U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee

**COMMITTEE MEETING**

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

9:00 a.m.

Friday, December 12, 2008

[Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee]{.underline}

Drue Pearce

Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects

Federal Coordinator

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20240

The Honorable Lisa P. Edgar

Commissioner

Florida Public Utilities Commission

2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850

The Honorable W. Robert Keating

Massachusetts Public Service Commission

1 South Station

Boston, Massachusetts 02110

Berne L. Mosley

Director, Pipeline Certificates

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE, Room 6N-13

Washington, D.C. 20426

Donald J. Stursma

Iowa Utilities Board

350 Maple Street

Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0069

[Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee]{.underline}

Michael R. Comstock

Gas System Superintendent

City of Mesa, Arizona

640 N. Mesa Drive

Mesa, Arizona 85211-1466

J. Andrew Drake

Spectra Energy

Vice President of Engineering and Construction

5400 Westheimer Court

Houston, Texas 77056

Jeryl L. Mohn

Panhandle Energy

Senior Vice President, Operations and Engineering

5444 Westheimer Road

Houston, Texas 77056

James F. Wunderlin

Vice President, Engineering

Southwest Gas Corporation

5241 Spring Mountain Road

Las Vegas, Nevada 89105-0002

Peter G. Terranova

UGI Utilities, Incorporated

225 Morgantown Road

Reading, Pennsylvania 19611-1949

Dr. Richard E. Feigel

Vice President, Engineering

Hartford Steam Boiler

One State Street

Hartford, Connecticut 06102-5024

Theodore C. Lemoff

Senior Engineer

National Fire Protection Association

One Battery March Park

Quincy, Massachusetts 02269

Richard F. Povarski

Chief Executive Officer

Virginia Utility Protection Services, LLC

1829 Blue Hills Circle, NE

Roanoke, Virginia 24212

[Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee]{.underline}

Paul S. Rothman

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Engineering/Architecture Design Division

2 Gateway Center, 16^th^ Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Alan R. Shuman

Georgia State Fire Marshal

Insurance and Fire Safety Commissioner's Office

2 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive, Suite 620

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

A G E N D A

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

Welcome 5

Jeff Wiese, Executive Director

Call to Order 8

Committee Chair

Committee and Staff Introductions 9

Agenda Item 1: 11

VOTE-BRIEFING: PHMSA will brief members on

The DIMP Rule

Mike Israni

Committee Discussion, Public Discussion 62

Call for Motion 90

Committee Chair

Roll Call for Vote 91

Cheryl Whetsel

Wrap-Up and Adjourn 93

Jeff Wiese, Executive Director

P R O C E E D I N G S

9:05 a.m.

[Welcome]{.underline}

MR. WIESE: Good morning, everyone. Did everyone have a good time last
night? Thank you very much, for those of you who stuck around for the
reception.

I wanted to, first of all, welcome you back and appreciate very much,
particularly the Gas Committee's willingness to stick around for a
second day of debate.

(Deleted Personal Discussion)

Today, it's my hope that we're here to have a far more expedient and far
less controversial meeting than yesterday. There are a couple of new
people in the crowd and they're saying they're not sure they want to
come to these meetings anymore and to that, I say, you know, I think it
was a very good meeting. You know, I think we were able to work through
our differences which is the whole point of having an advisory
committee, you know.

All of you are smart people. You're all seasoned. To have your advice go
into the rule and make sure that it's reflected when we come out, that
will make sure that we have a more rational rulemaking, and I think
that's the objective of an advisory committee. So again my thank you to
all of you for that.

It's my hope, as you'll see when Mike gets into his presentation, that
the Distribution Integrity rulemaking will be far less controversial,
unless my friend from Arizona has a motion he wants to float out early,
\--

MR. COMSTOCK: You've already given it to me.

MR. WIESE: They all caught me last night

MR. COMSTOCK: No, sir, Mr. Wiese. I'm ready to go forward today.

MR. WIESE: Oh, you are. Oh, I thought you had a motion. That was a good
one.

MR. COMSTOCK: No. I only get beat up once in a week.

MR. WIESE: Well, any rate, again I appreciate all your help yesterday. I
think that helped a lot. I think we'll have a much better rulemaking as
a result, but with DIMP we've been working this for a number of years,
as you'll find out from Mike, and with all of your help, I think we
really \-- the core of the rule is really pretty solid and I think
there's very little debate about it.

There's a few things on the fringes and that's what we're here to get
your input on. So with that, and no further ado, the person most likely
to pick up my cold, Bob Keating.

HON. KEATING: I'll try not to be as gracious as you and share. How's
that? Hopefully I won't.

[Call to Order]{.underline}

HON. KEATING: Good morning, everybody. Before we go around the room and
just do the introductions, even though I think everybody knows people,
we ought to do it for the record, I just want to share with you you're
fortunate that your transmission and your distribution lines are
underground.

For those of you who are not aware, New England got hit with quite an
ice storm and my little Blackberry has been buzzing. (Deleted Personal
Discussion)

So anyway, with out further ado, Don, why don't we just start with you
and just go around for the record and remember the same rules apply.
When we speak, identify yourself for our court reporter.

[Committee and Staff Introductions]{.underline}

MR. STURSMA: Don Stursma with the Iowa Utilities Board, Government
representative.

MR. LEMOFF: Ted Lemoff, National Fire Protection Association,
representing the Public.

MR. ROTHMAN: Paul Rothman with the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, Public member.

MR. DRAKE: Andy Drake with Spectra Energy, Industry member.

MR. POVARSKI: Rick Pevarski, Virginia One-Call, representing the Public.

MR. MOSLEY: Berne Mosley, Director of Pipeline Certificates, FERC.

MR. SHUMAN: Alan Shuman, Georgia State Fire Marshal, Public.

MR. WIESE: Jeff Wiese, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety at
DOT.

MR. GUTE: Bill Gute, Deputy Associate Administrator, PHMSA, DOT.

MR. ISRANI: Mike Israni, Senior Technical Advisor and Manager of
National Standards at PHMSA.

MR. HUSTON: Roger Huston, Cycla Corporation, support for PHMSA.

MR. SATTERHWAITE: Cameron Satterhwaite, PHSMA, Regulations.

MR. GALE: John Gale, PHMSA, Office of Regulations.

MR. TERRANOVA: Pete Terranova, UGI Utilities, representing the Industry.

MR. WUNDERLIN: Jim Wunderlin, Southwest Gas, Industry.

MS. PEARCE: Drue Pearce, Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas
Pipelines, Government.

DR. FEIGEL: Gene Feigel, Hartford Steam Boiler, Public Sector.

MR. COMSTOCK: Mike Comstock, City of Mesa, Arizona, representing
American Public Gas Association.

HON. KEATING: Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the 9:45 a.m.
item. This is a voting item and we are going to have Vote-Briefing on
this.

As you can tell from your agenda and from what's on the board, this is
the Distribution Integrity Management Program Issue or the so-called
DIMP Program, and this morning we welcome and fortunate to have with us
Mike Israni who's going to speak to the speak.

Mike?

[Agenda Item 1:]{.underline}

[Vote-Briefing: PHMSA Will Brief Members on the DIMP]{.underline}

MR. ISRANI: Thank you, Bob, and good morning, all. I hope you all have
booked early flights because we'll be done soon.

Okay. Let me begin by showing you where the DIMP NPRM applies. This is a
diagram that shows the layout of the national gas industry from the
source to the consumers and this proposal applies to gas distribution
pipeline right from the city gas station, that's here, to the consumers.

Now, we had already applied the gas IMP to the transmission lines from
the processing to the city gas station. Those are transmission lines
here. These are gathering lines. So now this rule will apply from the
city gas station down to the consumers.

Although the Inspection, Enforcement and Protection Act of 2006, what we
call PIPES Act, includes provisions for the DIMP, but the work on the
DIMP started a couple of years ago. We, in fact, started forming the
groups, stakeholder groups way back in 2005. We had a steering committee
as well as a number of workgroups who worked jointly. This was an
enterprise approach. We had all the stakeholders to come up with some
kind of conclusions, some kind of findings for the DIMP rule and our
DIMP proposal is based on the work of those groups. They had the report
prepared which is in the docket as a Phase I report.

There were a few additional provisions that we added after that but most
of the rule is from the Phase I report. We published the NPRM on June
25^th^. The comment period ended on October 23^rd^, and today is the
vote for your advisory committee.

We expect to finish the final rule and send it over to DOT's Secretary's
Office by March and \-- 2009. I'm sorry. These numbers should have been
changed. 2009, and the final rule to OMB by Summer 2009, and we think we
can publish by August of 2009.

Now, DIMP rule is based on the risk-based principles. This has written
plan and the seven elements which are required of all the operators, but
we have made distinction between large operators, meaning LVCs and
munis, and the master meter and propane operators.

Some of the requirements are less restrictive for master meters and
propane operators. We have currently in Part 192 regulations, also, we
treat them differently. So as you can see from this chart that the
written plan for the master meters and propane operators is a very
simple checklist which we prepare and put in the docket as a guidance
and completing the checklist would actually be the written plan for the
small operators. For the larger operators, we'd like to have a written
plan with all these elements the way we are specified and to fill in the
data, populated with their data.

Elements are knowing the system, you know, knowledge of the
infrastructure of their system, identifying threats, analyzing risks in
their system, mitigating risks, and performance measures. These are the
elements, similar to what we use in the Gas Integrity Management rule,
Gas Transmission rule.

Now, there have been some comments on why certain requirements are less
restrictive. For example, some people objected to having identifying
threats, you know, for master meter operators and propane operators to
be less restrictive because sometimes they could have more than one
threat that we should consider those to be also ranked or prioritized,
and also there was some comments about excess flow valve requirement
should also apply to all the operators, including master meters and
propane operators, and if they are very small operators, they may not
have to meet excess flow valve requirement because their pressures may
be low and may not have to require it.

Propane operators, some of the propane operators which have their tanks
more than 2,000 gallon tanks, will have an already built-in excess flow
valve in their tanks.

As I mentioned that we prepare this proposal based on the Phase I report
which are the work of all the stakeholders groups, but there was some
additional issues that were added later on and these are the ones I have
listed here. I've shown you. These are the items which were included in
the parentheses.

It's the section of the rule where these were added. For example, the
plastic pipe failure reporting was required under the proposal. We also
\-- and when we say plastic pipe failure reporting, we mean the plastic
pipe failure of the material, not excavation damage, also. This was
mainly the work that is being currently conducted by PPDC, Plastic Pipe
Data Committee, at the AGA, and which has members from all stakeholders.

