responsive to various comments that were received. And I think Andy has
done a good summary of those items that Alan missed or where we may have
a slightly different view.

The four that I noted that Andy mentioned are grandfathering, number
one, ensuring the grandfathering, also acknowledged those permit
applications that have been made and that are currently being processed.

The second one Andy mentioned was coating temperature. Both of those
were addressed to some extent in Alan's comments.

The third one that Alan didn't mention was macro etching. And I am not a
metaller, just not a steel mill or a pipe mill expert, but, I do
understand from explanations that I have received, that what we are
really trying to see whether or not the plate that the steel is made of,
has lamination in it. It has layering to it that would weaken the
strength of the pipe. And a macro etch is something that is done in a
steel mill when the plate is manufacturer, that is more of a QA process
for the steel mill.

The rule also requires an ultrasonic test evaluation of the plate, in
addition to the test that Andy noted earlier, to verify the integrity of
the steel. And I would ask Jeff and Alan that you guys do consider, as
Andy noted, that macro etching requirement that you have written into
the proposed rule.

The fourth and final item Andy mentioned is criteria for anomaly
repairs. I know, Jeff and Alan, you have commenced some discussion with
various technical experts and some industry reps, that look broadly at
this challenge of anomaly of repair criteria. And I am not sure how you
would handle it in this particular rule and what you need to go forward
from a timing standpoint. But, I would echo Andy's sentiment that we
should proceed carefully and we should really think about the technical
basis for apply class location to anomaly repair criteria as it relates
to what was originally developed in the Pipeline Integrity Rule and the
standard that is used to enforce that.

I would be willing, Mr. Chairman, to move forward and acknowledge Alan's
willingness to look at some changes, if we could also get some
consideration of the four items that Andy went through that I
reiterated.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Thank you, Joe.

Any more general comments from the Technical, excuse me, from the
Committee members?

MR. STURSMA: This is Don Stursma, Iowa Government again.

And I understand industry's interest in being able to operate at higher
pressure, and I understand that the B31-A code and other international
codes that are out there, about eighty percent, this country has
operated at eighty percent for decades, no pressure based problems. So,
I have no fundamental problem with the idea of allowing a higher
operating pressure. But, at the same time, recognizing the existing
seventy-two percent, etc., numbers have been around for a long time.
There is a certain comfort level to long established widely accepted
standards. And at least arguably, a higher operating pressure equates to
a lessening of a historic margin of safety.

So, I also agree with the idea that pipelines being allowed to operate
at a higher pressure should be linked to a higher quality of pipeline
material construction and maintenance.

The question then gets to be what are the appropriate standards for this
showing, and I do have

some problems with the rules as proposed. And I have got to tell you the
first time I read this rulemaking, when I got to the end, I thought
something is missing. I finally figured out what it was. I can\'t find
the kitchen sink mentioned anywhere. It seems like just about anything,
anybody else could possibly think of has been tossed into this
rulemaking. And I have heard that some of these criteria have been
conditions of special permits. They were held up as find, find of why
they are in there. And I am kind of amazed at what these applicants will
agree to, to get some of these special permits. And I guess I would
encourage you not to use criteria of corporations into this rulemaking,
whether it has been in a special permit or not, but rather it can show
technical merit to the individual proposals.

And now that I have had my diatribe, and wish I had been on the
committee, I am going to mention that I haven't, I haven't really
prepared to talk a whole lot on the tentative proposals. I figured
industry is a lot better equipped to do than I am. But, I do have some
concerns over the way the rule was structured.

Proposed Rule 1 for 112, I think is an obvious one, where the content of
that proposed rule is misplaced. It should be in a different subpart or
a different appendix.

