{"operation":"document","citation":"PHMSA Guidance, Pipeline Safety: Safety of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distribution Systems","title":"Pipeline Safety: Safety of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distribution Systems","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2002-09-10","effective_on":"2002-09-10","summary":"Pipeline Safety: Safety of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distribution Systems Document 02-22952.pdf (132.69 KB) This advisory bulletin urges owners and operators of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) distribution systems to review their compliance with all leak detection, corrosion monitoring, and emergency response procedures, including training of emergency response personnel and liaison with emergency responders. Heavy","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-safety-liquefied-petroleum-gas-lpg-5ae67f34.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-safety-liquefied-petroleum-gas-lpg-5ae67f34.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-safety-liquefied-petroleum-gas-lpg-5ae67f34","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulatory-compliance/phmsa-guidance/pipeline-safety-safety-liquefied-petroleum-gas-lpg","body":"Pipeline Safety: Safety of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distribution Systems\n\nDocument\n\n 02-22952.pdf (132.69 KB)\n\n        This advisory bulletin urges owners and operators of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) distribution systems to review their compliance with all leak detection, corrosion monitoring, and emergency response procedures, including training of emergency response personnel and liaison with emergency responders. Heavy rains and frozen soils can cause leaking propane to migrate to low areas, such as basements, and impede measurement of the presence of combustible gas.\n\n          Issued Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2002\n\n<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n57484 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2002 / Notices\nApplication No. Applicant Reason for\ndelay\nEstimated date\nof completion\n12676–N ................. Hawks Logistics, Edmond, OK ............................................................................................... 4 09/30/2002\n12701–N ................. Fuel Cell Components & Integrators, Inc., Hauppauge, NY .................................................. 1 10/31/2002\n12706–N ................. Raufoss Composites AS, Raufoss, NO .................................................................................. 4 10/31/2002\n12715–N ................. Arkansas Eastman Division, Eastman Chemical Co., Batesville, AR .................................... 4 10/31/2002\n12718–N ................. Weldship Corporations, Bethlehem, PA ................................................................................. 4 10/31/2002\n12751–N ................. Defense Technology Corporation, Casper, WY ..................................................................... 4 09/30/2002\n12843–N ................. United States Enrichment Corporation, Bethesda, MD .......................................................... 4 10/31/2002\n12845–N ................. Qantas Airways Limited, Los Angeles, CA ............................................................................. 4 09/30/2002\n12859–N ................. Atlantic Research Corporation, Gainesville, VA ..................................................................... 4 10/31/2002\n12867–N ................. G.L.I. Citergaz, 964 Civray, FR .............................................................................................. 4 10/31/2002\n12874–N ................. Zomeworks Corporation, Albuquerque, NM ........................................................................... 4 09/30/2002\n12900–N ................. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC .................................................................. 4 10/31/2002\n12902–N ................. C&S Railroad Corp., Jim Thorpe, PA ..................................................................................... 4 09/30/2002\n12904–N ................. Chemex Corp., San Juan, PR ................................................................................................ 4 09/30/2002\n12921–N ................. GATX Rail, Chicago, IL .......................................................................................................... 4 10/31/2002\n12929–N ................. Matheson Tri-Gas, East Rutherford, NJ ................................................................................. 4 11/29/2002\n12941–N ................. The Neiman Marcus Group, Longview, TX ............................................................................ 4 11/29/2002\n12950–N ................. Walnut Industries, Inc., Bensalem, PA ................................................................................... 4 11/29/2002\n12960–N ................. International Fuel Cells, South Windsor, CT .......................................................................... 4 11/29/2002\n12966–N ................. Scientific Cylinder Corporation, Englewood, CO .................................................................... 4 11/29/2002\nModifications to Exemptions\n4884–M .................. Matheson Tri-Gas, East Rutherford, NJ ................................................................................. 4 10/31/2002\n7060–M .................. Federal Express, Memphis, TN .............................................................................................. 4 10/31/2002\n7277–M .................. Structural Composites Industries, Pomona, CA ..................................................................... 