They do have members \-- I won't say all stakeholders. They have AGA
membership. They have PHMSA members. They have state members. They have
NTSB in their committee, and they have been collecting this data and we
felt that information was not readily available to small operators who
may have more need for this information and also we wanted broader
communication of the PPDC, so we may put this requirement of reporting
plastic pipe in our proposal.

There were lots of comments on that and I'll go through these. In fact,
the majority of the comments we received were on these four issues that
were added after the Phase I report.

The second thing was allowing the alternate time intervals for certain
requirements currently in Part 192. What I mean here is currently in
Part 192, we have this patrolling inspections and number of other \--
leak detection on a periodic basis.

Under this proposal, we're allowing operators to deviate from those
intervals or use \-- focus on the areas where they need to concentrate
more and enhance their inspections in those areas and other areas of the
pipeline they can reduce the inspections, but this was subject to state
jurisdiction and they also had to produce some engineering analysis to
qualify for that.

Next item that we added was compression coupling failures. This
compression coupling issue, recent events have raised some concern
because of the compression couplings failing due to number of reasons
and we are trying to find the root cause of that failure. That's why we
wanted those also to be considered under the threat analysis and also to
be reported.

Finally, we also added new initiative. We call it PTP component which is
a Prevention Through People or Performance Through People and I'll
briefly explain you all of these.

Why we added the alternate time intervals? Because, as I mentioned, that
currently we have time different intervals for cathodic protection
testing, rectify inspection, et. cetera, and there are 1.8 million miles
of distribution lines and we feel these same requirements for entire
pipeline may not be, you know, too much \-- it won't give us a safety
benefit. Then if we were to focus only on the areas which have more risk
and increase inspections in those areas and allowing the resources to be
shifted from the areas where they have regular intervals, they can
reduce based on the analysis.

This is a cut-away of a dresser coupling. Now, this is a typical
compression coupling issue that has been raised. If you notice here,
this particular example we picked where you have a plastic pipe on one
side and metal pipe on the other side, failures \-- there could be a
number of reasons for the failure of these couplings, but the ones that
we know so far are where there's an inadequate restraint on these pipes.

For example, you know, if not properly torqued when it is connected to
the piping, one side is plastic, the other side is metal, so the grip
may not be good at these places, depending on how the installation was
done, that's one issue.

Secondly, elastometers which, you know, the seals that go here at these
points between the coupling and the pipe, those elastometers over the
years, they wear down and we found some cases where our data shows in
some cases they have \-- elastometers have failed.

And thirdly, you know, some of these things may be improperly installed
or may have even corrosion on these couplings and the couplings are
totally rotted here and they start leaking, but these are the three
typical examples that we know. There could be other causes of the
failure of these couplings.

Texas State, as you know, recently made it mandatory to replace all
these compression couplings in the distribution systems. So to avoid
having mandatory replacement of these pipelines, we want to collect
data. We want to analyze data. We want to see the root cause analysis.
That's why this requirement was put in the rule, in the proposal.

Let me briefly explain to you what is this PTP Initiative is. We believe
that under the Integrity Management Program, as a holistic \-- I'm using
Stacey's term, "holistic umbrella," you know, we have different
integrity management rules, like Gas Transmission rule, Hazardous Liquid
rule, and Gas Distribution, and they all fall under this one program.
They all have their \-- and each and every of this program has three
components. It has pipeline, it has processes, and it has people
component.

We believe that these all three components are inter-related and we
believe that they play the role in every integrity management program.
So that's why we introduced this people factor in this proposal.

Pipeline and processes are defined pretty well already in the
regulation. All we wanted was in this proposal was to operators to have
in the written plan these different programs that fall under the people
component put together, but we were not very clear on exactly whatever
motive was and what kind of value it was adding to the programs. So
almost unanimously everybody commented against removing this concept
that we introduced.

Now I'll go to all the comments that we have received on the DIMP. There
was just a brief of what the proposed rule had requirements, what are
the major issues that have been raised.

We received a total of a 144 comment letters. There were 12
associations, 44 LDCs, 15 states had their individual comments, besides
their NAPSR, and 62 munis had comments on this.

The majority of the commenters commended PHMSA for developing the
Integrity Management rule, DIMP rule, and the enterprise approach. As I
mentioned earlier, that we had all the stakeholders groups who developed
these findings and the rule is based on the findings of that.

So the majority commended PHMSA for that work, but they had some
comments on the provisions of the rule. There are certain things in the
rule, that they thought it wasn't going to add value or were going to
put too much burden on the operator without the full benefit of it.

Let's go through those comments that we have here, and these comments
are pretty much arranged in the order of the way we received maximum
number of \-- you know, maximum pages of comments on these different
issues of comments.

Documentation and recordkeeping had the highest number of comments.
Practically everybody had some issues with the way we had worded in the
documentation. There were certain things in the documentation. We wanted
all kind of decisions that operators make and for each and every
element. So there were issues with that kind of recording of all of
those factors in the process which is going to add too much burdensome.

We wanted them to even record how \-- what kind of processes they used,
the processes, what they used and what processes within the processes.
So it was people were burdened that they indicated, you know, it should
not be in the rule.

Reporting of plastic pipe failures. We had a number of comments which
say that PPDC is doing a fine job. Instead of doing through this
individually like this, I would like to show you the chart like we had
yesterday, just like we did for the Control Room Management. So this
will be better to understand.

Roger, can you put this on a full screen or that's the only way you can?
Okay. That's better. Yeah.

Some of your comments. This chart, we sent you and it's in your folder
here. We have broken them down into the issue category and what primary
comments were, what options to address these comments and what some
viable options, most viable option that we have, and this, we thought,
would be the easiest way for the committee members to understand the
comments and see what to vote on.

Burdensome documentation requirements. As you can see, the primary
comments were that all documents and all decisions which they feel is
unnecessary burden, delete most of the documentation requirements,
except for written IM Program. There were comments on limiting it to
only 10 years. There were comments on the procedures and processes that
we have and the wordsmithing of this, you know, the limits requiring
procedures to those which reasonably describe the process.

In fact, some commented that we should not even use the term of
documenting the processes. So the options that we considered was to
limit the documentation requirements to only 1005 and 1007. 1005 is
where we have the written plan requirement which is mandatory for
everybody and that plan, they all have to keep anyway. 1007 is where
they have all the elements are described.

So one option is to kind of limit these documentation requirements to
only these two that have a plan and have all the elements described in
those. The second option is we had a separate section, 1015, which gave
the whole listing of all the documents that operators are supposed to
keep. The suggestion was that we should greatly reduce that and focus on
the wording also in this, also to clarify the requirements of this
record of all the past written integrity programs and even superseded
plans.

So we considered \-- we think the most viable option would be all of
these three, meaning we limit the requirements to plan and the elements
within the plan the operator's supposed to keep. All the other factors
which are in 1015 of the rule, meaning, you know, all the decisions and
processes and everything to remove and just focus on the wording, so
that we are very clear on what operator's supposed to keep, and also to
\-- we believe the operator should keep the superseded plans because in
the initial stages, at least the first few years, operators will be
revising this plan quite frequently. So we think that they, at least for
a 10-yearb period or so, they should keep the older versions of the
plan, as well, or even longer, you know, if operators feel that they
need to keep because of changes in the \-- if the company gets sold, the
operator wants to know, or sometimes the employees of the company want
to know.

But this is the decision you guys have to make. Our current most viable
options are A, B, C.

The second comment. We're also prepared for your convenience to show you
how the rule language currently says and how it will appear on the \--
if we were to make these A, B, C options, but I want to make absolutely
clear that the language of what we propose here, those are just a sample
language and we do not want to hold that as a binding, that that be the
exact wording in the final rule because when it goes through the
process, goes through counsel, attorneys, they may feel a certain word
is problematic and they may change those words, but we like to be \-- at
least the intent, we want to keep the same.

Roger, is there a way to show burdensome requirements, so we can go
further on this documentation?

Okay. This is an area, you can see currently under 192.1015, all of
these were the documentation requirements in the proposed rule and if we
go over the most viable option, we'll eliminate all of those
requirements and just have this kind of wording.

So, you know, very simple way of telling you to keep the plans and all
the elements and all these other things, we do not have to kind of
mention in 1015.

HON. KEATING: Mike, excuse me. Bob Keating. Is there a sense of the
committee that they would like to respond, since we've got the details
here? I know on our agenda, we have discussion later, but if there's \--
since this is put before you right now, does anybody have a comment or
concern with regard to the proposed changes?

MR. WUNDERLIN: Jim Wunderlin. I don't have a comment on this one in
particular, but as far as process, I think if we can see the language as
we go through, we may have, you know, a comment on some future slides.

HON. KEATING: Okay. Fine. That's what we'll do then. We'll take a break
whenever I see people start to nod off.

MR. STURSMA: Mike, you switched \-- Don Stursma. Mike, you switched away
from a PowerPoint presentation going through some of it, and it looked
like you had some explanatory material in there that could be relevant
to when we look at what you're showing now.

Are you going to kind of bounce back between the two, so we don't leave,
or should we finish one before we go to the other?

MR. ISRANI: We can bounce back and forth and, you know, just so you
first get an idea of where changes are and then if, you know, \-- when
you see any of those nine issues where you have some issues with the
language, we can bring that back and, you know, play on the wordsmithing
on that.

MR. STURSMA: Because it would be my preference that we make copies as we
go through \-- comments, comments as we go through what we're doing, but
I want to make sure that there's not some other information we won't get
to if we make our comments here.

MR. ISRANI: No. The ones that I'm showing here are kind of like what we
think is the most viable option and as I mentioned earlier, also, that,
you know, the exact wording that we have here may change when it goes
through the PHMSA process, but, you know, the intent would be the same.

HON. KEATING: Just so people understand, what I think we will be doing,
based on both Jim and you, is as we go \-- since Mike is going to go
through \-- he presented it this way, if there's specific things that it
makes sense to discuss it, let's present it and put it before us, we'll
do it.

Certainly at the end of the discussion, if there are general comments on
issues that may not have been directly put before us, we will obviously
welcome and have discussion on those issues, also.

MR. ISRANI: Thank you.

HON. KEATING: So we'll hopefully cover everything.

MR. ISRANI: Right. Yeah. We can go back to individual comments, if you
have some issues again.

So, Roger, can we go back to that Summary chart? Okay.

The second item, as you see, reporting plastic pipe failures. Here, the
primary comments were that they were burdened with no associated value
for reporting of plastic pipe and that PPDC, although they're doing an
excellent job developing and communicating insights and PPDC is
expanding access to evaluating meetings, a new system would lose years
of failure data.