One of my bigger problems generally is that Part 192 has a certain flow
of structure to it. Subpart B for materials, C for design, D for
welding, E for construction, you know, all along, you get the picture.
And this rulemaking kind of puts a mishmash of things in part of the
Code where that subject matter is typically addressed. And I guess, just
maybe it is kind of a purist, maybe because I think clearer this way,
certainly my recommendation to be that the rule 620, I would basically
say, if qualified for operation in an alternative maximum operating
pressure, here is how you compute it. But, the actual determination of
whether you are eligible to operate in an alternative MAOP, being a
separate rulemaking or perhaps better add appendix.

I think that would do a lot for maintaining the flow of structure of
Part 192. And keep things, keep the subject matter from being mislocated
in the structure of Part 192.

That is the general comment separate from anything I might add-on of
specific issues both in the regulations.

And that is all for now.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Don.

Any other Committee members who wish to comment?

Okay. Are there any public members who wish to make a general comment?

MS. GERARD: You mean the public, not public members?

COMMISSIONER KEATING: The public, yes. I am sorry. Thank you.

I am a very inclusive guy, everybody is a member of my club.

MR. WIESE: Bob, we have one.

MR. BOSS: This is Terry Boss with INGAA. I just want to kind of clarify
process wise.

You are trying to get the concept across, any possible changes that are
going on, but, essentially, this will not be reviewed by TPSSC after
this session.

MR. WIESE: No.

MR. BOSS: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Terry, can you speak up, we are losing you?

MR. BOSS: I just wanted to clarify that this rule is not going to be
discussed by TPSSC after this session as they are presenting it. Just to
clarify that, and Jeff agreed with that.

MR. KUPREWICZ: I don't know if there are public members here, but I do
have some comments.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Would you identify yourself?

MR. KUPREWICZ: Oh, I am sorry, it is Rick Kuprewicz. And before I get
into that, either, we have got a bunch of smart people working technical
issues and moving forward over a bunch of lames running over the cliff.
I would like to say given the effort that has gone forward here, it is
probably the earlier perversion here.

Anyway, my name is Richard Kuprewicz and my comments today represent
observations on PHMSA proposed increase MAOP rulemaking of March 12,
2008.

I have canvassed representatives of the public on this matter, such as
the Pipeline Safety Trust, Washington State's WUTC Pipeline Safety
Leaders, and others such as some of the representatives on the
Washington State Citizens Committee on Pipeline Safety. My comments
today reflect observations, my personal observations' perspective,
considering the input and comments from these public representatives.

I would characterize PHMSA's March 12 rulemaking effort related to
increasing MAOP on gas transmission pipelines rulemaking as somewhere
between a B+ and an A-. This not a criticism but on the contrary,
emphasis the amount of technical knowledge and work effort that PHMSA
and many in the industry have obviously put into and gained in this area
in granting a run of recent waivers now called special permits related
to higher design factors, and MAOP increases on gas transmission
pipelines.

There are many important core concepts captured in the March 12, 2008
proposed rulemaking that strengthens proper management requirements of
pipelines through their extensive life cycle stages that easily span
many decades. I believe the lack of recent public comments of the docket
is reflective of PHMSA's good efforts in the proposed rulemaking.

The fundamental principal governing MAOP increases today relate to
considerable advances in technology in the last twenty years or so. In
all phases of a pipeline life cycle that is prudently applied and
managed, can act as safety webs assuring the pipelines and their welds
maintain sound and do not fail.

It is a well known technical fact that sound, modern pipelines can take
pressure stress forces well beyond one hundred percent SMYS.

As a public representative, I am also guided in this matter by the
principal that safety regulations are not there to run up the bill. They
need to be cost effective and efficient. From my perspective and the
perspective of many of those I had solicited comments from, PHMSA in
this proposed rulemaking has addressed the core critical process issues
that are needed to provide adequate safety nets or a web against
failure. The public comments I received have no problem with dealing
with this issue by rule regulation, provided identified the core issues
are prudently addressed.

In fairness to the industry, there are certain detailed issues that
provide plenty of room for a prudent compromise in the final MAOP
increase rule, without defeating the core process principals identified
in the proposed rulemaking.

