**Docket Number PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19854**

**[49CFR192 Subpart P: Distribution Integrity Management
Program]{.underline}**

**Comments on NPRM**

1)  **192.1003 - Definition of Damage**

192.1003 *"Damage means any impact or exposure resulting in the repair
or replacement of an underground facility, related appurtenance, or
materials supporting the pipeline."*

The definition of damage as written in this part is does not adequately
reflect actual field experience. Impact on the pipe that requires repair
is a credible statement but exposure which may be loosely related to
uncovering is not the same as damage. Pipe coating can be argued as
supporting the performance of the pipeline but damaged coating is not
identified as pipeline damage. We agree with the AGA definition of
excavation damage where excavation damage means "any impact or exposure
resulting in the immediate release of gas from the pipeline."

It is a substantial change to attempt to report distribution piping
damages that do not involve leaks.

**2) 192.1007 -- Role of People**

192.1007(b): *"In considering the threat of inappropriate operation, the
operator must evaluate the contribution of human error to risk and the
potential role of people in preventing and mitigating the impact of
events contributing to risk".*

192.1007(d): *"To address risks posed by inappropriate operation, an
operator's written IM program must contain a separate section with a
heading 'Assuring Individual Performance'. In that section, an operator
must list risk management measures to evaluate and manage the
contribution of human error and intervention to risk (e.g., changes to
the role or expertise of people), and implement measures appropriate to
address the risk".*

There are several references to the risk of human error and the
potential negative impact in preventing and mitigating an event.

Paragraph b: The risk is low compared to other risk factors and may not
significantly impact safety performance of a pipeline.

Paragraph d: Assuring individual performance is already identified in
192.801 Subpart N -- Qualifications of Pipeline Personnel, including
roles for contracted personnel.

The understanding of personnel expertise and its impact on mitigating
human error is an integral part of Subpart N. There is no need to have
two subparts with duplicate regulations that may conflict, so remove
personnel expertise requirements from Subpart P.

**Docket Number PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19854**

**[49CFR192 Subpart P: Distribution Integrity Management
Program]{.underline}**

**Comments on NPRM**

**3**) 192.1007 Capture and Retention of Data

192.1007(a)(5) "*Provide for the capture and retention of data on any
piping system installed after the operator's IM program becomes
effective. The data must include, at a minimum, the location where the
new piping and appurtenances are installed and the material of which
they are constructed".*

The phrase " ... material of which they are constructed" is not enough
guidance if PHMSA has something specific in mind. Please clarify.

We agree with AGA that markings on fittings and other extensive
requirements of this nature should not be part of DIMP.

**4) 192.1007 Hazardous Leaks**

192.1007(e)(1)(i): "*Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or
repaired, per § 192.703(c), categorized by cause";*

192.1007(e)(1)(vi): "*Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or
repaired per § 192.703(c), categorized by material; and" ...*

The criteria for what constitutes a hazardous leak must be determined if
it becomes a performance measure. There must be a consistent criteria
otherwise data evaluation beyond an individual operator may be
unreliable. The criteria could be the GPTC Grade 1 leak criteria, or an
immediate action leak defined as a gas leak, due to its location or
relative magnitude, constitutes a hazard or potential hazard to the
public or to buildings shall receive immediate corrective action.
Immediate corrective action shall consist of an immediate effort to
protect life and property and continuous remedial action thereafter
until the condition is no longer hazardous.

**Docket Number PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19854**

**[49CFR192 Subpart P: Distribution Integrity Management
Program]{.underline}**

**Comments on NPRM**

**5) 192.1007 Excavation Tickets**

192.1007(e)(1)(iii) "*Number of excavation tickets (receipt of
information by the*

> *underground facility operator from the notification center);"*

The criteria for the number of excavation tickets must be established to
improve performance reporting, comparison(s) and evaluation(s). The
reported number may be the gross number requested to the one-call
system, the number sent to the operator after the initial one-call
screening, or the actual number of tickets sent to the field for action.
Some operators have provided a grid pattern along their pipelines with
an adequate buffer zone to their one-call

system that substantially reduced the number of tickets sent to the
operator making a single damage more significant for performance
reporting. If a definition for consistency is required, the definition
of a ticket should be \"tickets received from the notification center
where marking is required.\"