Here, what they're saying is that if you start a new system, like PHMSA
was to again collect this data, we'll lose years of experience that PPDC
has and we'll have to wait many years before we can have good data to
analyze and that NAPSR noted that there's no documented statement for
the need of this for reporting plastic pipe in lieu of information going
to PPDC and they also said, you know, the quality assurance and quality
control issues will be there in the new system and just like when you
start a new system, until you have enough data populated, you have
enough information, we may have issues.

These are the comments we received on this plastic pipe reporting, and
so here are the number of options we have. We could delete this
requirement. We could continue to rely on PPDC. We could have all these,
A through E. Incidentally, in your folder you may have noticed that this
F wasn't there. This was erroneously placed here in the third issue
which didn't belong there. So I moved it this morning to this second
one.

So A through E, we think is appropriate. What are these different
options we have, the most viable options, meaning we delete plastic pipe
reporting requirements. We continue to rely on PPDC. We seek to modify
PPDC make-up or their mission, promote broad communication of PPDC
lessons learned and reporting of their compression coupling failures we
should retain.

I mentioned that even if you remove plastic pipe failures, we still like
to retain compression coupling failures reporting requirement. If you do
not do that, you know, we have an NTSB recommendation coming up on this
compression coupling failure and having that in the DIMP rule already
would pretty much answer what NTSB's recommendation is. So we plan to
retain this requirement, compression coupling failure reporting.

There was some comments on not reporting as frequently as we had
proposed. We had proposed within 90 days, but we are now considering
reporting annually these compression coupling failures.

Requiring that operators report PPDC as like a mandatory requirement and
once reported, the regulation, it may have some issues, you know.
Lawyers can probably debate that better than I can on that we cannot
make it mandatory for PPDC to receive, you know, all this information
directly from the operators.

Currently, PPDC has voluntary, you know, \-- operators are voluntarily
supplying information to PPDC.

HON. KEATING: Mike?

MR. ISRANI: Yes, sir?

MR. COMSTOCK: Mike Comstock from APGA. On Item E, we've had a lot of
discussion about what a failure would be in a compression coupling,
whether it was a seeping leak or whether it was a total pull-out or that
type of application. So I think, as we discuss this, it would be
important for us to understand what failure means in these terms because
I think there's a wide range in variance in there where we would have to
understand where that process is.

MR. ISRANI: Yeah. As you see this slide here, this shows how the
language of this section would change from reporting on plastic pipe,
we'll just retain the reporting on compression coupling failures, and
here we indicate that, you know, to be done annually with the rule, and
Mike's comment is well taken.

You know, we have done this in the past. We intend to put in the
reporting form that, you know, these failures \-- that operators do not
have to send leaky couplings which can be tightened, you know, obviously
can be \-- that could be during installation, there was an error or
during the operation and maintenance time, they will tighten that
coupling.

So only ones which are failures of those, not just the leak which can be
easily fixed. They don't have to report those tightening of the nuts on
either side. So, Mike, would that satisfy, you know, if we were to put
that in the reporting form?

MR. COMSTOCK: Mike Comstock, APGA. Yes, I think that's adequate.

MR. ISRANI: Okay.

MR. COMSTOCK: If we're using leak repair definitions, I think that's \--
we're happy with that.

MR. ISRANI: Okay. Very good.

HON. KEATING: Don?

MR. STURSMA: The only problem I have with what you're proposing is if
you make it part of the annual report, you know, if you're going to have
meaningful data on compression coupling failures, you're going to need,
you know, make, model, year of installation and I don't know what other
list of information you really need to do anything with the data and
pretty soon you're starting to get to a, you know, level of content and
a volume that I wonder if it's really appropriate for an annual report,
whether some sort of separate report might be more appropriate where you
can, you know, reasonably ask for a higher level of detail.

I guess I'd appreciate your thoughts on how you decided on the annual
report.

MR. ISRANI: It's a good point. We are trying to gather data at this
stage to see the root cause of these couplings and to determine the root
cause, we need to have some explanation on what kind of failures caused
it. It's not kind of totally firm that we may require in the final rule.
You know, the way it's worded here, we might some more words on what
information we need in the annual report. We can have that in the
instructions of the reporting form, that coupling failures, what kind of
information they provide that can help us collect the data.

So, Don, do you think that's a good way to do it?

MR. STURSMA: I guess I'd have to see it to see what you're doing. You
know, I don't have a problem with what you're doing. I just wonder if
you're going to end up with, you know, here's an annual report of, what
are they, several pages accompanied by two inches of back-up material on
compression couplings for, you know, depending on how much data you ask
for, and I just don't know if that's \-- if the annual report is really
an appropriate venue for that type of submission.

Again, I'm not having any heartburn over the fact that you want this
information on annual basis. I'm just asking for an explanation of the
delivery method you selected.

HON. KEATING: Jim?

MR. WUNDERLIN: Jim Wunderlin. It might be helpful, and Don brings up a
good point, but my understanding is over the next couple months there
will be a team of stakeholders, I guess industry, states, et. cetera,
working on the \-- potentially working on the annual report and I think
this group of people can help define, you know, what the requirements
are to capture this sort of data.

So I think we can solve this going forward with this group of people.

MR. ISRANI: Thank you, Jim.

HON. KEATING: So is the sense of the committee that the language we see
up there, given the other discussions and the guidance that we're giving
to Mike, is acceptable on moving forward? Okay. Thank you.

MR. ISRANI: Okay. On the compression coupling, you know, when the team
\-- you know, when we decided to put in the annual report, the
instructions were clearly indicating all things, what needs to be \--
you know, when the group decides because we also want to make sure that
the operators are not making errors in installing these. So we'll need
the information if there's an installation issue, elastomer issue, or
it's corrosion on the coupling or it's kind of like a tightening on
these couplings, grip issue with the plastic on the \-- plastic and
metal on the other side.

So yes, we could have that as a discussion separately. This won't be a
rulemaking. This will be more of an annual report discussion, so that
can be done, but as far as rule is concerned, we just wanted that
report. Thank you.

The next item is the Performance Through People. This issue, as I
mentioned earlier, what our intent was, you know, for introducing this
new initiative, as we mentioned, you know, that we feel that pipeline
processes and people, all three, are inter-related and that's why we put
in the rule.

Well, these are the comments we received. Most commenters feel that this
is not going to add much other value to the rulemaking and that other
rules, like OQ, you know, drug-alcohol rule, damage prevention
requirements, even the control room management, which has fatigue and
all those other issues, they are going to pretty much cover Performance
Through People and as far as Distribution IMP is concerned, it's a very
small component because operating error in the distribution system from
the data of all the failures we have had is a very small component,
negligible.

So the majority of them feel that this DIMP is not right place to
introduce this. So the option is to delete this requirement and that's
what we think is one of the most viable options, but I want committee to
give their recommendation on this.

So if anybody \-- yeah. Go ahead.

MR. WUNDERLIN: Jim Wunderlin. I agree to delete the section.

MR. COMSTOCK: Mike Comstock. I agree with Mike to delete the section.

MR. ISRANI: These are the slides which show the areas where we had
introduced this Prevention Through People/Performance Through People,
different sections of the proposed rule, and striked-out version shows,
you know, all of those things that come out from the rules.

This one is how to address those risks. This is where we had the PTP
requirements and that would come out and, finally, there was another
section of the proposed rule where this is going to come out.

HON. KEATING: Mike, could you just, at least for me and maybe other
members of the committee, identify the numbers, like 192 section, for
these two?

MR. ISRANI: Yeah. So the first one, identifying thread, is under
192.1007(b) and the next one is 192.1007(d), D as in David, and, lastly,
in the same 192.1007(f).

HON. KEATING: Thank you.

MR. ISRANI: So it's all in the same section but, you know, different
paragraphs.

HON. KEATING: I know you have this down but \--

MR. ISRANI: It's hard to look in the rulemaking. That's why we try to
put numbers there.

Okay. Fourth issue \--

HON. KEATING: Mike?

MR. COMSTOCK: I'm sorry. Mike Comstock, APGA. Could we go back to the
last slide on Periodic Evaluations? The first line, last word
"continually." That implies to us that that means it's a 24-hour/7
operation. Maybe it should read periodic rather than continually.

MR. ISRANI: Oh, yeah. Okay. You're commenting on this particular wording
there? Yeah.

MR. COMSTOCK: Yes, sir. That's the caption of the \--

MR. ISRANI: Yeah. Well, this wasn't part of the PTP, but, you know, we
\-- I was going to come to some of these later on but that's fine. Well,
we use the term "continually" evaluating threats as like, you know, it's
not like every day, every part of the week. It's like on a regular
basis, you know, that they are doing this. Periodic evaluation is our
main goal, you know, what we \-- they should not just take a break and
not look at threats in the system.

MR. COMSTOCK: Thank you for that consideration.

HON. KEATING: Could we just stay on that for a minute? I just want to
\-- and it's just stylistic probably more than anything else, if you
could go back to that last slide.

Where the title is Periodic Evaluation and Improvement, do you need
either the word "continually" or "periodically?" An operator must
re-evaluate and then \-- or does that leave it too value? It's just a
comment, it's not \-- you know, whatever the sense of the committee is
is fine with me. Just the fact of the heading, the heading is Periodic
Evaluation and Improvement.

MR. ISRANI: Well, we had in our other Integrity Management rule
submitted language. The idea was that operators on \-- looking at these
issues on a continual basis but we wanted to kind of clarify that that
doesn't mean every hour of the day, you know, every day of the week,
but, you know, on a periodic basis, but if the committee recommends that
we should not even put that term, I think we can live with it. Let's see
what other members say on this.

HON. KEATING: Drue?

MS. PEARCE: Thank you. Drue Pearce, Federal Coordinator. The first two
deletions I'm comfortable with. This one I'm less comfortable with and I
wonder if somebody can explain why this would be so onerous.

MR. ISRANI: You mean that one which is in the blue lines, why we striked
all those?

Well, one of the things that we noticed in this rule was the current
requirements that operators have, they are going to go through their
periodic evaluation of their problems, you know, as I said, the piping
and the processes issues.

As far as human error or other integrity performance, those are already
covered in the OQ rule, these requirements, Operator Qualifications
rulemaking. So we did not want to duplicate that effort here. We did not
want to indicate to the operators that this is some additional effort
that they had to put.

That OQ, which is very generic, which requires for everything, will also
apply here. So that was the reason why we felt that it should be removed
from here.