Some specific examples of core issues should prove helpful and time does
not permit me to identify all the core issues or details, that might be
candidates for some tuning. For example, construction QAQC,
documentation, audibility and record retention are critical. We need to
avoid a contractor or a subcontractor going brain dead.

Related to right of way patrol, damage prevention and right of way
management. Right of way management is the core issue that will provide
the solution, such as patrol frequency and damage prevention issues. We
don't believe prescriptive detailed issues will deal with this issue
appropriately. And so will go the right of way management. And that is
addressed in this rulemaking.

Regarding internal corrosion. This isn't an issue for many pipelines.
For those at risk, however, they require some sort of guideline to be
sure that they are handled risks of internal corrosion adequately.

Regarding risk matrix, pipeline inspection, both baseline and periodic
assessments in intervals, and reinspection intervals, they are all
intertwined. The risk matrixes be the key.

So, I think, Andy, this will help address some of your concerns as to
what is the best technical way to deal with anomalies and flaws and all
of that.

That said, I believe that PHMSA and the industry should be able to
develop more efficient, compromised language regarding appropriate
baseline and especially periodic assessment periods. And in this
inspection matter, I am guided by the critical issue from the public
that quality of inspections matching against a proper risk management,
not over frequency of misguided inspections or the use of poor tools, is
the controlling issue to assure pipelines don't fail from certain risk
threats.

Regarding emergency response, I would advise listening to the industry
on the real effect of this, of some of these proposals in the rule. On
this core matter, I am guided by the more critical concepts that
resources should be placed on life cycle core issues related to
prevention of pipe failure rather than illusionary effectiveness related
to reactions of failure.

In conclusion, concerning existing pipelines, existing pipelines need
special precautions to assure that critical information about such
pipelines is adequate. Given the huge economic incentives to raise
pressures on pipelines and can be easy under the guise of risk
management to take imprudent risks from safe, regarding missing
information that is not warranted. Note that there is more than one way
to get to the right solution and I think some of the people mentioned
that this afternoon.

One last issue, database and public information. This is a very
important issue to many of the public people that gave me input. The
recurring theme that I keep hearing from the public that may not be
adequately captured in the proposed regulation is public assets of PHMSA
audits, inspections, accidents and the repair records related to
pipelines. Especially as they relate to MAOP increases. Quite simply
this is an area that needs work. There is a balance in providing proper
information to the public that can be most affected by a pipeline event
and overwhelming an audience with irrelevant unrelated detail noise. The
public position on this matter is consistent. Performance or risk base
system approaches are only credible if the public is granted access to
core data based information that instills confidence that the pipeline
management team has their system under control through all the pipeline
life cycle stages.

Risk based approaches will not work if such core information is denied
to the public for independent review. For example, a breakdown of the
2,883 repairs identified in the first cycle of gas integrity management
inspections in the proposed rulemaking by thread type, would provide a
variable benchmark or reality check.

And I appreciate your patience in this rather long winded, but, you can
tell I have got a lot of input from these folks, so.

But, the bottom line is, move forward with the rulemaking and I think
you, guys, are all on the right course and I sense a real effort to do
the right thing here.

That is all I have. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you very much, Richard.

Richard, if that is a written statement just to assist our court
reporters there or note takers, you might want to provide her that so
she could --

MR. KUPREWICZ: I sure will. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Thank you.

Any other comments? Okay, hearing none, what I would like to ask now is
--

MR. McALLISTER: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment, please?

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Yes, who is that?

MR. McALLISTER: This is Von McAllister with Kern River Gas Transmission
Company.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay.

MR. McALLISTER: And this is just two things that have already been
discussed, but, in the matter of the anomaly response criteria, we had a
summit meeting last week and I think that INGAA has the committee
working quite feverishly to propose an alternative to this criteria,
that is more similar and based on B318S and Kiefer's work in the
foundation, has been done in this. And I wonder if there is some way
that we can consider that in this process as an alternative. We strongly
feel that it is inappropriate to apply these class location factors and
that there will be very expensive and result in having to investigate
some very small anomalies even to ten percent.