4 10/31/2002\n8162–M .................. Structural Composites Industries, Pomona, CA ..................................................................... 4 10/31/2002\n8308–M .................. Tradewind Enterprises, Inc., Hillsboro, OR ............................................................................ 4 10/31/2002\n8308–M .................. American Courier Express Corporation, Miramar, FL ............................................................ 4 10/31/2002\n8495–M .................. Kidde Aerospace, Wilson, NC ................................................................................................ 4 11/29/2002\n8554–M .................. Orica USA Inc., Englewood, CO ............................................................................................ 4 10/31/2002\n8718–M .................. Structural Composites Industries, Pomona, CA ..................................................................... 4 10/31/2002\n10019–M ................ Structural Composites Industries, Pomona, CA ..................................................................... 4 10/31/2002\n10440–M ................ MASS Systems (A Unit of Ameron Global, Inc.), Baldwin Park, CA ..................................... 4 10/31/2002\n11327–M ................ Phoenix Services, Inc., Pasadena, MD .................................................................................. 1 11/29/2002\n11373–M ................ Chemical Resources, Inc., Louisville, KY ............................................................................... 4 11/29/2002\n11380–M ................ Baker Atlas (Houston Technology Center), Houston, TX ...................................................... 4 10/31/2002\n11537–M ................ JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc., Milford, VA .................................................................................. 4 10/31/2002\n11769–M ................ Great Western Chemical Company, Portland, OR ................................................................. 4 09/30/2002\n11769–M ................ Great Western Chemical Company, Portland, OR ................................................................. 4 09/30/2002\n11769–M ................ Hydrite Chemical Company, Brookfield, WI ........................................................................... 4 11/29/2002\n11791–M ................ The Coleman Company, Inc., Wichita, KS ............................................................................. 4 10/31/2002\n11850–M ................ Air Transport Association, Washington, DC ........................................................................... 4 11/29/2002\n11860–M ................ GATX Rail, Chicago, IL .......................................................................................................... 4 10/31/2002\n11911–M ................ Transfer Flow, Inc., Chico, CA ............................................................................................... 4 10/29/2002\n11911–M ................ Transfer Flow, Inc., Chico, CA ............................................................................................... 4 11/29/2002\n12065–M ................ Petrolab Company, ................................................................................................................. 4 10/31/2002\n12443–M ................ Dow Reichhold Specialty Latex, LLC, Chickamauga, GA ...................................................... 4 11/29/2002\n12449–M ................ Chlorine Service Company, Inc., Kingwood, TX .................................................................... 4 09/30/2002\n12599–M ................ Voltaix, Inc., North Branch, NJ ............................................................................................... 4 10/31/2002\n12866–M ................ Delta Air Lines (Technical Operations Center), Atlanta, GA .................................................. 4 09/30/2002\n[FR Doc. 02–22953 Filed 9–9–02; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–60–M\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nResearch and Special Programs\nAdministration\nPipeline Safety: Safety of Liquefied\nPetroleum Gas (LPG) Distribution\nSystems\nAGENCY: Research and Special Programs\nAdministration (RSPA), DOT.\nACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory\nbulletin.\nSUMMARY: This advisory bulletin urges\nowners and operators of liquefied\npetroleum gas (LPG) distribution\nsystems to review their compliance with\nall leak detection, corrosion monitoring,\nand emergency response procedures,\nincluding training of emergency\nresponse personnel and liaison with\nemergency responders. Heavy rains and\nfrozen soils can cause leaking propane\nto migrate to low areas, such as\nbasements, and impede measurement of\nthe presence of combustible gas.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\nRichard Huriaux, (202) 366–4565; or by\ne-mail, richard.huriaux@rspa.dot.gov.\nThis document can be viewed at the\nOPS home page at http://ops.dot.gov.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nI. Background\nOn September 1, 2002 a propane gas\nexplosion leveled a house in Snow Hill,\nMD. An employee of the local gas\ndistribution company was killed and 17\nemergency responders and others were\ninjured, four critically. The accident is\nunder investigation by the Maryland\nPublic Service Commission. Initial\nVerDate Sep<04>2002 23:17 Sep 09, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nFederal Register / Vol. 67, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2002 / Notices\n57485\nobservations indicate that the propane\ngas explosion occurred as the basement\nwas being mechanically ventilated. The\npropane gas may have leaked into the\nhouse from a corroded service line.