Do you see any problem if we were to remove this?

MS. PEARCE: Well, obviously there was a concern about individual
performance on PHMSA's part, as you wrote the rule, and I'm just
wondering if it makes sense to also delete the part where you would
tease out that particular question, but if you're comfortable that it's
already being covered adequately, fine.

MR. ISRANI: I guess this reason we are to remove here also was because
in other sections where we are addressing individual performance, we had
removed those. So this would have just stuck out out of no where, you
know, and if you were to remove this PTP Initiative, we had to remove
other people component which is addressed in the OQ and other rules
separately and not specify, you know, here fully.

Our goal in the DIMP originally was to write down very high-level
regulation and have the GPTC guidance give lot more detail. It cannot
\-- became little more specific requirements when we added these
additional initiatives in that. So we want to back out from that and
make it more generic, you know, rulemaking, more performance-oriented
rulemaking, and have the guidance give lot more detail on this.

We will consider your comment and relook at that, you know, when we do
the final rule.

So as I mentioned earlier, we are not committed to each and every
wording that we see here. We'll consider all your concerns and issues
and, you know, we'll take your advice and consider that when we do the
final rule.

MR. TERRANOVA: Pete Terranova. Just a clarifying question. I'm not sure
what is meant by we'll relook at that when we do the final rule.

I was thinking that we were doing the same thing we did yesterday which
was kind of get a sense of this group as to whether that language was
okay. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but I'm a little bit uncomfortable with
the notion that, you know, there's some next step that's going to be
taken that would completely change what we're seeing here today.

MR. ISRANI: Well, as I mentioned earlier, there were some of the words
and the language that we're using here, you know, it may slightly change
as it goes through the process because it goes through over PHMSA, over
Counsel's Office, General Counsel's Office at OSD, and, you know, so the
exact wording wouldn't be the same, but our intent would be the same.

We won't add any new requirements or delete some of the requirements,
but we want to kind of see how attorneys look at the language and feel
that that is appropriate. That's what I meant, you know. So that when I
say that we won't consider some of these things, it's like advice came
on certain issues that we retained, that others feel we can take it out.
We can weigh in and see, you know, which is appropriate.

But overall, it's not going to add anything in the rulemaking,
additional burden on the operator.

HON. KEATING: Jeff?

MR. WIESE: Pete, I wonder if could respond to that?

I think we are trying to do pretty much what we did yesterday. You know,
what Mike's saying is that there are sometimes variables beyond our
control, but when we walk in to this with a strong sense of the
committee on how it should be, I think you can walk away with some
comfort on that. I mean, Mike just said, you know, there's not 100
percent assurance that someone somewhere beyond us can't weigh in in a
way that we can't evaluate it, but we would use the committee's guidance
and sense to say we struck, you know, a consensus with our stakeholders.

So, you know, the chairman and I were just chatting about, you know,
we're getting down to where I could really use Stacey because she was an
English major, you know. We're saying periodic evaluation improvement
and we're arguing about whether to put periodic in it. It seems to me
that's in the header. I mean, it's a given, but I personally don't care.
I would just say we should get a sense of the committee and move on
because it's not a major issue since it's defined within the title of
this subsection.

HON. KEATING: And since I kind of added \-- technically, I don't have
any problems with this. I was looking at it and it's foolish for an
engineer to look at it grammatically, but where we have the title and
where \-- I mean, I would \-- sometimes less is more and less is less. I
would have just said an operator must re-evaluate because the next
sentence says each operator must determine the appropriate period.

So I would just say looking at it in that context but whatever you
ladies and gentlemen want is fine with me. Pete?

MR. TERRANOVA: Yes, Pete Terranova. I guess in that case, I would like
to support the changes that you've made to remove the Prevention Through
People language from all three of these sections because, as you said,
it creates confusion on the part of operators as to how these
requirements mesh with operator qualification and so if we felt that
there was some weakness in the Operator Qualification rules, I would
suggest that that's where we address them but not here.

Thank you.

MR. ISRANI: Thank you. Can we go back to the chart, please?

Issue Number 4. We have just nine issues, so we are moving along pretty
good. Low Stress. Yeah. Issue Number 4. We received some comments from
some of the commenters. Some of the operators felt that those who had
the small portions of transmission lines which are low stress, meaning
operating below 30 percent SMYS, and they also had distribution lines
which are below 20 percent SMYS but they end up doing two different
plans, even though they may have a very small portion of transmission
line, so the request was if they could have one plan and one integrity
management plan for their small portion of transmission line as well as
DIMP, you know. They can fold it all into the Distribution Integrity
Management Program.

This suggestion had come earlier. In fact, when we were doing the Gas
Transmission rulemaking, there was a suggestion for pipeline below 30
percent SMYS to be separated and kept under Distribution IMP to have one
plan and now with the DIMP this same comment has come back.

Unfortunately, this was not proposed in our NPRM and so this is beyond
the scope of NPRM to make that change now. We cannot address. This
certainly is one issue that we want to look at. We would take this issue
up separately from the DIMP and we feel also that it may be too much
burdensome for operators with small portion of transmission line to have
different plan, but we have to study that because certain issues that
come to mind right now are low stress transmission lines, we're talking
about lines below 30 percent SMYS, and distribution lines, we're talking
about lines below 20 percent SMYS.

So there's a range of this 20 percent SMYS and 30 percent SMYS where
it's a gray area where we could shift from ruptures to leaks. Below 20
percent, you know, some studies have shown that we have pretty much
always had the leak before rupture \-- we'll have a leak. We won't have
a rupture, but above 30 percent was always ruptured. These are Kiefner's
studies which show, but 20 to 30 percent range we were not sure. In
fact, Kiefner's study also showed they were not very firm on whether
they be leak or rupture.

So since this is an issue which has to be addressed separately, we do
not want to cover under DIMP rule. So we think that, you know, this is
beyond the scope. We'll address it separately.

If there are no other comments on that Issue 4, we'll go to Issue Number
5.

There were quite a few comments on the definition of damage that we had
in the proposal. States as well as some other members from the industry
felt that we should define excavation damage and not damage in the
rulemaking since mostly we are addressing the excavation damage issue in
the DIMP and we had originally thought of putting excavation damage, we
put damage separate definition because it's also addressed under outside
force damage and we felt that we wanted to define what damage is, but
subsequently, we seem to think that we could consider just defining
excavation damage and not have a separate definition for damage. It may
contradict with the damage definition that we have currently in the
incident report.

So we are considering defining excavation damage and we are considering
defining the excavation damage using the DIRT definition. DIRT, as you
know, is the Damage Information Reporting Tool, which has a definition
for excavation damage. However, we recognize that DIRT definition is
pretty broad. It applies to facilities beyond pipelines. So this is \--
if you see in this slide, this is a definition we have picked from DIRT
for the excavation damage.

I know some of you have issues with the wording that we are considering
in this slide.

MR. LEMOFF: Mike, Ted Lemoff. Mike, just a question. On the definition,
would this change mean you would define excavation damage and not
damage?

MR. ISRANI: That is correct.

MR. LEMOFF: And so the rule would apply only to excavation damage and
not, let's say, damage to aboveground portions?

MR. ISRANI: Well, in the areas where this is \-- you know, it would be
very useful for us when they are having the reporting requirements and
where we are defining, you know, \-- throughout the rulemaking, we have
\-- in the performance measures, one area where we \-- this will be
really scrutinized on exactly what they report.

Damage, outside force damage which will be for your facilities
aboveground, that is already in the rules, explaining, you know, all the
different ways that could happen, you know, including atmospheric
corrosion or vehicular damage, everything.

So, you know, it's kinda \-- there, you have pretty straightforward
definition of, you know, the \-- which results into leak and rupture.
For excavation damage, it's very hard to pick up both the leak as well
as potential leak and so that's where we thought it would be appropriate
to pick up the definition from somebody which is being used on a large
scale which is in the DIRT definition.

MR. LEMOFF: Ted Lemoff. Mike, the reason I ask is because, I mean, it
may be a minor point, but there is some propane systems that would come
under this rule which are totally aboveground. For example, an apartment
building. So I'm just trying to understand.

Then you're saying that the existing damage requirements would still
apply. There's nothing new here.

MR. ISRANI: That's exactly right, because currently damage definition is
in the Incident Report Form and that stays.

MR. LEMOFF: Perfect.

MR. STURSMA: Mike, there's \-- even though I like the DIMP definition or
through the DIRT definition, I think it's a great improvement, there's
one little potential quirk in here and I think it would be a
misinterpretation if somebody looked at it this way, but it could
happen, is that when DIRT uses the term "underground" facility, it means
facilities other than pipelines, as well, and I think in the context
here, I think our obvious intent is excavation damage to pipelines, not
any underground facility you manage to find down there, and I'm just
wondering if the definition needs to be clarified to limit this to
damage to pipelines so that somebody doesn't try and interpret it to
mean you should be including damages to other types of facilities in
this \-- under this definition, as well.

MR. ISRANI: Understood. Our intent is to \-- you know, we are
considering putting the term "pipeline, underground pipeline facility,"
because we do not have any jurisdiction on cable companies or others
which is in the direct definition. I agree on that.

See, if you notice, we already made this correction here.

DR. FEIGEL: Gene Feigel. Mike, I'm a little confused, I guess, and it's
probably based on my lack of familiarity with all the intricacies of
this proposed rulemaking.

But how does limiting the definition of damage now to excavation damage
relate to the overall safety envelope, like coupling pull-outs? I mean,
you're clearly covering that. In a larger sense, that's damage, too, but
now we're limiting \-- the only place we're defining damage to
excavation damage \-- I've got a disconnect here. Could you help me with
what I'm missing?

MR. ISRANI: Yeah. As far as this rule is concerned, you know, the major
component was the excavation damage. As I mentioned earlier, these other
outside force damage, et. cetera, those are currently in our annual
report and the definition of damages is clearly defined there, one that
results into leak, and excavation damage, we are trying to put here
because performance measures of the rule is where this is very clearly
the issue.

You know, what operators are supposed to report as a performance measure
and they would use a term, you know, the language of this rule, although
we also intend to put in the report form the instructions for what
things they're to report, to clarify this further, but this definition,
we feel that, you know, in the rule perhaps could justify address the
excavation damage and damage definitions already in the reporting forms.

DR. FEIGEL: Well, I'm sorry for being obtuse, Mike, but, I mean, if the
regulation encompasses, you know, incidents or, you know, causes of leak
other than excavation damage, you know, why aren't we addressing that in
a broader sense? I mean, I suppose it's okay to, you know, have a more
detailed, you know, reporting requirement, but, I mean, that's ancillary
or supporting to the implementation of the regulation.