And just once again, I wanted to mention that we feel that the coatings
are not hurt. In our case, we have only operated up to one hundred and
thirty degrees, but, we have done that for seventeen years without
damage. We think there should be some more leeway there.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you very much.

Any other comments?

I am sorry, I didn't hear that.

MR. WIESE: That is someone in the background.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Oh, okay.

MR. WIESE: At the right time, Bob, I think with your indulgence, I think
Alan and I could at least give some initial response to some of these
points before we move onto motions.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. We can do that.

MR. WIESE: I guess I should give you the opportunity to make sure that
we don't have any other issues that should come forward.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Well, do you want to hear a motion first and then
make some comments or would you like to make some preliminary comments
before I ask for any motion from the Technical Committee members?

MR. WIESE: Well, in the interest of expediency, it might be helpful if
we kind of give you some initial response on some of these things. So,
when you are ready, we will do so.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. I think we are ready now, Jeff, if you and
Alan wish to, you know, do that now, that would be great.

MR. WIESE: Well, again, what I think I will do, if you will permit me,
and I will allow Alan to comment on it and technically correct me where
I am wrong. There are a couple of things that I would like to address.

As was just noted, we had begun a discussion with INGAA and INGAA
members and some technical people about the anomaly repair criteria and
class locations. We had a lot of our people involved in that. Everyone
from our regional directors, to Alan, to Bill Gute, our Deputy here, a
lot of people. And I think it was a very promising start to that
enterprise.

And I am hopeful, Andy and Jeryl, since I know you both commented and
Mr. McAllister, that, you know, that can bear fruit. But, I would be, I
think, it is my personal view that I would be misleading you if I
believe, led you to believe that we could modify that in time to finish
this rule. The rule, in order to do that, what we have proposed and been
talking about internally was, I think that needs a little bit of public
discussion. And our state partners are critical parts of this. This is
not just a matter for interstate pipelines. It is a matter that will
affect states as well. And I would be, I would feel nervous about moving
ahead without the state partners being heavily involved in that. As well
as having the general public have an opportunity to comment on it.

So, while I don't want to shut it down, I am quite sensitive to the fact
that there are plenty of technically sound reasons to move forward with
that. My personal reaction is that it hasn't been vetted enough in a
public way. So, I am a little disinclined to, I mean, I will certainly
take the advice of the Committee. I want to make sure I say that the
right way. We are here to seek your advice, but, I do feel like that one
is underdeveloped.

The other thing I wanted to comment on and then I could certainly turn
to Alan, was the grandfather and if they already filed special permits.
I guess we will have to debate that internally. I mean, the way I see it
that the special permits that are filed, are following the criteria that
we developed in public. There are fairly parallel with the NPRM that we
put forward with some minor exceptions, relatively minor exceptions that
we had discussed to you. And some of those we are considering in the, in
the NPRM, we are considering adjusting, you know, I don't consider any
of those to be very major adjustments. So, there is not that huge of a
delta between the already existing special permits as well as though
that are filed in the NPRM. So, I think that is something that we could
certainly take under consideration.

Alan, I don't know if you wanted to take on some of the others like the
macro etching and the coating temperature.

MR. MAYBERRY: Yeah, I appreciate it. Andy, and Jeryl, I appreciate your
comments on the technical requirements there. And, you know, these
comments that received were very helpful as we looked to making this a
better document or a better regulation.

Related to the coating temperature rating. You know, we are not
precluding the operation. I think we were clear on that. A pipeline with
a temperature above 120. And we are willing to accept research. And I
have reviewed the White Paper, but we just, you know, perhaps we can
address the end result we are both after in the language.

