1TheU.S.

Experience in Managing
the Threat of Hard Spots

Khanh Tran1, Simon Slater1, Thomas Eiken2, Daniel Molenda2

1
ROSEN Integrity Services, 2 ROSEN Technology and Research Center

Organized by

Proceedings of the 2023 Pipeline Technology Conference (ISSN 2510-6716).

www.pipeline-conference.com/conferences

Copyright ©2023 by EITEP Institute.

 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

1 ABSTRACT
A hard spot is an area with a hardness increase compared to the surrounding base metal. Such localized
hardness increases can pose a threat that operators are managing in the United States (U.S.). A large
portion of the U.S. transmission network contains “vintage” pipe manufactured pre-1970. The
existence of hard spots in combination with the relatively poor material properties and quality issues
associated with vintage pipes and other active threats is an issue that operators are including in their
integrity management plans. With the drive towards a decarbonized economy and the introduction of
hydrogen into existing natural gas transmission and distribution networks, the threat from hard spots
in the presence of hydrogen has become a critical focus area. Material hardness anomalies on pipelines
are detected and characterized using in-line inspection (ILI). Over the past number of years, extensive
validation work has been completed to assess and characterize the reported anomalies, confirming
that there are different types of material hardness anomalies, with variation in peak hardness, location
on the outside or inside surface, dimensions, etc. This paper provides a description of the work
performed in the U.S. to detect, characterize and size hard spots, and the significant amount of learning
available to share with the industry as a platform to manage the threat of hard spots, not only in the
U.S. but also in other regions.

2 INTRODUCTION
A hard spot is a localized area with increased hardness compared to the surrounding base metal. API
5L states that a hard spot larger than 50.8 mm in any direction with a hardness greater than 327 HBW
shall be classified as a defect [1]. Hard spots result from application of a local thermal cycle, such as
localized quenching of the surface, to produce a different (and harder) microstructure to the
surrounding parent material, as illustrated in Figure 1. Hard spots have typically been observed in older
vintage pipes that use plate as feedstock, mainly due to the technology limitations and quality control
issues in plate or pipe manufacturing methods before 1970, such as electric flash welding (EFW) and
double-submerged arc welding (DSAW). In addition to upsets in the manufacturing process, different
microstructures can be created through welding. Although not permitted in modern plate/strip/pipe
manufacturing standards, repairs in the pipe body (performed when in plate/strip or pipe form) can be
present in vintage pipes. These are normally ground flush after repair to leave a small amount of weld
metal and heat-affected zone (HAZ). Depending on the welding process and procedure used (and level
of quality control), these may contain localized hardened areas and/ or weld defects.

Figure 1 Schematic of cooling rates and associated microstructures

2
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

According to data published by the U.S. Department of Transportation [2], approximately 54% of
onshore gas transmission pipeline systems in the U.S. was constructed prior to 1970, as shown in Figure
2 below. It is therefore not surprising that the threat of hard spots is particularly evident in the U.S.,
where the majority of the transmission system is constructed from vintage pipes that were likely more
affected by upsets in the manufacturing process.

Figure 2 Miles of onshore gas transmission pipelines installed in the U.S. by decades

As hard spots are normally created during plate/pipe manufacturing or construction, it follows that
they have likely survived mill acceptance hydro tests and commissioning hydro tests. Hard spots
therefore present a latent threat and can become an active threat when interacted with other
threat(s). Under hydrogen exposure, hard spots are potentially preferential sites for hydrogen-induced
cracking to initiate and propagate. Thus, for gas transmission pipelines, integrity management efforts
have been focused on external and/or through-wall hard spots because hydrogen from the outside
sources may penetrate to the external pipe wall through disbonded coating. As the industry is moving
towards a decarbonized economy where hydrogen transporting pipelines are becoming more
ubiquitous, especially in the European markets, internal hard spots also need to be considered and
managed. Table 1 summarizes incidents associated with hard spots published by the U.S. Department
of Transportation [3].
Table 1 Known pipelines incidents due to hard spots in the U.S.
Year of Failure Cause of Failure Failure Mode Pipe Types

