Blogs

Last Friday, the DC Circuit Court issued a ruling on RIN2 of the Gas Transmission Rule. Immediately following the publication of RIN2 in 2022, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) petitioned the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on five provisions of the rule. The Court ruled in favor of INGAA on four of the five issues. Read the full court decision here. 

1. High-Frequency ERW: Petition granted. The court vacates the repair criteria standard for metal loss affective a longitudinal seam on high-frequency ERW pipe both inside and outside HCAS (§§ 192.714(d)(1)(iv) and 192.933(d)(1)(iv)). The requirement remains for low-frequency ERW.
2. Crack-MAOP: Petition granted. The court vacates  §§ 192.714(d)(1)(v)(C) and 192.933(d)(1)(v)(C) which detailed repair criteria for pipelines inside and outside HCAs with “a crack or crack-like anomaly that has a predicted failure pressure, determined in accordance with § 192.712(d), that is less than 1.25 times MAOP.”
3. Dent-Safety Standard: Petition granted. The court vacates all of 192.712(c), which requires an analysis of predicted failure pressure and critical strain level for dents and other mechanical damage. Functionally this removes a repair criteria for dents when found outside of HCAs. Dents found inside HCAs must use the repair criteria detailed in §  192.933(d)(1)-(3). 
4. Corrosive – Constituent Standard: Petition granted. The court vacates the addition of § 192.478 - Internal corrosion control: Onshore transmission monitoring and mitigation.
5. Pipeline – Segment: Petition denied. Between the proposed and final rule, PHMSA added the term “segment” in 192.929 – What are the requirements for using Direct Assessment for Stress Corrosion Cracking? “A Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment (SCCDA) is a process to assess a covered pipeline segment for the presence of stress corrosion cracking (SCC) by systematically gathering and analyzing excavation data from pipe having similar operational characteristics and residing in a similar physical environment.” INGAA argued PHMSA did not adequately update their cost-benefit analysis to account for this change. PHMSA stated in record that the additional word does not implement any substantive change. The court did not find INGAA’s concerns convincing.