But, I wanted to make sure you understood, we do acknowledge that
pipelines would be able to operate above 120. We just, we are thinking
of some sort of coating assessment if needed, if there is not research
that we are able to hang our hat on.

Related to the macro etch test, specific line existing pipes, I think
that is a reasonable request. When I kind of lump together some of the
specific requirements in 112, that was one I was thinking of. And I
think we have some room to develop an appropriate language that
addresses existing pipes. And perhaps the performance for new pipes, for
new pipe or specking of new pipe as well.

Related to anomaly repair. I want to make sure I was clear. I may have
misspoken. Really we vary by, the requirements by operating stress
levels opposed to class level. That has been a point of confusion quite
often with people when we are talking about an anomaly repair. And it
makes a big difference. I have literally done hundreds of calculations
of anomaly assessment and I don't see where this is a big issue, but, at
the same time I am willing to listen to this. It is really not that
large to us as we see it. But, like I said, if there are some other
information I can look at, we are willing to talk or listen. As Jeff had
mentioned, we are, you know, it is part of a larger issue going forward
as well.

Related to the State of Iowa's comment on the structure and
organization, you know, Don, I have had some discussions internally
about maybe adding an appendix. I understand that is really not other
the cleanest way, not really how we structure these things when we are
writing regulations. You know, maybe there are some other options to
make this more readable, but this is just the way we had to break things
down to put it into the existing regulation. But, your point is noted
and you know, as we prepare the final document and put things in the
right place, I think it will be much improved over what you have seen
currently. But, I appreciate those comments.

And that is all I had.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Alan, thank you, Jeff.

Jeff, did you have any other comments or can I \--

MR. WIESE: I think just my concluding comment on that. And I don't want
to shutdown discussion, you know, we still have time to discuss and I
think that is the point of talking and seeking the advice from the
Advisory Committee.

I would just comment and thank Rick Kuprewicz, that was a lot to chew on
in Rick's comments. And Rick, if you provide those into Cheryl, I know
Rick is on other Advisory Committee, and he knows how to do this, that
we will docket that since it was fairly substantial.

There is a lot to chew on there and there are a lot of things that are
underway. There is fairly, we certainly agree with and I hope we will be
documenting fairly soon, particularly your discussions as it relates to
liquid pipelines on internal corrosion. And you will be seeing kind of
our views on that very soon in our report.

But, otherwise I just wanted to thank Rick. That was pretty thoughtful
and substantive public comment. So, thanks, Rick.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Jeff.

All right, Ladies and Gentlemen, and the Pipeline Safety Standards
Committee, we are at that point in time where we need to move forward
with at least giving guidance and direction. And I would ask for, we
have heard a lot of very good discussion, very appropriate and pertinent
discussion with a lot of consistent views supporting the concept. But,
with a few specific questions here and there.

So, I think the immediate issue before us, if we could have a motion and
you have three options that are suggested. Option 1 is obviously to
accept the rule as written. Option 2 is what we did in our earlier
Agenda Item 1 is, the proposed rule is published with some amendments
and in which we have to take time to discuss out, which we certainly do
have some time available to us. Option 3 is obviously to not approve it.
And I think there is always, you know, the fourth option and by the way
these are just options and our recommendations, is whether you think you
need more time to discuss this at a future meeting. But, I say that with
some trepidation. One doesn't like to delay. This has been in the
process for a long time, but if there is a reason to table discussions,
but with specific recommendations as to what needs to be addressed at a
future meeting, then that is certainly another option.

And then I am sure there are several options that I haven't even thought
of. So, with that as just a little guidance, I would welcome any member
of the Committee or members of the Committee who wish to make a motion.

MR. DRAKE: Mr. Chairman, this is Andy Drake with Spectra Energy and I
propose a motion. And possibly to set up that motion, I think just to
clarify to Jeff's point.