I mean, to me this makes the regulation less clear, frankly, unless I'm
missing the point which probably is the case.

MR. ISRANI: Yeah. Well, when we started the DIMP Program, the very first
thing we noticed was that almost 40 percent of the incidents were due to
excavation damage which are the largest component of the rule, and
throughout the rulemaking, you know, when we were developing what
performance measures, everything to be reported, everything was related
to excavation damage and another thing, Gene, I want to point out is by
putting excavation damage here and picking up this language from the
DIRT, we are not trying to sacrifice any safety, you know. We are
considering both the leaks which are \-- the damage which results into
leak and the damage which could result into potential leak.

If you notice, even coating damage will be considered under excavation
damage. So we are not sacrificing any safety by defining excavation
damage.

DR. FEIGEL: I don't want to pound this into the ground, but, I mean, if
you got a narrow prescriptive definition and that's the only definition
of damage you have, it seems to me it would mislead people, you know,
relative to other things that you're trying to cover.

I'm not suggesting that if excavation damage is not a principal focus
and it's unclear, that you don't work to have a very good definition of
that. I'm just saying it seems to me that you're leading to potential
confusion about other things, like coupling pull-outs.

I mean, let me, if I may, I mean the guys around this table are going to
be regulated by this. Is this perfectly clear to everybody?

HON. KEATING: Gene, what I'd like to do is \-- Christina Sames from AGA
would like to address the technical points on this. She thinks she may
be able to clarify it.

Introduce yourself again for the record.

MS. SAMES: Thank you. Yes, Christina Sames, American Gas Association.

If you look at the proposed regulation, Mike actually calls out all the
different types of damages. Unfortunately, what wasn't defined was
excavation damage, even though the term was used in many different
places.

So the suggestion that was made in the comments was define excavation
damage. You already have all the other damages listed throughout the
regulation. You have excavation damage included but it was never
defined. While the other definitions were defined, this one wasn't. So
it's simply a way to clarify.

DR. FEIGEL: (Off microphone comment.)

HON. KEATING: Thank you. Any other questions on this issue? I knew I
shouldn't have asked that question. Jim?

MR. WUNDERLIN: Jim Wunderlin. Just a couple things that might be
helpful.

In the first line, we have excavation damage means any impact or
exposure that results in the need to repair. I think it would be helpful
if we added results in unplanned need to repair or replace.

MR. ISRANI: You're suggesting that instead of damage means any impact or
exposure, unplanned?

MR. WUNDERLIN: Results \-- that results in the unplanned need \--

MR. ISRANI: Event?

MR. WUNDERLIN: \-- to repair or replace. Okay? Because there are times
when we have planned excavations and that would have a third party or
whatever.

So if we have a planned excavation to replace a section of pipe, it
doesn't come under this rule.

HON. KEATING: Jim, just a clarification on my part. I understand what
you're saying, but I don't know whether it's necessary, at least the way
I'm thinking of this, because if one is going out to do some, you know,
repair work and they're going to dig up a pipe and damage it, you know,
I mean it gets damaged because they're going to replace it, that's not
considered, you know, damage. If I try to replace some plumbing in my
house, I rip out a pipe, that's not damage. If one of my grandchildren
whacks the pipe, he damages it. So I don't know. At least that's the
concern \-- I don't know that it's necessary, but again I'll get the
sense of the \-- Don, did you have your hand up?

MR. STURSMA: I was just going to say, without going into the merits if
the wording is added, if we are discussing that, I think a more logical
\--

HON. KEATING: Could you speak a little louder, Don, please?

MR. STURSMA: Don Stursma. Without going into the merits of whether that
word is needed, I was just going to suggest for the purposes of
discussion we should locate the word "unplanned" ahead of "exposure"
perhaps. It looks like a better place to put it grammatically, but I do
tend to agree with you. I'm not certain whether it's really an essential
addition to this regulation.

MR. WUNDERLIN: One other comment.

MR. WIESE: This is Jeff Wiese. I was going to ask if you would \-- I'm
sorry. I'm missing the point because I think we were talking about
damage to the pipeline that required you to take an action, but as I
heard you speaking, you were talking if you were out there doing
excavation anyway.

I don't think that's what we're talking about. So I'm probably missing
the point.

MR. WUNDERLIN: I understand. I just wanted to make sure it was clear to
our operators that if we're planning to go out and replace a section of
pipe, because before we said basically any excavation that causes
repairing or replacing.

I have one more question.

HON. KEATING: All right. Go ahead. Why don't you finish up and then
we'll get a sense of the committee on this? Okay?

MR. WUNDERLIN: Okay. My other suggestion would be to \-- in the \-- this
paragraph after "complete destruction of the pipeline" in that third
line and leave out "including but not limited to the protective
coating," et. cetera, et. cetera, and the reason I'm saying that is the
Code has a clear definition of pipeline and I can read that for you.

"Pipeline means all parts of those physical facilities through which gas
moves in transportation, including pipe, valves, other appurtenances
attached to the pipe, compressor units, metering stations, regulator
stations, delivering stations, holders and fabricated assemblies."

So I don't think we need the examples below because they don't really
match the definition of pipeline and then we would \-- it's well
understood what a pipeline is.

MR. ISRANI: Jim, that probably won't include \-- the pipeline definition
may not include protective coating. So that's why we have some of these
protective coating also included in this. You know, the letters support
\-- some of these came up, like you could have as a result of
excavation, some ground caving in which is supporting the pipe, you
know, or the support could be for the riser which is kind of damaged.
That's why some of the examples have been put there. Housing. Some
people may think that housing may not apply to pipeline but we are
considering if there's housing involved.

HON. KEATING: Don?

MR. STURSMA: I guess I'll just say that even though you could argue that
those additional words may not be essential, given the definition of a
pipeline, I think they provide useful clarification and guidance in
pointing out that it is the intent that those types of facilities are
included under the rules, but I must say that even though I was
originally a proponent of this definition, I'm looking at it now and I'm
not sure what the housing for the line device is and wonder if that's
another carry-over term from the DIRT definition that may not be
applicable to pipeline.

MR. ISRANI: Don, as I mentioned that, you know, it could be because the
DIRT is applying to more than pipeline, could be the cable company box
or electrical box, but, you know, I thought it could also include some
pipeline valve housing. That's why I mentioned it there.

Do you agree? I mean, it's not going to add anything or do you think
it's going to cause any problem?

HON. KEATING: Again from just an editorial standpoint, when I read that
paragraph and that section, it says, "Included but not limited to," and
it lists a number of things. Well, the minute, at least again in my
interpretation when one says not limited to, that's the catchall that
politicians use all the time in legislation. It's not limited to this.

So even though I hear your read and interpretation of the rules as it
is, I just think that's more stylistic and gives guidance to people that
we don't want you to damage these pipelines and you need to be aware.

Ted?

MR. LEMOFF: Thank you. Ted Lemoff. With regard to the highlighted
section, the housing, I think this is needed. It could include, for
example, a sleeve if the line is run under a road for protection from
impressed loads from traffic.

However, I think it should be the housing for the pipeline and delete
the phrase "line device" because that's a new phrase. We've used
pipeline consistently. That was all. Thank you.

HON. KEATING: Excuse me. Do we have a sense of the committee then with
regard to the language that we see before us right now that it's
acceptable or not acceptable, just so we know where we are? We're going
to plan on taking a break after this, if this helps you move your mind
along.

Yes, Pete?

MR. TERRANOVA: Pete Terranova. I'm not sure what drafting requirements
are here, but as Jim pointed out, there is a fairly \-- there is a
specific definition of pipeline which includes a lot of other things,
other than just the piece of pipe, and I'm curious as to whether, in the
past or how this definition has been interpreted in the past, and
whether it would include things like the protective coating which seems
to me like an obvious one.

If there are things that are not included in the definition, and I'm not
sure we're adding anything other than confusion by implying here that
the term "pipeline" includes these things. So this is a drafting issue
but my concern is the same as Jim's. It's going to be very confusing
going forward for people to figure out what's covered by this
definition.

MR. ISRANI: Here, we're not trying to define what pipeline is, but we
wanted to make sure that we include the coating part because that, we
feel, is that potential threat that we want to take care of in this
excavation damage.

So the idea was that not just the leaks that result \-- not the failure
that result into leaks but the failure that result into potential leaks
and the coating is that component.

MR. TERRANOVA: Pete Terranova again. Okay. Well, I would just \-- I know
we're kind of beating a dead horse here, but I guess I would just
reiterate what Jim said, that the pipeline is the physical facilities
through which gas moves and it includes pipe, valves and other
appurtenances attached to the pipe, compressor units, metering stations,
regulator stations, delivery stations, holders and fabricated
assemblies.

I'm not sure there's much missing there. So it's a pretty complete
definition but once again, I'm not familiar with how that definition has
been applied in the past.

HON. KEATING: Paul?

MR. ROTHMAN: Paul Rothman. I just have a suggestion. Instead of
including those items as part of the definition of pipeline, you could
state "and associated protective measures, such as protective coatings,
cathodic protection," something of that nature.

HON. KEATING: Jeff?

MR. WIESE: Can I offer a motion for the committee's consideration? It
seems, as I listen to you speak, that you're not debating that those
things are included. It's just a question of whether it confuses the
issue.

So with your permission, we could go back, if you'll grant this
editorial license, and confirm Mike's point, which was, as long as we
feel that through prior interpretation or whatever, that there's no
question that those items are included, then I think you're \-- we would
agree.

I mean, our point was to ensure the inclusion of those items and if
you'll agree to that motion, I guess \-- not motion. I shouldn't use
that in this setting. That suggestion, all we will do in this instance
is validate that the terms we have here would be included under the
traditional definition and we can either leave it as is or say as
defined in, you know, something like that.

MR. GUTE: This is Bill Gute. I don't disagree with Jeff, but I just
think, as enforcement goes down the road after this rule is out, I think
it would be helpful to have coating defined. Otherwise, it's going to be
disputed for years on.

So because I think that's really the key thing that we're trying to
define here. So to me, by leaving it in there, it's going to help
implementation of the rule down the road.

HON. KEATING: Yes, sir?

MR. POVARSKI: Rick Povarski. I would agree. I've seen in Virginia, we've
had mandatory reporting of damages on the gas industry since '95 and I
know that was an initial \-- there's a lot of initial confusion. Do you
report just the break in a line or do you report if you have damage to a
coating of a pipe? Once that was clearly defined, you know, people \--
all the members, you know, understood that and they reported it that
way.