\nThe Federal pipeline safety\nregulations for gas pipeline systems (49\nCFR part 192) provide safety\nrequirements for corrosion control, leak\ndetection, operations and maintenance,\nand emergency response for LPG\nsystems. Leak detection on LPG systems\nis complicated because LPG is heavier\nthan air and has a lower explosive limit\n(LEL) of 2 percent in air. Leak detection\nequipment must be calibrated to detect\nthis lower concentration. Leak detection\nmay also be complicated by extremely\nwet or frozen soils and by ineffective\nleak detection procedures. Wet or frozen\nsoils can effectively cap an area of\nleaking gas and cause gas that had been\nventing through the soil into the air to\nbe redirected along underground utility\nlines or through loosely compacted soils\ninto structures, especially basements.\nBoth these conditions require leak\ndetection procedures that emphasize\nmeasurement of gas below the surface of\nthe soil or pavement. Usually this is\naccomplished by ‘‘bar holing’’ and\nexamination of below ground areas,\nsuch as manholes, storm drains, and\nbasements.\nIn addition, the gas pipeline safety\nregulations require an operator to\nestablish and follow written procedures\nfor responding to an LPG pipeline\nemergency (49 CFR 192.615). The\noperator’s emergency plan for LPG must\nrecognize its different characteristics.\nThe operator must establish effective\ncommunications between utilities and\nappropriate fire, police, and other\npublic officials. The regulations require\na continuing educational program to\nenable customers, the public, and\nappropriate government organizations to\nrecognize an LPG pipeline emergency\nand to take action to notify the gas\noperator and local emergency\nresponders (49 CFR 192.616).\nPrompt and effective response is\nrequired when gas is detected in or near\na building. All actions should be\ndirected to protecting people through a\nprompt evacuation of the affected\nbuildings and securing the area.\nRSPA and its state pipeline safety\nprogram partners have recently issued a\nmanual to assist LPG pipeline operators\nin safely operating their systems and\neffectively responding to emergencies.\nThe Training Guide for Operators of\nSmall LP Gas Systems, which was\nprepared for RSPA by the National\nAssociation of Regulatory Utility\nCommissioners, includes information\non LPG pipeline system operations and\nmaintenance and on preparing the\nrequired emergency response manual.\nChapter X addresses gas leakage control\nguidelines for LPG systems. It includes\nguidelines for the detection, grading,\nand control of gas leakage for systems\nhandling LPG and other heavier-than-air\ngas mixtures.\nAnother excellent source of\ninformation on complying with the gas\npipeline safety regulations is the Guide\nfor Gas Transmission and Distribution\nPiping Systems  (ANSI GPTC Z380.1–\n1998), which is published by the Gas\nPiping Technology Committee. The\ndocument provides useful detail on\nwritten emergency procedures,\nincluding making the area safe through\nevacuation, access control, elimination\nof sources of ignition, ventilation, and\ncoordination with emergency\nresponders. It also addresses procedures\nfor establishing liaison and emergency\nplanning with public officials.\nII. Advisory Bulletin (ADB–02–05)\nTo: Owners and Operators of\nLiquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)\nDistribution Systems.\nSubject: Safety of Liquefied Petroleum\nGas (LPG) Distribution Systems\nPurpose: To advise owners and\noperators of liquefied petroleum gas\n(LPG) distribution systems\nAdvisory: Owners and operators of\nliquefied petroleum gas (LPG)\ndistribution systems should review their\ncompliance with all leak detection,\ncorrosion monitoring, and emergency\nresponse procedures, including training\nof emergency response personnel and\nliaison with other agencies.\nLPG system operators should ensure\nthat their procedures are adequate to\ndetect leaks of heavier-than-air gas. LPG\nleaks do not dissipate as readily as does\nthe natural gas, which is lighter than air\nand tends to rise through the soil. Leak\ndetection may also be complicated by\nextremely wet or frozen soils that\neffectively cap an area of leaking gas\nand cause gas that had been venting\nthrough the soil into the air to be\nredirected along underground utility\nlines or through loosely compacted soils\ninto structures, especially basements.\nBoth these conditions require a leak\ndetection procedure that emphasizes\nmeasurement of gas below the surface of\nthe soil or pavement. Usually this is\naccomplished by ‘‘bar holing’’ and\nexamination of below ground areas,\nsuch as manholes, storm drains, and\nbasements.\nIn addition, the gas pipeline safety\nregulations require an operator to\nestablish and follow written procedures\nfor responding to LPG pipeline\nemergencies (49 CFR 192.615). This\nincludes establishment of\ncommunications systems between\nutilities, and appropriate fire, police,\nand other public officials. The\nregulations also require an operator to\nestablish a continuing educational\nprogram to enable customers, the\npublic, and appropriate government\norganizations to recognize a gas pipeline\nemergency and to take action to notify\nthe gas operator and local emergency\nresponders (49 CFR 192.616).\nPrompt and effective response is\nrequired when gas is detected in or near\na building. All actions should be\ndirected to protecting people first\nthrough a prompt evacuation of the\nbuildings, followed by establishing\naccess control, elimination of sources of\nignition, ventilation, and coordination\nwith emergency responders.\nIssued in Washington, DC, on September 5,\n2002.\nStacey L. Gerard,\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.\n[FR Doc. 02–22952 Filed 9–9–02; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–60–P\nVerDate Sep<04>2002 22:17 Sep 09, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1","truncated":false,"body_characters":15838}