I would agree that the anomaly repair issue is a bigger issue and does
not need to be or cannot actually be addressed inside this rulemaking
adequately and that we just table that issue for a separate discussion
on a bigger basis.

And the issue of the special permit is an issue about, you know, a
little bit of concern maybe on industry's part about the stability of
those special permits because the liabilities and the financial
consequences around them are huge. And so, they are probably just
hearing us get very excited about making sure the permits that are in
place, are going to be protected and stable and that the ones that are
pending are not going to have to be retracted or revised.

So, with that, I would make the motion that we accept the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking as they have put it, with the caveat that the
comments that Alan Mayberry has made in his presentation on the comments
that they have received and the written comments that they have taken,
be incorporated into a revision.

And the four specific issues that we talked about regarding the
grandfathering, if you will, the macro etching, the coating and just a
note about that anomaly acceptance criteria discussion will be taking
place on a different schedule, on a bigger scale, be added to this
discussion and this rulemaking proposal.

And that would be my proposal or motion at this point, Mr. Chairman.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. Thank you, Andy. Just before I ask for
second, and clarify that, that would be Option 2, accept the proposed
rules with the amended statements as you described, is that correct?
Andrew?

MR. WIESE: Andy, is it helpful, Andy, if you just read back your
statement to us? By the way, Bob, I apologize, if you will forgive me.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Sure.

MR. WIESE: What we are actually doing is voting on a proposed rule as
published and a draft reg eval and just basically saying are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost effective and practicable if the following
changes are made.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Yes. That is Option 2 in the sheet before the
Committee members?

MR. DRAKE: Yes, that would be it.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay, could I have a second to that motion,
please. Hello?

MR. LEMOFF: Second.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: And who is that?

MR. LEMOFF: Ted Lemoff.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Ted.

We have a motion and a second before us. I open it for discussion and if
any Committee members wish to make comments.

(Pause.)

MR. STURSMA: This is John Stursma, can I repeat my two cents worth.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Sure.

MR. STURSMA: Can you hear me?

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Yes.

MR. STURSMA: Okay. A lot the individual proposals in this rule, I felt,
didn't really have a clear justification or clear technical
justification for why they were in there. I will use as an example the
one on internal corrosion, on why additional and different criteria are
being proposed in this rulemaking versus the recently adopted general
criteria on internal corrosions that are in the regulations.

And I had some issues like that with other areas of this rulemaking
where here this is being proposed, but, I am not really understanding
why these additional criteria are being proposed, you know, what is
inadequate in the current regulations that additional rulemaking is due
address.

And I guess I would encourage PHMSA when it does write a final rule, to
look for that technical justification, the experience justification,
whatever, or why that particular new added rule is needed. And if you
can\'t find it, start asking some questions about whether that
particular provision is really necessary.

MR. WIESE: Bob, this is Jeff.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Any clarifying comments from either Jeff or Alan?

MR. WIESE: Just a moment, and maybe I will turn to Alan if I can and
always happy to get comments from our friend from the great State of
Iowa, where I also hail from.

I think the point in which we are at right now and these are, you know,
well received. So we are sort of taking them out of order because at
this point what we are really do is we are entertaining a motion that
Andy had put on the table, which Don can\'t procedurally, if I
understand and I have got my counsel and others and in particular, the
Commissioner who runs these all the time. My understanding is we are
commenting on Andy's motion for, and again, somebody clarify, whether or
not we can introduce other motions or if we just take these
procedurally.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay, let me clarify, let me, I didn't think Don
Stursma was introducing a new motion, at least I didn't hear that. I
thought he was just commenting on the motion and commenting about his
concerns.

MR. WIESE: Okay.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: The motion obviously supports the proposed rule as
published and the draft reg evaluation is technically feasible and
reasonable, cost effective, etc. with the following addendum items that
Andrew Drake identified. My understanding, he was just giving his views
on that.

MR. WIESE: Okay. That is fine.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: And so he and other members when they vote, they
can have that for consideration, if it influences their vote one way or
the other.