HON. KEATING: Don?

MR. STURSMA: Don Stursma. I guess I find myself in the position of
agreeing with Mr. Gute, that as a regulator, we're always called to, you
know, parse and interpret whether certain things are included in the
regulation or not, and I'm not disputing that maybe in a technical or
legalistic method it's not necessary to put all this stuff in there, but
as a practical matter, providing clarification, guidance and instruction
to people attempting to use this rule, I think the language we have
before us is good language and I would support this language without
further modification.

HON. KEATING: Thank you. Pete?

MR. TERRANOVA: Pete Terranova. I'm fine. One suggestion might be, and
this is again drafting a issue, is that to avoid unintended consequences

Associated with potentially modifying a definition that's some place
else in the regs, you might want to say that for the purposes of this
section or this whatever it is, you know.

HON. KEATING: I think we probably have beat this horse pretty badly up
to this point, and I would like to suggest, if it's all right, not to
cut off any pertinent discussion again, but why don't we take a break,
have some coffee, and we come back? I think we're all in agreement. It's
just, you know, how we put the emphasis on the syllables here. So
10-minute break.

(Recess.)

[Committee Discussion, Public Discussion]{.underline}

HON. KEATING: Okay. We'd like to go back on the record for the meeting
and open it up.

I just want to make a quick comment. It is 10:45 a.m. A number of people
have planes to catch and hopefully we can focus on, you know, doing the
job correctly and right and minimize whatever things that are not as
important to focus on.

Are we \-- given Jeff Wiese's concluding comments, is there anything
people feel really compelled to \-- Jim, go ahead.

MR. WUNDERLIN: Jim Wunderlin. I just want to say two things. One, we
certainly support Mr. Gute's request to make sure that protective
coating was included in this. We all support that in our industry, AGA.

The other thing, just grammatically, I think on the second line after
"repair or replace," there's an "of" that shouldn't be there.

HON. KEATING: An "of?" Okay. Yeah.

MR. WUNDERLIN: I think that's it. Otherwise, we can \--

MR. ISRANI: Obvious words and editorial things and all we'll pick up.

HON. KEATING: All right. I'd like to then, if it's the sense of the
committee, to move on to the next item.

MR. ISRANI: Okay.

HON. KEATING: Mike?

MR. ISRANI: Yes, sir. Next item is the time to implement DIMP provision,
the DIMP provisions. What we're talking about is currently in our rule,
we have operators to have the plan ready and implemented in 18 months
and operators and some folks, including states, feel that 18 months was
not adequate time to implement this rule. They feel that they needed
more time, you know, considering like 24 months for implementation.

In fact, some of the states suggested that they could have two phases,
like, you know, first to inspect the written plan and then a year later
to implementation part, similar to what we did in the Gas Transmission
rulemaking.

We went with 18 months time period for a number of reasons. One of them
was the PIPES Act in 2006 had asked us to have the final rule by 2007
and we, as you noticed are quite late for that. It's the end of 2008 and
we just had proposed rule out. So final rule will come out some time in
the Summer of 2009. We are late for that.

Also, when we developed this Distribution IMP, we had all the
stakeholders involved. Everybody knew what is coming. The concern was
those additional requirements that came in after the Phase I report and
as you noticed, if we consider eliminating those additional
requirements, then the 18-month time period may be adequate that PHMSA
feels and I'd like to hear your comments on that time frame.

MR. COMSTOCK: Mr. Chairman, Mike Comstock, APGA. Mike, just a
clarification on the rule language itself on 1005.

It reads that an operator of a gas distribution pipeline must develop
and fully implement a written IM program, and our question is, is the
intent to have the development of the program completed in 18 months and
begin implementation after that date or to have it fully written and
then fully implemented at the 18-month date? There's a little bit of
confusion on how that reads.

MR. ISRANI: I'm going to answer that. Jim, you have some comment?

MR. WUNDERLIN: I think, just to help us feel better, Jim Wunderlin, if
the word "fully" wasn't there, we'd feel better. It would be clearer to
us.

MR. ISRANI: Yeah. We heard that comment before from, you know, American
Gas Association and also from some of our state folks. That \-- we'll
try and clarify that language. We'll \-- our idea was that by 18 months
operators will not only have the framework of the plan but they'll have
the whole thing populated with data. That's what we meant by fully
implement. We did not mean that they already started conducting tests
and other things.

The idea was they'll have a written plan. They'll have all the data that
they need to gather and all of this information to be populated at the
end of 18 months but not really having gone through additional
inspections or testing.

MR. WUNDERLIN: Jim Wunderlin. I guess then what I'm hearing is when you
say all the data into the program is different than having a written
plan and ready to go forward in implementing a written plan which to me
would include gathering the data and analyzing the data and ranking your
risks. That's a continuous process that continues over time and at the
start date, I'm not sure I have envisioned that all of that would be in
place at that time, but it would be a continuous process to develop and
work on your risks and incorporate the data that's necessary, et.
cetera.

MR. ISRANI: Jim, we have a number of places in the regulation where we
have clarified that we do not want operators to go and start digging
everything together, the information. It's the information available at
that time for that period. So from your past data that you have
collected, that information, whatever you have, whatever you have
collected so far to be populated, and we understand that it's a
continuous process. There will be more information available later on
and we don't expect that inspectors will go there and ask you, you know,
all of the latest information on every single component of the pipeline.

Whatever information you guys have at that time available is what we are
looking for, you know. What is under ONM must be collecting some
information on the pipeline. That information, that data to be populated
in this, what we call implementation.

As I mentioned, we are not asking for additional actions on this, but
this is more of kind of like a paperwork.

MR. WIESE: This is Jeff. I think I hear what you're saying. You agree
that it should be fully developed and you agree that they should be
implementing the written program and the written program, what Mike was
fundamentally saying, reflects the various kind of directives throughout
the rule.

So all we're \-- I understand. We're splitting hairs again which is the
nature of group editing, but you're afraid of being caught in a trap of
everything having to have been completed by then.

I personally don't have a \-- I think what we're very clear on is it
should be fully developed and the operators should be implementing their
plan but the plan has to be constructed in accordance with all of the
subelements within the rule. So as Mike said, in some cases there's no
requirement that you have infinite knowledge, you know, in 18 months. In
some cases, it's you gather that information as you go through the \--
so, Mike, are you comfortable if we were to make the changes Roger had
highlighted here?

MR. ISRANI: Yes.

MR. WIESE: Does that address your concern, Jim?

MR. ISRANI: I was saying that they were comments on the wordsmithing and
we can work that together with our attorneys and lawyers and to see, you
know, so it doesn't have a wrong meaning. We didn't \-- we could take
out this term. You know, we can consider this, removing the term fully
from implementation part.

MR. WUNDERLIN: Jim Wunderlin. Just "and begin implementing a written
plan." The word "fully" was crossed out. "And begin implementing a
written plan?"

MR. WIESE: So it's almost like must have fully developed and begun
implementing. Does that work for you, Mike?

MR. ISRANI: Well, I just want to be sure that when you have all the
elements listed there and whatever data you have, that you have put that
data in the system and not \-- we have the framework but we have not
done anything beyond that. That was the intent.

HON. KEATING: Are we all set on this item? Ted?

MR. LEMOFF: I fully understand the concerns expressed, and I do \--
believe me, I understand how many times many enforcers don't have
benefit of the discussions that go on here and elsewhere and just try to
apply the written rule exactly and precisely as they see it.

However, I think this is \-- we've gone completely the other way. This
"begin implementing" might mean finish implementing in 10 years. So I
think that's a little open-ended the way it's written.

My recommendation would be just to leave the word "fully" completely \--
fully in both places, not say fully, because I think it's just going to
create problems.

MR. ISRANI: I would like to hear from others, but I personally would
prefer just removing "fully" and say "develop and implement plan."

MR. WUNDERLIN: Jim Wunderlin. I'm fine with that.

HON. KEATING: I'm sorry. Would you repeat that, Jim?

MR. WUNDERLIN: I'm okay with just eliminating "fully." I think that's
where I started.

HON. KEATING: All right. Looks like there's consensus.

Moving right along, Mike.

MR. ISRANI: Okay. Let's go to Number 7. Number 7. This one is the
alternative intervals for periodic actions. Here, we are talking about
under current 192 requirements for patrolling leak detection and
everything that we have on a regular basis under Part 192 and our rule,
our proposal allowed operators to have flexibility by using resources
from deviating in some areas and expanding other areas, based on the
engineering analysis and subject to jurisdictional authority.

The comments were the industry was supportive of this, but they wanted
to have some consistent application. They felt some kind of like a
guidance from PHMSA and they also \-- states felt that we should clarify
the language in the rulemaking that operators are supposed to get
jurisdictional acceptance and not either PHMSA or state.

So we want to clarify the language in the rule that, you know, the
states have the primary responsibility. They're the ones who are going
to make a decision on this.

The third comment was that the wording that came from the states, that,
you know, we should not use the term here "demonstrate no significant
increase in the risk." This is the term that was used in the rule and
they suggested this different wording on this.

So we intend to clarify the language in the rule and the responsibility
who has on this and we are already in discussion with states on \-- we
are offering them some guidance on this, but, you know, states feel that
they like to have their own way of handling this issue because they may
have their own commission to answer to. They would like to have their
own judgment on this, on how they come up with the acceptance of
alternative requirements, and I think the best way to explain would be
to hear from state folks, their comments on this particular issue.

Don? I'm sorry.

HON. KEATING: Okay. Go ahead, Don.

MR. STURSMA: The language \-- you changed the language in what's in the
rule but it still, as read, for an intrastate pipeline facility, it
appears that the rule gives them the option to go to either PHMSA or to
the state. I don't know if that was your intent, but the language seems
to allow them to decide which agency they want to go to.

The states, of course, feel we should be the ones that handle that.

MR. ISRANI: I stand corrected there. But if you were to kind of \-- you
know, if you consider going with this language, we would \-- this
language, at the moment we feel, you know, that should clarify that,
that, you know, when jurisdictional authority is with the states, then
states have to decide that, not PHMSA.

MR. STURSMA: As long as \-- I'm not sure the language is clear on that,
but in the interest of time and to avoid getting beaten up by the other
committee members, I'm not going to work on massaging language like that
now. I just ask that you look at this language and also maybe in the
preamble, make it clear that an intrastate pipeline facility would be
expected to go to the state and not go answer-shopping, you know, any
place else.

MR. ISRANI: Absolutely. We have your comments. We'll discuss it with our
lawyers, the exact wording of the language. We understand the issue.