1955 - 1986 Hydrogen Stress Cracking in hard 13 ruptures & 4 OD: 762 mm
spots with hardness of 350 – 510 leaks WT: 9.525 mm
HBW at or near the crack origins Grade: X-52
1986 – 2015 Hard spots 17 leaks Vintage: 1952 /
2003 Mid-wall lamination or hard spots Rupture 1957
2015 Hard spots Rupture Manufacturer: A.O.
2019 Interaction between hard spots Rupture Smith
and mid-wall lamination Seam Type: EFW

3
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

All of the failures associated with hard spots listed above occurred in pipes manufactured using the
EFW process, which is not found in the European pipeline systems. Electric flash welded pipes were
made between 1930 and 1969 by only one company, A.O. Smith Corporation. The industry consensus
is that EFW pipes are susceptible to hard spots. As will be discussed, hard spots have also been
observed on vintage DSAW pipes from a variety of manufacturers. EFW and DSAW pipes have one
significant thing in common; they are both manufactured from plates of discrete lengths, which were
rolled from slab. Hard spots generally tend to originate from the plate manufacturing process, but can
come from pipeline construction, and the pipe manufacturing process.

3 IN-LINE INSPECTION TECHNOLOGY AND HISTORY

The starting point of a coherent holistic integrity management strategy is assessment. Hard spots can
occur at any point around the circumference or along the length of a pipeline, meaning that a reliable
inspection technology is a critical to success. ROSEN’s RoMAT Dual MaGnetization (DMG) service is
based on standard magnetic flux technology (MFL). As hard spots possess different metallurgical
properties, specifically magnetic permeability, compared to the surrounding metal, combining full
magnetic saturation with a well-defined lower magnetization enables accurate and precise hard spot
classification and sizing. The standard MFL technology saturates the pipe with magnetic field to
overcome the difference in magnetic permeability of different material states. Adding a second unit
with similar design but lower magnetization level detects material change. Comparing the flux leakage
amplitudes on the different magnetization levels provides the ability to identify hardness changes from
metal loss defects such as corrosion.
As shown in Figure 3, significant flux leakage in the high field indicates the presence of metal loss
anomalies (indicated by the black circles). The disruption of the signal in the low field, with no magnetic
flux leakage in the high field, suggests the presence of material change / hard spots (indicated by the
red circles). Analyzing the signal data of the low field alone does not provide sufficient evidence for
hard spot detection as metal loss anomalies may influence the low field (i.e. the black rectangles).

Figure 3 High- and low- field signal response

4
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

Over the past three years, more than 70 RoMAT DMG inspections were performed in the U.S., covering
approximately 4800 km of natural gas transmission pipelines. Figure 4 and Figure 5 summarize these
DMG inspections in terms of predominant pipe vintages, manufacturers and types.

Figure 4 DSAW pipe populations inspected over the past 3 years with RoMAT DMG in the U.S.1

As demonstrated in Figure 4, various populations of DSAW pipes manufactured in the 1940s up to the
2000s, totalling 2360 km, have been inspected with RoMAT DMG. Within these populations, 1950s
Republic is the dominant one with ~625 km of pipes inspected, followed by 1950s National Tube and
1950s Consolidated Western pipes.
Figure 5 EFW, ERW and Seamless pipe populations inspected over the past 3 years with RoMAT DMG

1
Beth. = Bethlehem Steel; C. West. = Consolidated Western; MAN = Mannesmann; USS = U.S. Steel;
NatTube = National Tube
5
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

Furthermore, within the U.S., more than 1600 km of EFW pipes was inspected with RoMAT DMG, of
which ~1280 km is 1950s vintage, as shown in Figure 5. A small amount of vintage electric-resistance
welded (ERW) and seamless pipes were also inspected with RoMAT DMG. Of all the pipe types, more
EFW has been inspected than the others, unsurprisingly as EFW is considered the most susceptible to
hard spots.

4 CHARACTERIZING HARD SPOTS

Following in-line inspection, it is critical to perform in-ditch activities to verify reported anomalies and
to validate tool performance. Several campaigns have been conducted by different operators that
allowed for the development of robust hard spot verification procedures. This approach has improved
the effectiveness of field activities and can be an example for the industry.

