Myth vs. Fact: PHMSA’s Proposal to Modernize Pipeline Repair Rules

Every form of energy transportation carries risk, but pipelines are the safest way to move large amounts of natural gas and hazardous liquids. While not perfect, that strong safety record is no accident. Safety should combine effective government regulation and industry action.

INGAA members are committed to continuously enhancing the safety of our nation's natural gas transmission pipeline network in pursuit of a perfect record of safety and reliability. That commitment means making every resource count: directing qualified crews, integrity engineers, and limited excavation windows towards the issues that matter most for safety. It requires ongoing investment, sound regulation, and a relentless focus on improvement.

This summer, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposed to modernize repair rules for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines that have remained largely unchanged for more than two decades. The proposal would update repair response timelines based on advanced inspection technology and well-established engineering analysis, predictive failure pressure calculations, and modern engineering standards. This proposal would advance our shared goal of improving pipeline safety.

Recently, Forbes highlighted these changes in "A $390 Million Pipeline Rule Leans On Inspection Data Vouched For Mostly By Industry," and rightfully so, given the public's interest in pipeline safety. Its central concern is that PHMSA relied mostly on information from inspection companies and pipeline operators, and it recommends that inspection tools be "tested by someone other than the company selling them." (While simultaneously noting that citing industry sources is normal and does not suggest impropriety.)

The public deserves confidence in how inspection data is checked. But the article leaves out important context. Without it, readers might walk away with unwarranted fears about the safety of our industry and the agency that regulates it. Below, we present that missing context as it relates to the gas industry.

Myth vs. Fact

Myth 1: Raising the crack threshold from 50% to 70% makes pipelines less safe

What Forbes said: "For natural gas transmission lines, a crack would no longer demand immediate repair once it reaches half the thickness of the pipe wall. The immediate threshold would move to 70%."

Fact: It's easy to read a change from 50% to 70% as a measure of how close the pipe is to failing. It is not. The change reflects how far a crack reaches into the steel wall, and depth alone does not define an action threshold. A crack's risk depends on its length as well as its depth, on the toughness of the steel, and on the pressure in the line. All things being equal, a short crack 70% through the wall poses less risk than a long crack only 30% through.

That's why PHMSA's proposal adds a failure-pressure ratio threshold as a trigger for repair: any crack calculated to fail within 10% of the line's maximum allowed pressure requires immediate repair, however deep it is. Cracks between 50% and 70% must still be repaired within one to two years, and the 70% threshold is consistent with the industry's standard for assessing cracks, API Recommended Practice 1176^[1]

Myth 2: The rule sacrifices safety to save industry $390 million

What Forbes said: "PHMSA estimates the industry would save about $390 million a year." Also: "Still, the money points one way."

Fact: These savings don't come at the expense of safety, they come mostly from avoiding excavations on flaws that pose no danger. These costs include expenses related to excavation and performing the repair, the deployment of human resources (both company personnel and contractors), adverse environmental impacts (including land disturbance and methane emissions), and negative impacts on the efficiency of pipeline operations, including service disruptions to customers. Engineering studies in the public record, including a PHMSA study, demonstrates that some flaws requiring immediate repair under today's rules could safely stay in service for decades, in some cases about 100 years, before reaching failure.^[2] PHMSA expects the rule to accelerate "responses to critical threats while eliminating unnecessary excavations."

Myth 3: Engineering-based repair rules are new and untested

What Forbes said: The gas engineering approach took effect in 2023, crack criteria were struck down in 2024, and PHMSA is now extending the method to liquid lines. "That leaves about two years of experience with the gas approach."

Fact: In reality, we have more than 20 years of rules on our side. Since 2003, federal engineering-based repair rules have applied to gas pipelines. These rules required immediate action when a corroded section of gas pipe is calculated to fail within 10% of its maximum allowed pressure. The foundational research and final report for the standard method for calculating the strength of corroded pipe was completed in 1989.^[3]

The 2022 gas rule took effect more than three years ago. Under its dent assessment process alone, four major gas operators have completed more than 1,200 detailed computer simulations of real dents (FEA). The 2024 court decision Forbes cites turned on PHMSA's cost analysis, not a finding that the engineering approach was unsafe.