HON. KEATING: This is Bob Keating. These are comments from the
Commission of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We did comment and Mike
was referring to some of the states, and it is just some wording change
that we think would be appropriate but also I'm not going to add to the
length of the meeting, if it is controversial. Hopefully, it won't be.

But in the first paragraph, \-- where did you go on me? Oh, okay. Okay.
In the first paragraph, the second sentence, reads, "Operators may
propose reductions only where they can demonstrate that reduced
frequency will not significantly increase risk."

Our pipeline division, which has a lot of engineers and a couple of
pretty and technically savvy lawyers, felt that "will not significantly
increase risk" is something that is \-- can be interpreted, you know,
any way and we would propose that we strike "will not significantly
increase risk" with the words "provides an equal or greater level of
safety."

That was some of the wording that we proposed and there's one other
place, once you finish with that, and again this is not made as a
motion, just as a suggestion for consideration, and the second bullet is
under B, if we go down a little bit further, to \-- I believe it's the
last sentence.

"And a showing of the adjusted interval provides a satisfactory level of
pipeline safety." Again, the question is "satisfactory level of pipeline
safety." There's a concern as to how that can be defined and what it
means and also you have the front page test that you may run into, but
we would propose striking the words "provide a satisfactory level of
pipeline safety" and change that to "provides an equal or greater level
of safety," similar to the words up above.

Here again, these are just suggestions for the committee's
consideration. It's not made as a formal motion. If there are \-- these
words provide \-- have unintended consequences that we don't see, that's
fine, but I just would throw them out for consideration.

MR. WUNDERLIN: Jim Wunderlin. I agree that we never want to reduce
safety. The only thing that I would, from a global point of view, there
may be times when, say, adjusting an interval for an inspection
requirement would be hard to say that extending the interval would be
equal to or reduce increased safety, but as an overall safety program,
if we had resources within our company that we were using when we went
through this DIMP process to work on other areas of higher risk as an
overall company look at safety, we may be reducing the risk, you know,
within our company by extending intervals and using those resources
elsewhere, and if we took it specifically for one little interval it
might troublesome ever getting anything approved or changed by narrowing
it to a specific one little requirement.

HON. KEATING: Jeff?

MR. WIESE: Wonder if I could support Jim's statement but suggest if you
\-- just by adding the greater overall level of safety or something to
that effect, I think the point that we're sympathetic to, having gone
through risk management with some of the colleagues in the room, was
that the goal was to achieve a greater overall level of safety and
understand how in some minute circumstance it's difficult to prove that,
but you could clearly demonstrate that it's better safety level for your
system, at least I'd propose that addition. Yeah. It's equal or greater.

HON. KEATING: Don?

MR. STURSMA: My \-- I agree with the philosophy expressed here, and the
equal or greater concept, I think, is very common among states that
would be called upon to make this decision, but the words aren't always
the same and I remember reading something, a PHMSA document, not along
ago that used slightly different language.

Unfortunately, I didn't write it down and I can't remember where I found
it now, but it was good language and I would say that we maybe do not
try to lock in this language but let counsel determine if there is an
appropriate phrasing for this that is consistent with PHMSA Legal work
and decisions on waivers or other issues in the past.

So while I fully support the concept, I would ask the committee perhaps
not lock in on these specific words but let PHMSA use whatever language
it has commonly used for this purpose in other cases.

MR. WIESE: I think I understand Jim's point. However, I would be happy
to do that, as long as we're on the record as supporting the general
point. It's not about the minutia. It's about the overall level. I mean
that's a fundamental tenet of risk management. Spend your resources on
your highest risks and so I think that's why you need in some case \-- I
can't remember either. I don't know if anybody \-- Mike, if you do
either, that alternate language, but we would certainly take that under
advisement but recognize Jim's point.

MR. STURSMA: For example, I think it used the word "equivalent" instead
of "equal" and you could argue language all day. I'm just saying if
there's some stock and standard PHMSA language for this phrase, you
should be free to use it.

HON. KEATING: The comments of the committee are quite acceptable to me.
I just \-- I think we agree on the concept and I realize the devil's in
the details and in this case, the details are the words and the words
can mean different things to different people. So I'll certainly
acquiesce to your recommendation and to Jim's points.

MR. TERRANOVA: I just want to \-- Pete Terranova. I just want to echo
Jim's comment and I'm \-- we're comfortable with \-- as long as we agree
that the idea here is to increase the overall level of safety, that it's
fine to allow PHMSA to go back and take a look at some language that
fits.

What makes us very comfortable with that is the fact that we've been
able to work well, so well together in putting this rule together.

HON. KEATING: Any other comments or \-- okay. So I guess those words are
just \-- were suggestions, but they don't necessarily \-- the exact
words do not carry the sense of the committee. Let me make that clear in
case anybody \-- okay.

Mike, can we move along?

MR. ISRANI: Okay. Moving along to Issue Number 8, limited requirements
for master meters and propane operators.

I mentioned earlier a representation that we have some lesser
requirements for master meters and propane operators as we felt that
these operators don't have enough staff or even education level to do
all kind of requirements that we have currently under Part 192. They
don't have reporting requirements and knowing that their condition is
such that they may not have multiple different materials in their
pipeline, et. cetera, we had less restrictive requirements for them.

Also, knowing that these lines may have been installed pretty much at
the same time, we did not have too many threat analysis kind of
requirements in that. We felt that the excavation damage which is a
major component, these operators, trailer parks and other folks that are
out there, they could see what's happening. So we had not required them
to have threat analysis or, you know, having reporting requirements.

We also did not require them to have excess flow valves in their
pipelines. So commenters came back and they told us that many of the
states also feel that the master meters and propane operators should be
treated the same way because in the Phase I report, they had not given
distinction to lesser requirements for these, particularly they want
these two issues to apply to small operators, meaning master meters and
propane operators, the ranking of threats or risks and also the excess
flow valve requirement.

So if you can \-- Roger is looking to show you \-- currently under \--
this is under 192.1019, which is what master meter or propane operator
do to implement this and this is a listing. By adding ranking risk, I
don't think we're going to increase the burden on them.

Some of the operators, they're small. They do not have to rank any risk
if they don't have any, more than one risk. So we could pretty much
consider putting that back in this one.

As far as excess flow valve requirement is concerned, actually we had a
similar comment on excess flow valve when we go to the next issue, but
does anyone have problem with adding that ranking of risk for the small
operators?

MR. LEMOFF: Ted Lemoff. From what I understand, and so everyone
understands, NFPA publishes NFPA 58 and that's one of my documents, so
I'm very familiar with it and that's the propane standard that's
referenced and used by all the states, my knowledge of these systems are
that they tend to be trailer parks, apartment complexes, basically very
well-contained units and not to say that there aren't systems that are
bigger but the very vast majority are basically within a very small area
of the trailer park, you know, small housing development, and that many
of the concerns that are being brought over from pipelines are simply
not relevant. That's my only observation.

Therefore, I think that the ranked risks, you know, if you're talking
the operator of a trailer park, you know, what are the risks? Nobody
digs, unless they know it.

That was all. Thank you.

MR. ISRANI: As I mentioned that concern was larger operators. There are
master meter operators who facilitate housing units where they may have
hundreds of customers. So those are the areas and some argued pretty
good that they may have some sections of the pipeline which have been
replaced. So adding this, we don't think that's going to add any burden
on anyone. If they don't have more than one threat, they don't have to
do anything.

MR. LEMOFF: Ted Lemoff. Mike, I certainly agree. We're seeing actually a
growth. We're hearing that in new subdivisions, people are putting in a
larger buried propane tank and serving the entire subdivision as a
master meter operator, and I think possibly some criteria to pick a
number of units might clarify this, that the very small systems, the
small trailer parks, it's not the intent, you're indicating, to apply to
those and perhaps that could be resolved by some size criteria.

Thank you. I don't want to argue the number, but I'm just suggesting
that to you.

MR. COMSTOCK: Mike Comstock, APGA. Just one clarification and then one
comment. APGA has a number of small operators in our membership that are
not master meter operators. So I just want to make sure that there's a
clarification there that master meters and LP operators that are defined
here are separate from gas companies who may not have a lot of numbers
in them. So there's a separation in definition.

The other thing I'd like to say is that APGA has been working on a
program that's titled in quotations, "SHRIMP," that is designed to help
these types of operators in this process and in fact includes risk
ranking as part of the program that's inside of the SHRIMP Program. So I
just wanted to make that comment.

Thank you.

MR. ISRANI: Okay. So there were no other comments on that small
operators. Reporting requirements, we don't have currently in 192 for
them. So we have kept about the same. They do not have to report.

MR. LEMOFF: Ted Lemoff. Mike, I believe I submitted comments on this,
recommending that these LP systems be exempted.

MR. ISRANI: Be exempted from what? From reporting requirements?

MR. LEMOFF: From whatever you require here, and that was, if I may,
based upon some research I did indicating that they just don't have the
accidents to justify this, that the data doesn't support in these small
systems, the LP systems any increased rules, at least what I was able to
find.

MR. ISRANI: Okay. Duly noted. I would say that when we were working
during the Phase I with all the stakeholders, the Phase I report clearly
identified that in all of these operators to be included in this DIMP
Program.

If there are no other comments, we could go to the next slide.

Okay. This is the last major issue which was raised in this rulemaking.
The comments were that we move this excess flow valve requirement from
this subpart, which is Subpart P, to Subpart H. Subpart H in the current
192 is where excess flow valve performance measures are defined and
where customer notification is also given under 192.381 and 192.383.

So the relevant comment was that we should move excess flow valve
requirement to that section and that it doesn't belong to DIMP.

A second comment was that we clarify the requirement of EF installation,
that it should not apply to branch service lines, that it applies only
to single resident homes as called out in the PIPES Act of 2006.

Also, there were comments that the excess flow valve requirement should
also apply to master meter and propane operators. These are the three
major comments that were on the excess flow valve, and our most viable
option, as you see, is that if we move the requirements from here to
Subpart H, where other excess flow valve requirements are, it will
automatically apply to all operators, propane operators and master
meters and we also feel comfortable having excess flow valve
requirements in one subpart, so that operators are not confused that
there are requirements in other parts of the 192.

So what are considering is having excess flow valve requirements move
from DIMP to this section, 192.383, which previously used to be excess
flow valve notification requirements, and under this proposal, we
indicated that .383 would be deleted because it's mute. It's a mandatory
installation requirement, so we do not have notification requirements.