Before any detailed work commences, it is essential to perform a visual inspection and identify visible
anomalies on the external surface, such as dents, mechanical damage or inhomogeneity in the long
seam in the location of the reported ILI indication. Magnetic particle inspection (MPI) is strongly
recommended to identify the existence of cracking in the vicinity of the ILI call out.
A material hardness anomaly is not likely to be visible to the naked eye, and techniques are required
to help locate the material hardness anomaly. One of the technologies with a proven track record of
detecting external surface material change is the Eddy Current (EC) Array technology, as shown in
Figure 6.
Figure 6 EC Array technology

This technology can assist to locate reported anomalies. Examples for EC Array scans compared to the
material change identified after surface preparation and metallography are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 EC array scan vs. Etching of a reported standard material hardness anomaly

6
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

Once the location of the reported indication is confirmed, the area needs to be polished to remove all
or most of impurities from the surface with abrasive discs. This step is crucial in ensuring accurate and
precise results since surface conditions may influence the quality of the etching and hardness
measurement. The surface must be prepared sequentially from coarse to fine pads (36 → 60 → 120 →
320 grit is recommended). The polished area is etched with NITAL to validate the presence / absence
of a material change. It is important to note that if the surface is not prepared properly, an existing
material change may not appear as the remnant contaminations on the pipe surface may inhibit the
reaction between the NITAL and the steel. Figure 8 shows an example of an ILI call-out following
polishing and then etched with NITAL.

Figure 8 Location of ILI call-out following polishing (left) and etching (right)

The hardness is then measured in the region of the confirmed material change and also the base pipe
to confirm if the reported indication has elevated hardness and if so, to what extent. A dot grid system
of 10 mm x 10 mm is recommended, where at least 5 hardness measurements within each grid are
captured, as shown in Figure 9. Erroneous hardness measurements are potential consequences of poor
surface preparation as the remnant impurities on the pipe can prevent direct contact between the
hardness probe tip and the steel surface.
Figure 9 Example of measuring dot grit 10 mm x 10 mm; blue arrows indicate work order

+
+

5 TYPES OF MATERIAL HARDNESS ANOMALIES

Integrating the significant number of validation results with the DMG signal data has realized an
improved understanding of what hard spots are, and, moreover, the different ‘types’ of material
hardness anomalies that can exist across mainly EFW and DSAW pipes. Based on the experience and
destructive testing performed over the past three years, it has become clear that not all hardness
7
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

anomalies are the same. Three main ‘types’ of material hardness anomalies have been identified.
These are all characterized as material hardness anomalies, i.e., localized differences in hardness
compared to the surrounding base pipe and have some specific characteristics that can help determine
an appropriate response.

5.1 STANDARD MATERIAL HARDNESS ANOMALIES

This type of anomaly most likely originated from very localized thermal cycles based on their relatively
small dimensions. The majority of validated anomalies show similar physical characteristics following
etching, i.e. a dark border surrounding the anomalies and visible indications of weld material deposited
on the surface, suggesting that these are welding repairs, performed at some stage of plate of pipe
manufacturing process. An example of this type of anomaly is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Etching of a standard material hardness anomaly performed in field (unit in inches)

The metallurgical cross section across this particular anomaly and a close-up of the HAZ are shown in
Figure 11. Figure 12 shows the HAZ microstructure, containing a mixture of acicular ferrite and
martensite.
Figure 11 Photomicrographs across the anomaly; 2% Nital etchant, 0.6x (left) and 50x (right)
magnification

Figure 12 Photograph of HAZ microstructure of the anomaly; 2% Nital etchant, 500x magnification

8
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

Microhardness measurement (with a 500-gram force and 0.5 mm spacing) was performed across the
cross section to produce a hardness map. The color variation represents the hardness across the weld,
with blue being lower hardness and red being higher levels of hardness. In this sample, the maximum
hardness of 344 HBW was observed below the external surface, at the fusion line and HAZ.