You weren't making a motion were you, Don, I didn't hear it as a motion?

MR. STURSMA: No, my intent was, it sounded like we were looking at a
motion, basically, I am in favor of the rulemaking with some additional
comments. And I was basically adding a comment to what I hope you
mentioned \-- I am not quite procedurally how this is handled.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Oh, you wanted to add an amendment?

MR. STURSMA: No, I am not amending the motion. I thought it was
consistent where we were adding the rulemaking with comments. And if the
rulemaking was so specific, that an individual, that what I had said
would have to be in the form of an amendment to the motion, then I will
back up and think about how best to do that. But, I was making more of a
comment and when this rulemaking comes out, I hope certain things are a
little more clearly stated than what they were in the current rulemaking
or in the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.

MR. WIESE: So, we can take that as an informal, you know, advice from
our colleague. Okay.

And, Cheryl was saying that she has done this more times than I have and
I should defer to that judgment, that for the purposes of clarity for
the Committee, who has to vote on this.

Andy, I think I have it, but, I am sure you would be more elegant. Would
you mind repeating the motion that you put on the table, just we are
sure we have it for the record?

MR. DRAKE: I didn't write it down.

MR. WIESE: Okay.

MR. DRAKE: But, I can take a shot at it and for the record, I agree with
Don Stursma's point. I think that is prudent regulatory practice and an
obligation that we have technically in this forum. And I think that is
fair counsel to the DOT on this rulemaking and if we wanted to add that
to the preamble or to even this motion, I am agreeable to that. I don't
think that it is, I think that is diligent counsel to them in this
matter. And I think I heard the same thing in Mr. Kuprewicz's comments.

MR. WIESE: Okay.

MR. DRAKE: But, my motion was basically that we would accept under
Option 2, the Notice for Proposed Rulemaking and recommend that DOT move
forward with that, with the caveat that they consider to implement the
comments that Alan Mayberry has provided us in his presentation today,
that they consider the comments that they have received from a written
standpoint to date. And that they specifically consider the technical
discussions we have had on this telephone conference with regard to the
grandfathering issue, the macro etching issue, the coating temperature
issue and anomaly acceptance criteria review technical session or public
meeting on a separate channel. That the rulemaking would not actually be
slowed down or caveat on having that resolved, but, that a technical
meeting will be held to discuss that issue on a separate, bigger basis.

And if we want to incorporate Don's comment about, you know, trying to
continue to due diligence on the technical merits of the requirements as
technologies change and requirements are considered to be added, or
dropped for that matter, then I would be glad to add that as well.

MR. WIESE: Okay.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: All right. Members of the Committee, any other
comments with regard to the motion?

MR. MOHN: Andy, this is Jeryl Mohn, do you intend your motion to result
in the current section in the NPRM dealing with anomaly repairs to be
excluded from the final rule or rather clarified as or amended as
possible in the time, in the little time remaining?

MR. DRAKE: I think at this point, my proposal is that we accept that
anomaly repair criteria as it is written, pending a technical review of
anomaly acceptance criteria on a bigger basis. And pending that
technical outcome of that bigger basis, the IPM rules would be, and the
enforcement criteria around the IPM rules and the criteria here would be
modified. And that is really all I am proposing. I don't think we will
have time to sufficiently address the anomaly issue between now and this
NPRM would need to move forward.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you. Any other comments from the Committee
members?

All right. Hearing none, I would like to call the question and ask
Cheryl Whetsel to do a roll call, please, on the vote.

Roll Call for Vote

MS. WHETSEL: Okay, so we have a motion by Andy Drake and a second by Ted
Lemoff. And that is what we are voting on is the MAOP rule is
technically feasible, practicable and whatever else, and the draft reg
eval bill, and we are going to insert what Andy has suggested based on
what Alan's comments were made in his presentation. Is that good? All
right.