Instead, we'll replace it with excess flow valve installation
requirements. So 192.381 would be performance measures for excess flow
valves which is already existing in 192 and .383 will be the excess flow
valve installation requirements and these requirements are pretty much
the same what we currently have under the DIMP.

Any comments on this?

HON. KEATING: Jim? Oh, somebody else? Ted?

MR. LEMOFF: I just would like clarification. As I read this, it says,
"The red service lines serving a single family residence means natural
gas service." Does that mean it applies only to natural gas or would it
apply to propane, also? I'm just not clear. Ted Lemoff.

MR. ISRANI: Well, one other point. That's a good point. We believe the
NFPA-58 already has a requirement for excess flow valves when the tank
size exceeds 2,000 gallons which would be mostly the ones which will
fall under our jurisdiction. So we think that current wording would
still be appropriate.

MR. LEMOFF: Ted Lemoff. You are partially correct. NFPA-58 does require
excess flow valves in tanks above 2,000 gallons, but that requirement is
intended for breakage of the liquid piping, of piping directly from the
tank. There are no requirements that would require excess flow valves in
the distribution lines. So NFPA-58 is silent on the subject.

Yes, there are requirements for excess flow valves but not in the sense
you're normally used to thinking them. So it would only protect the
aboveground \-- our accident history shows that we have a number of
accidents caused by damage to piping associated with storage tanks and
so the requirements for excess flow valves is intended to prevent those.

There's no requirements for the distribution piping that does fall
within NFPA-58. So it's completely silent.

MR. ISRANI: So I guess this calls on us to remove the word "natural"
from this.

MR. LEMOFF: Ted Lemoff. I believe that the decision of whether to
require excess flow valves for propane systems should be based upon the
data. Basically, if we see \-- as I understand it, these valves are
protecting against excavation damage. If the data shows that excavation
damage is a problem with these typical systems, then that's up to PHMSA
to require. NFPA-58, the current, does not require it.

I would make one comment, however. Some of these systems are completely
aboveground, such as serving apartments, and I think it would be
ridiculous to require excess flow valves in aboveground piping because
if there is a break in the piping, you know about it. You smell it, you
hear it, et. cetera.

HON. KEATING: Jeff?

MR. WIESE: I'll give Mike \-- by asking this question, I'll give Mike
enough time to see if he's got his copy of what the PIPES Act mandate
is. I'm not sure if the mandate was just to gas or not.

Part of what we have to do obviously, Ted, is respond \-- I mean, we've
had the debate on the FVs, as you know, for years, and we ended up with
a mandate from Congress to carry it out. So while recognizing your
point, I'm just sort of curious about the specific wording of the
mandate. Was it natural gas or was it gas?

MR. STURSMA: I have it right here and the wording was, "The minimum
standards shall include a requirement for an operator of a natural gas
distribution system to install an excess flow valve," et. cetera, et.
cetera. So the law specifically requires it for natural gas distribution
systems.

Of course, there's also a section that says the Secretary shall
determine which distribution pipelines will be subject to the minimum
standards which seems to give PHMSA the option of expanding it, if they
want to, but natural gas distribution systems are the specific
requirement and anything else is optional, as a non-lawyer.

MR. LEMOFF: Thank you. Ted Lemoff. I want to make perfectly clear that
many of these \-- there are some longitudinal systems on propane that do
emulate natural gas distribution systems with many pipes and streets and
there, I think the judgment as to whether the excess flow valve is
required should be made by PHMSA based upon the incidents reported.

However, I do want to emphasize the point that for aboveground systems,
I think it's ridiculous.

Thank you.

MR. WIESE: I'll just make one final point on that, just to put in
context that this is talking about new or major renovation. It's not \--
it sort of grandfathers existing. We get your \-- I understand your
point.

The cost of the EFVs have dropped, you know, to such low levels that
we're really not talking about a significant burden. If we were saying
go back and dig up your systems and put them in, it'd be a different
matter.

So I don't think this is a substantial cost issue, you know, but I do
understand your point that we brought up in a broader context about EFVs
and sort of lost that debate.

HON. KEATING: All right. Are we all set then? Does that conclude \-- I'm
not trying to rush you along. Yes, I am. But are you \-- what else do
\-- okay. Yes, Don?

MR. STURSMA: I'm really sorry, but there is one more thing I'd like to
raise. Don Stursma, and that is, there's an existing regulation, the
Continuing Surveillance regulation in 192.613, and with the
implementation of a Distribution Integrity Management rule, I believe
that .613 becomes completely superfluous and duplicative, once the IMP
plans are in effect, and I would certainly urge PHMSA, again without
getting into exact language right now, to look at .613 and decide
whether, as part of this rulemaking, it should be modified so there's no
longer two rules covering certain activities by the companies.

.613 can't be deleted completely because it continues to apply to
transmission systems and jurisdictional gathering systems, but there
should be something added that says that if a distribution system is
under an integrity management plan, that they do not need to also do the
continuing surveillance requirements of .613.

HON. KEATING: Okay. Could I ask the PHMSA folks to do that and respond
to the committee as appropriate, as to what \--

MR. ISRANI: This comment, when we saw in the list of other comments, we
briefly looked at what continuous surveillance under 192.613 says. There
are a couple of lines there which kind of brought to our attention that
we cannot right away make a decision on eliminating .613 because there
were some questions about procedures for continuous surveillance, also
to include changes in class locations, et. cetera, and this rule, we are
not mention anywhere change in the class location and other issues and
there could be some other requirements which may apply to transmission
operators and that.

So we want to \-- we do not want to cover that under Part 192 \-- under
this DIMP rule. First of all, it wasn't even proposed here. So we cannot
put it in the final rule, but your point is taken. We can relook at that
for future rulemaking.

MR. STURSMA: I agree you can't eliminate .613 entirely, but I continue
to recommend you see if you can cut operators some slack to prevent
duplicative rule coverage of the same activities.

MR. ISRANI: I agree that we will relook at that section in the future.

HON. KEATING: Thank you. Mike, does that conclude your presentation?

MR. ISRANI: Yes, sir. I don't think the majority have any issues about
the cost-benefit study or anything \--

HON. KEATING: Well, what I will do is, as I indicated I would do, if
there are any brief comments on anything that wasn't covered that people
\-- that the committee feel is compelling that they wish to address,
we'll hear that now, mindful of the hour.

(No response.)

HON. KEATING: Seeing none, I will just extend an opportunity, if there
are any brief or compelling comments that any members of the audience
wish to make, please identify yourself.

(No response.)

HON. KEATING: You know it's Friday, people want to get home. Great. All
right. Now I guess we move on to the Vote and Cheryl, you're going to
assist us here with a \-- is this a roll call vote or is it a simple yea
or nay that you \-- I need a little guidance from my friends.

MR. WIESE: I think you should probably do a roll call.

HON. KEATING: Do a roll call? Okay.

MS. WHETSEL: You need to entertain a motion from the committee.

HON. KEATING: Okay. Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: The documentation is in your book under the section.

[Call for Motion]{.underline}

HON. KEATING: Could I have one of the members make a motion, please?
Pete?

MR. TERRANOVA: Pete Terranova.

MS. WHETSEL: And don't forget your yada-yada, technically feasibles and
all that stuff.

MR. TERRANOVA: Maybe I'm not the person to make the motion.

(Laughter.)

MR. TERRANOVA: Okay. I would move that the proposed rule, as published
in the Federal Register, and the draft reg evaluation are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost effective and practicable, based on the
changes that were discussed today.

HON. KEATING: Do we have a second?

MR. COMSTOCK: Mike Comstock. Second.

HON. KEATING: Okay. Mike, we have a second.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

(No response.)

HON. KEATING: Seeing none, we call for the vote.

[Roll Call for Vote]{.underline}

MS. WHETSEL: Okay. Drue Pearce?

MS. PEARCE: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Berne Mosley?

MR. MOSLEY: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Don Stursma?

MR. STURSMA: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Mike Comstock?

MR. COMSTOCK: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Andy Drake?

MR. DRAKE: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Jim Wunderlin?

MR. WUNDERLIN: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Pete Terranova?

MR. TERRANOVA: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Richard Feigel?

DR. FEIGEL: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Ted Lemoff?

MR. LEMOFF: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Rick Povarski?

MR. POVARSKI: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Paul Rothman?

MR. ROTHMAN: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: Alan Shuman?

MR. SHUMAN: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: And Bob Keating?

HON. KEATING: Yes.

MS. WHETSEL: That's it.

HON. KEATING: All right. I've misplaced my agenda, but I think we're
near conclusion. We have just a Wrap-Up and Adjourn by Jeff.

[Wrap-Up and Adjourn]{.underline}

MR. WIESE: Okay. So prior to adjournment, and I'll make it short because
I know many of you probably left your bags in your room and you're
headed for a plane, I hope not to be gratuitous, I want to thank each
and every one for taking time out of your schedules. I know it's painful
walking through and editing. I hope you'll find, though, that that
process gets us closer to consensus. That's the value of having this
input.

So, first, my apologies for making you sit through group editing because
I know how painful that is, but I very much appreciate the effort that
everybody has put forward and your patience, and this brings to a
conclusion, actually, a fairly major chapter in the Distribution world
and we'll begin on the Implementation, but many of you have been
involved all the way along. So you should take a lot of pride.

I think this will bring greater levels of safety in the distribution
effort and thank you very much for your service.

HON. KEATING: I just want to say thank you to the committee for the
great professional and collegial way everybody conducted themselves. It
was a pleasure. I know everybody wants to get home. I will just tell,
because I mentioned it this morning, the latest numbers are in excess of
330,000 customers which are residential, large and small commercial
customers that are without power, and the projection is a number of
these people won't be in till next week and the weather projection is
cold. It's one thing to lose power in the summer time and people don't
have air conditioning, it's another thing to lose it in the winter time.

So I don't know what I'm rushing home to, but I do want to thank you all
for being \-- Mike?

MR. COMSTOCK: Mr. Chairman, it's 65 and climbing in Mesa.

HON. KEATING: I'll be right over. Pete?

MR. TERRANOVA: Yeah. Just one final thing. I think we would be remiss if
we didn't thank PHMSA and particularly Mike and Byron and Jeff and
others who took the time to walk through this, these very complex rules
in a way that made things very clear, and I think we ended up, I know we
ended up with documents that the industry will \-- that will benefit the
industry because they're practical, they're clear, and I'm sure will
improve safety, both initially and over time.

So I appreciate the effort. Thanks.

HON. KEATING: And I echo those. Great. Thank you, Pete.

That concludes the meeting. We're off the record.

(Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee was adjourned.)