Figure 13 Hardness map of the anomaly, with maximum hardness observed subsurface

5.2 GROUP 1 ANOMALIES

This type of anomaly exhibits a unique ‘saw tooth’ pattern, which is fully circumferential on the internal
surface, with a lighter edge surrounding the anomaly following etching, as shown in Figure 14. These
anomalies do not tend to exhibit any material change on the external surface. The ‘saw tooth’ pattern
of these samples can be detected by the Internal Eddy Current (IEC) sensor incorporated in DMG
inspection, as shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14 Distinct 'saw tooth' pattern on Group 1 anomalies and associated IEC signal

Microstructures have been investigated at different locations through the thickness (base metal,
transition region between base metal and visible material change as well as area with positive etching),
as displayed in . The microstructures in C1 and the top left of D2 exhibit acicular ferrite/bainite. The
microstructure in the bottom right of D2 and B2 is a ferrite and pearlite microstructure.

9
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

Figure 15 Views of microstructures in C1 (rapidly cooled), D2 (transition) and B2 (base pipe)

A cross section of the sample is shown in Figure 16. The red arrow indicates the darker-colored
microstructure that was visible on the inside surface, and the shallow penetration depth of the
hardened region. The maximum hardness measured from verified Group 1 samples is 240 HBW.
Figure 16 A view of the longitudinal top face, showing the inside to outside surface profile

5.3 GROUP 2 ANOMALIES

Following polishing and etching, Group 2 anomalies reveal themselves as distributed and somewhat
random areas on both the external and internal surfaces, as shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17 Group 2 anomalies, following polishing and etching

Anomaly 1 / External Anomaly 2 / External Anomaly 2 / Internal

A cross-section from a Group 2 anomaly (Anomaly 2 in Figure 17) is shown in Figure 18. The anomaly
is through wall, originating on the external surface and visible towards the internal surface.

10
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

Figure 18 Cross section of a Group 2 anomaly, showing the darker color area lightens towards the
inside surface

Microstructures of a Group 2 sample, shown in Figure 19, exhibit areas of pro-eutectoid ferrite and
martensite.

Figure 19 Metallography cross sections of a Group 2 sample

11
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

The microhardness map of this sample is shown in Figure 20, where the maximum hardness observed
near the external surface and measured 429 HBW.

Figure 20 Microhardness map of a Group 2 sample

6 INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE THREAT OF HARD

SPOTS
As with any threat, prior to the ILI, a preliminary analysis is performed to understand the pipeline’s
susceptibility to hard spots. In the majority of cases, hard spots are introduced during the plate or pipe
manufacturing process, and therefore can be related to specific pipe types, batches or manufacturers.
Thus, utilizing historical ILI result aligned with pipe populations can contribute to advance hard spot
susceptibility analysis. Figure 21 below displays the average number of material hardness anomalies
reported per km by RoMAT DMG on pipe populations with at least 30-km inspected length, excluding
EFW pipes, which are not applicable in the European systems.
Figure 21 Average number of material hardness anomalies (standard and Group 2) reported by ILI,
categorized by manufacturer and vintage

Among populations shown in Figure 21, 1950s Republic and 1950s National Tube are the two
populations with significant inspection work (> 300-km inspection length). For the remaining
12
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

populations, it is possible that the results are not fully representative due to limited inspection lengths.
This information allows for a quantitative, rather than qualitative, susceptibility analysis.

Following the inspection, it is critical to understand the different types of anomalies reported as well
as their characteristics. The cause of hard spots is some form of local thermal cycle, for example during
hot plate rolling, which ultimately determines what microstructure is present. Many factors
characterize a thermal cycle, including the temperature of the material prior to cooling, the cooling
rate, the temperature of the adjacent metal (which directly affects the cooling rate), etc. Figure 22 and
Figure 23 show the correlation of measured surface hardness with anomaly type and anomaly location,
respectively. It should be noted higher hardness values have been measured subsurface.

Figure 22 Correlation of surface hardness measurements with anomaly groups

Figure 23 Correlation of surface hardness measurements with anomaly location

According to the validation data, standard material hardness anomalies and Group 2 anomalies may
potentially be classified as hard spots, according to the definition provided in the Code of Federal
Regulations 2 , which is adopted from the guidance in API 5L for acceptable hard spots from the
manufacturing process. Hard spots are considered manufacturing defects and often treated as non-
injurious stable unless interacted with other defect(s). The majority of hard spots in pipelines were

2CFR 49 §192.3: “Hard spot is an area on steel pipe material with a minimum dimension greater than
two inches (50.8 mm) in any direction and hardness greater than or equal to Rockwell 35 HRC (Brinell
327 HB or Vickers 345 HV10)”
13
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

created in the 1950s, passed several hydrotests and will reside in the pipeline without additional issues.
However, the locally hardened areas do pose an increased risk for potential cracking, which can lead
to unwanted events, as shown in Table 1.

