Laserfiche WebLink
DUCKETS UNIT <br />PAGE TEN <br />MARCH 24, 1987 <br />are required to be reported to OPS nor are the results <br />of such testing, which show inadequate levels of corro- <br />sion protection, always promptly acted upon by the <br />operator. <br />(c) Are there adverse safety consequences associated <br />with periodic pressure testing? <br />Response: <br />The possibility of pressure reversals comes into play <br />once a pipeline is pressure tested, however, if the <br />safety margin is established at 3 to 1, the risk is <br />reduced to a negligible level. <br />(d) What would be the costs and benefits of industry wide <br />testing or testing on a selective basis? <br />Response: <br />The City is not in a position to determine the costs for <br />periodic pressure testing. The benefit is an increased <br />level of protection for the public and the environment <br />therefore the cost of a periodic pressure testing <br />program should be measured against the value of a human <br />life and the environment. <br />(e) Under what conditions should OPS require the use of <br />"smart pigs"? <br />Response: <br />Dependent upon the level of development of the <br />technology and the accuracy of the equipment, "smart <br />pigs" could be required to be used in all possible <br />circumstances and under all conditions. <br />7. Proposal: <br />Prohibit new pipelines within 150 feet of any permanently <br />inhabited facility. (HR 262) <br />Response: <br />The requirement of a "buffer zone" between a pipeline and <br />a permanently inhabited facility establishes a greater <br />level of safety than currently required by Federal regula- <br />tions. Many of the homes affected by the Mounds View <br />�1 incident are within 75 feet of the pipeline and were not <br />