Myth 4: The rule takes industry at their word

What Forbes said: "Of 25 citations, 16 come from the pipeline industry or the firms that supply it. None is a peer-reviewed study." Also: "A good workman, the proverb might add, tests his tools before he trusts them."

Fact: Inspection tools are not certified through peer review, here or under any prior PHMSA rule. Academic peer review is not how tool performance is established. Confidence in ILI tool performance comes from checks and balances built into the regulatory and industry process:

• Operators, not tool vendors, compare tool readings against direct measurements of the pipe at every excavation, and PHMSA audits that work.
• PHMSA funds independent studies of tool-performance, including the gouge-detection study Forbes cites.
• Each assessment of ILI data is performed by a subject matter expert before the data is acted upon.

Additionally, the author misstated that the citations were not peer reviewed. Regarding the citations mentioned by the author, seven of them are standards developed by the American National Standards Institute, a non-profit that oversees the development of consensus standards. ANSI requires that standards undergo public review and comment, including review by experts outside of the development team. Papers cited by the Pipeline Research Council International do undergo a peer review before they are accepted for publication. The remaining citations are documents developed by parts of the federal government that have established review processes.

PHMSA relies on engineering standards, from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and ASME^[4], which are developed through accredited processes with balanced committees, public comment, and appeals. Federal law directs agencies to use such standards (National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995; OMB Circular A-119), and PHMSA has done so for decades. The process corrects itself: API withdrew the flawed dent screening table in May 2024, a year before Canada's regulator issued its advisory in June 2025.

Myth 5: The industry opposed PHMSA's cautious approach to dents

What Forbes said: "The gas trade associations told PHMSA it should allow "other technology" in place of full simulation, according to the proposal."

Fact: INGAA supports requiring engineering assessments of dents and it supports detailed computer simulation. We ask for a tiered approach: validated screening calculations for simple, low-risk dents, with finite element analyses for everything else. That is the same fit-for purpose approach used for corrosion for decades. In a review of 1,209 real dents that four operators had already simulated, the screening method never cleared a dent that finite element analysis found needed attention. Federal incident data puts the risk in perspective: of 1,655 incidents on gas transmission lines from 2010 through early 2025, six involved dents. Requiring finite element analyses for every dent ties up pipeline engineers on low-risk features. Screening lets them focus on the dents that need attention.

Myth 6: The industry only wants relief

While the article never says so outright, the implication is that industry only wants relief from regulations and pipeline safety obligations. What the article leaves out-but is reflected in INGAA's comments on PHMSA's repair criteria rule-is that the industry supports regulations in the following areas:

• INGAA has long supported adding a strength-based immediate-repair trigger for cracks.
• INGAA supports updated failure pressure calculations and adopting modern engineering standards by reference, such as ASME B31G-2023 and API RP 1183, in keeping with federal law.
• A certain amount of conservatism in the regulations is appropriate, including the fact that the engineering analysis should be reviewed by a subject matter expert.
• INGAA supports that any crack with a recalculated remaining life should have a clear schedule for reassessment.
• For selective seam weld corrosion, INGAA supports PHMSA's proposal to account for growth over time and offers a conservative upper-bound growth rate where no accepted model exists.
• INGAA supports flagging higher-risk dents for closer review or repair.

[1] API RP 1176, Recommended Practice for Assessment and Management of Cracking in Pipelines, First Edition.

[2] See PHMSA, Repair Criteria for Hazardous Liquid and Gas Transmission Pipelines, 91 Fed. Reg. 42,272 (July 8, 2026) (citing V. Semiga, BMT Fleet Technology, Fatigue Considerations for Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines at 53 (2016)

[3] Project PR 3-805 was completed on December 22, 1989 by J.F. Kiefner and P.H. Vieth at Battelle-Columbus Laboratories, sponsored by the PRCI.

[4] § 192.493 requires operators to follow API Standard 1163 and ASNT ILI-PQ.

Related