External and through-wall material hardness anomalies, when interacting with other threats, such as
third-party damage, corrosion pits, etc., can increase the severity of such threats due to stress
concentration and steel embrittlement. Pipeline anomalies may be considered acceptable when
assessed individually; however, when anomalies are co-existing or interacting with hard spots, the
reduction in material toughness due to higher hardness results in a lower defect tolerance.
Furthermore, the increased risk of crack initiation is further elevated in the presence of hydrogen and
high pressures sometimes associated with large diameter gas transmission systems. Hydrogen can be
present on the external surface from the surrounding soils or the chemical reaction because of the
cathodic protection system. Hard spots may introduce microstructures that are likely to be affected by
the presence of hydrogen and may provide initiation points for cracking.

The detection and identification of the standard and Group 2 material hardness anomalies are
currently included in the RoMAT DMG service, which provides a basis for managing the threat of hard
spots. Yet, it is pivotal to integrate all available data to determine if the reported anomalies are
coincident with any other threats / imperfections, including but not limited to:

- Coating disbondment: hydrogen may migrate to the steel microstructure through disbonded
coating; hence, these areas can become conducive to cracking.
- Areas susceptible to bending strain and/or pipeline movement
- Other ILI results, such as: metal loss, crack-like, geometric anomalies, etc.
- Cathodic protection areas with OFF potential greater than -1200 mV: excess hydrogen can be
present in over-protected areas.

Additionally, internal material hardness anomalies are often considered stable unless the transporting
product contains hydrogen. Albeit the presence of material hardness anomalies, without the
interaction with hydrogen on the internal surface, these internal anomalies are less likely to act as a
focal point for environmental-assisted cracking to initiate. With the initiative of moving towards a
decarbonized economy (i.e. introducing hydrogen into modern natural gas transmission and
distribution networks), the threat from internal material hardness anomalies is gaining even more
focus. New hydrogen pipelines in the U.S. are constructed in accordance with ASME B31.12, which also
contains a section with guidance for converting natural gas pipelines to hydrogen service. It
recommends that the maximum hardness for hydrogen gas service lines is 237 HBW [4]. Considering
this guideline, material hardness anomalies that might be considered insignificant for natural gas
transmission pipelines may need a response if the transporting product is hydrogen. Based on the
lower levels of acceptable hardness and current sizing capabilities of ILI, analyzing ILI results and
determining an appropriate response will be challenging. It is possible that a significant number of
reported anomalies would require a response, including in-ditch verification at a minimum.

Based on the work completed over the past 3 years, 41% of validated (confirmed through in-ditch
testing) external hardness anomalies exceed the limit of 237 HBW, as shown in Figure 24.

14
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

Figure 24 Hardness values of ILI reported material change anomalies measured in the field

Of the anomalies that exceed 237 HBW, 42% are in EFW and 58% are in vintage DSAW pipes
manufactured between 1950 and 1960. Figure 25 below shows the distribution of the validated
anomalies with in-ditch hardness measurements > 237 HB in terms of vintage.

Figure 25 Distribution of the validated anomalies with in-ditch hardness measurements > 237 HB in
terms of vintage

Approximately 80% of the validated anomalies with NDE measured hardness > 237 HBW are located
in pipes installed in the 1950 – 1960 decade. It may be concluded that pipes / plates manufactured

15
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

during this era are more susceptible to hard spot. We should consider that the data may be skewed as
more pipe from that decade has been inspected. Figure 2 shows that the majority of gas transmission
pipeline systems in the U.S. were installed in the 1950 – 1970, whilst Figure 4 and Figure 6 reiterate
that significant inspection work was carried out in 1950s pipes. Therefore, the validation results shown
in Figure 25 may biasedly reflect the larger sample of 1950s pipes.

