Laserfiche WebLink
DOCKETS UNIT <br />PAGE FIFTEEN <br />MARCH 24, 1987 <br />Response: <br />To our knowledge, there are no other viable alternatives <br />for preventing corrosion. <br />(d) Should more frequent tests be required to discover <br />areas of active corrosion? <br />Response: <br />Testing of a pipeline to detect active areas of <br />corrosion such as a "close interval survey" should <br />occur at least annually and preferrably every six <br />months. <br />11. Proposal: <br />Require new hazardous liquid pipelines and existing ones in <br />populated areas to have doubled -wall construction with <br />continuous leak detection systems. (52780; Minn. Rep., Rec. <br />5.5) <br />Resoonse: <br />Even when adequate separation between a hazardous liquid <br />pipeline and occupied buildings exist, there is no guarantee <br />that leaking product would not go undetected for a signifi- <br />cant period of time and when it does "come to the surface" <br />significant damage hasn't already occurred. Double walled <br />pipe with a leak detection system would both, prevent the <br />leaking product from creating a public safety and/or envir- <br />onmental hazard as well as isolating the leak and allowing <br />quick repair. <br />Questions: <br />(a) What has been the operating experience, if any, with <br />this technology? <br />Response: <br />The City is not aware of the details of this technology, <br />but is aware of the fact that it is used in many <br />European countries. <br />(b) What would be the costs of implementation? <br />Response: <br />The City has no information regarding the cost of this <br />technology. <br />(c) After implementation, would would be the expected <br />impact on safety in terms of accidents prevented or <br />consequences lessened? <br />