**6) 192.1007 (f) Periodic Evaluation & Improvement**

192.1007(f) "*An operator must continually re-evaluate threats and risks
on its entire system and consider the relevance of threats in one
location to other areas".*

It is unreasonable to expect continuous re-evaluation of entire complex
gas distribution systems. The rule wording should be revised to replace
"continually" with "periodically". The written rule would then be
consistent with the remainder of section 192.1007(f).

**7) 192.1009 Plastic Pipe Failure Reporting**

192.1009 "*Each operator must report information relating to each
material failure of plastic pipe (including fittings, couplings, valves
and joints) no later than 90 days after failure".*

We agree that the database will be more complete if everyone
participates, however, the majority of available data is already entered
by voluntary submittal so change is not warranted. If reporting
requirements do remain in the rule, the proposed rule should clearly
state that failure(s) of plastic pipe due to first, second, or third
party damage is not required to be reported.

**Docket Number PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19854**

**[49CFR192 Subpart P: Distribution Integrity Management
Program]{.underline}**

**Comments on NPRM**

**8) 192.1015 Records**

192.1015(b) *"Documents supporting threat identification;"*

192.1015(d) *"Documents to support any decision, analysis, or process
developed and used to implement and evaluate each element of the IM
program;"*

192.1015(e) *"Records identifying changes made to the IM program, or its
elements, including a description of the change and the reason it was
made; and"*

192.1015(f) *"Records on performance measures. However, an operator must
only retain records of performance measures for ten years".*

These sections are too prescriptive and will require documentation
management that will be costly and provide minimal value. This part of
the proposed rule is similar to the IMP rule and unnecessary. State
Program Mangers and/or PHMSA will periodically review the plan for
completeness and effectiveness and the operator will have an opportunity
at that time to defend their plan and decision making.

**9) 192.1017 Deviation from Periodic Inspections in this Part**

192.1017(a) "*An operator may propose to reduce the frequency of
periodic inspections and tests required in this part on the basis of the
engineering analysis and risk assessment required by this subpart.
Operators may propose reductions only where they can demonstrate that
the reduced frequency will not significantly increase risk".*

Operators may propose reduction only where they can demonstrate that the
reduced frequency will not significantly increase risk. The rule needs
clarification by example or other explanation of what constitutes a
significant increase in risk.

**Docket Number PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19854**

**[49CFR192 Subpart P: Distribution Integrity Management
Program]{.underline}**

**Comments on NPRM**

**Embedded PHMSA Questions**:

**10)** An operator may complete a risk evaluation of their entire
system and determine that there is significant risk in one or more
operating sections of their system. Moving resources to address the risk
takes time and money especially if the lower risk areas have not been
granted waivers to reduce resource commitments in these low risk areas.
Additional resources (manpower, equipment, materials, etc) may be
required and be over and above the operators baseline needs. The final
rule must allow, and recognize, that resource movement has limitations
with union agreements, budgets, etc.

**11**) The timeline of events for the DIMP comment period seem to be
adequate for a comprehensive evaluation and response.

**12**) The Plastic Pipe Database reporting will be significantly
improved by implementation of DIMP. AGA can be the custodian of the
database without going to an outside vendor. Operators already fund AGA
and it would be preferable to keep the data and analysis readily
available through the communications schemes already in place.

**13**) Alternative Inspection Interval process options should include
the streamlined Special Permit (waiver) process and be reviewed by the
state regulatory agencies. If the states approve then it should be an
automatic approval by PHMSA.

**Miscellaneous Issue**

Consumers Energy agrees with AGA that with this new rule low stress
transmission pipelines could be treated as distribution pipeline under
the DIMP rule. While it may not be feasible at this point in time, it is
recommended this issue be considered and resolved when feasible.