Figure 25 also shows that validated anomalies with hardness > 237 HBW have been confirmed on
modern DSAW pipes, albeit at much lower occurrence compared to other vintages due to limited
validation efforts on modern pipes. Setting those susceptible pipe types aside, vintage pipes may be
no more susceptible than modern pipe. It is quite possible that pipelines containing EFW or vintage
DSAW pipes that are susceptible to hard spots and which have not been inspected using a suitable ILI
system, may be deemed unsuitable for conversion. The only real method available to remediate
internal material hardness anomalies is to replace the section(s) where internal hardness anomalies
have been confirmed. Hence, it is critical that pipelines being considered for conversion are reviewed
and assessed for hard spots and analyzed based on these more stringent criteria for hydrogen service
than for natural gas.

Currently, there is limited regulatory guidance regarding an appropriate response, in terms of

acceptance and repair criteria, to hard spots in the US. Based on the definition provided in CFR 49
§192.3, which refers to hardness value of 327 HBW and dimensions of at least 50.8 mm in either
direction, operators are using certain thresholds in terms of ILI reported hardness and dimensions for
in-field investigation. This appears to be a sensible option, allowing operators to consider the
magnitude of hard spots when defining the appropriate response. Notwithstanding, there are other
factors that have to be considered when planning a response, notably the presence of interacting
anomalies and time-dependent threats. Figure 29 shows a potential example decision tree for material
hardness anomaly response criteria, based on in-ditch hardness measurement of confirmed material
change defects on the external surface. Included in this flow chart is consideration of whether there is
a potential for combination with hydrogen.

16
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

Figure 26 Preliminary flow chart for external material hardness anomaly response, based on in-ditch
validation results

7 COLLABORATION BETWEEN ILI SERVICE PROVIDERS AND OPERATORS

The risk of hard spots is one of the more heavily scrutinized in the last several years within the U.S.
Until recently, the industry had a fractured understanding of hard spots. The collaborative efforts over
the past few years, including integration of in-line inspection (ILI) data with non-destructive and
destructive testing have progressed the evolution of hard spot management. The paramount factor to
this success is the operators’ commitment to verify ILI reported anomalies, and more importantly, feed
the results back to the ILI vendor for continuous improvement. More than 130 verification excavations
have been performed in the past two years by three operators, which significantly helped to establish
a more comprehensive understanding of what material hardness anomalies are, in terms of types,
properties and ILI signal characteristics. Awareness of the different types of hardening material
features and their characteristics has enabled a more profound understanding of ILI capability as well
as continuous improvement of ILI system and non-destructive testing (NDT) for hard spot verification.

This partnership between operators and service providers continues to ensure that the ILI results are
interpreted accurately and the most informed integrity decisions are made, based on available data.
Moreover, opportunities to evaluate ILI tool performance and continuous improvement are also
warranted. Operators’ commitment to validate and test intensively, together with the integration of
infield results and ILI signal data facilitated the understanding and categorization of different types of
material change / hard spot anomalies as well as advanced susceptibility analysis.

17
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2023, Berlin

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on a significant amount of validation data, we now know that not only A.O. Smith EFW, but also
vintage DSAW pipes from a wide range of manufacturers, are susceptible to hard spots. The historical
inspection and in-ditch data contribute to establish trending, enhance the accuracy of susceptibility
analysis and the efficacy of integrity management with respect to the threat of hard spots. Moreover,
more than one type of material hardness anomalies have been confirmed and not all may constitute a
threat to pipeline integrity, depending on operational conditions and other threats. As hard spots
present a latent threat, the IMP must integrate all available data and information from ILI, service
history, operating parameters, infield validation data, etc. to manage the threat in the most effective
manner. These comprehensive data help to evolve industry knowledge and standard practices for
integrity management of hard spots.

9 REFERENCES
[1] The American Petroleum Institute, API 5L Specification – Line Pipe, Forty-Sixth Edition, April
2018.
[2] U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Gas
Distribution, Gas Gathering, Gas Transmission, Hazardous Liquids, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), and
Underground Natural Gas Storage (UNGS) Annual Report Data. Available:
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/gas-distribution-gas-gathering-gas-
transmission-hazardous-liquids [Accessed 2023].
[3] U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
Corrective Action Order Cases Initiated. Available:
https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/CAO_opid_0.html [Accessed 2023].
[4] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.12:
Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines, 2019.

18