MR. WIESE: And the four issues that Andy identified.

MS. WHETSEL: Okay, and the four issues.

MR. WIESE: Right.

MS. WHETSEL: Okay. And that is in the record as we are taping this.

MR. WIESE: All right.

MS. WHETSEL: Okay. Lisa Edgar?

COMMISSIONER EDGAR: I vote in favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Lula Ford?

COMMISSIONER FORD: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Bob Keating?

COMMISSIONER KEATING: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Don Stursma?

MR. STURSMA: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Mike Comstock?

MR. COMSTOCK: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Andy Drake?

MR. DRAKE: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Jeryl Mohn?

MR. MOHN: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Jim Wunderlin?

MR. WUNDERLIN: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Peter Terranova?

MR. TERRANOVA: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Ted Lemoff?

MR. LEMOFF: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Paul Rothman?

MR. ROTHMAN: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: Alan Shuman?

MR. SHUMAN: In favor of the motion.

MS. WHETSEL: And I just want to clarify, nobody else from the Committee
has joined us. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Cheryl.

Well, gee, we have got forty-five more minutes.

MR. WIESE: We have plenty to talk about.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: We can leave early, right?

MR. WIESE: Nobody is going home early. We have other things, no, I am
kidding.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Okay. First of all, let me thank the members of
the Committee and the members of PHMSA for all the outstanding work they
did in preparation for this meeting and for the Committee members for
doing their work so well and listening so well and participating. And
let me turn this back over to Jeff Wiese for any concluding comments.

MR. WIESE: All right. Well, thank you very much, Commissioner Keating.
And I think you did a great job by way. I thought your first full
committee that you chaired for us, I think you did quite well. So, thank
you.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Well, thank you. I think there were a few
procedural issues I had to get under my belt, but, hopefully, as they
say, it is not six o'clock at night, so at least on the East Coast, so
we are doing well.

MR. WIESE: That is right. Well, we are a fairly informal lot.

I want to thank you anyway for your leadership there.

I want to take time, if I can, to recognize that Committee members, it
is a lot of your day to ask of you and I appreciate the fact that you
spent a lot of time looking at the materials and prepping for and you
can tell in some of the comments and discussions that we had.

You know, I appreciate your tolerance also for the idea of the
telephone. We will take your feedback individually. Don't hesitate to
talk to me or Cheryl any time, you know, about what works best for you
as a committee. I think we got what we needed today. I appreciate that.
We had a public discussion of these issues, which was very important.
But, I don't want to take them lightly.

So, if you don't feel that telephone conferences work for you on matters
like this, you know, please let us know. On things that we think will
require a lot of discussion, we would probably request a face to face
meeting.

So, I want to be respectful of your time as I can. I also want to thank
Alan Mayberry and Richard Sanders, who spent considerable time and
Cheryl as well for organizing the materials and getting things out to
you. So, my thanks to them and Jim Pate as well for being Counsel.

So, with that, and with thanks to all of you for your time this
afternoon, I would bide you farewell.

COMMISSIONER KEATING: Thank you, Jeff.

MR. WIESE: All right. Take care.

(Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

**[REPORTER\'S CERTIFICATE]{.underline}**

This is to certify that the attached proceedings before:

#  **DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

##  In the Matter of:

**PUBLIC MEETING OF PHMSA'S TECHNICAL**

**PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE**

**STANDARDS FOR INCREASING THE MAXIMUM**

**ALLOWABLE OPERATING PRESSURE FOR GAS**

**TRANSMISSION PIPELINES**

**PIPELINE SAFETY: POLYAMIDE-11 (PA-11)**

**PLASTIC PIPE DESIGN PRESSURES**

Were held as herein appears and that this is the original transcript
thereof for the file of the Department, Commission, Board,
Administrative Law Judge or the Agency.

Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any party to the above
proceedings.

### [Wendy Greene]{.underline}

Official Reporter

Dated: June 20, 2008