{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-04-0108","title":"Virginia State Corporation Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2004-12-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-04-0108 response to Virginia State Corporation Commission concerning 192.7.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-04-0108.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-04-0108.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-04-0108","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2004/g04-12-09_Hotinger_192.7-lmxs.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-04-0108\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDecember 29, 2004\nMr. Jim Hotinger\nSenior Utilities Engineer\nVirginia State Corporation Commission P.O. Box 2118\nRichmond, VA 23216\nDear Mr. Hotinger:\nThis is in response to your letter of December 23, 2004, in which you request an interpretation of the definition\nof \"important buildings\" as used in the 1998 edition of NFPA 59, Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied\nPetroleum Gases at Utility Gas Plants. This standard is incorporated by reference in the gas pipeline safety regulations\nat 49 CFR 192.11, Petroleum gas systems.\nSection 192.7 of the regulations makes clear that \". . . any documents or portions thereof incorporated by\nreference in this part are included in this part as though set out in full.\" Therefore, a gas pipeline operator subject to\n49 CFR Part 192 is obligated under § 192.11 and § 192.7 to comply with Table 3-5.1 of NFPA 59A (1998). This table\nrequires that a refrigerated LPG tank with a capacity of more than one million gallons must be at least 400 feet from\nany \"important buildings.\" However, this term is not defined in NFPA 59 or in any final rule or interpretation issued by\nthe Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS).\nWe have reviewed the letters you enclosed from James H. Stannard, Jr. who was chairman of the NFPA technical\ncommittee responsible for drafting NFPA 59 (1998), and from Theodore C. Lemoff, Staff Liaison, National Fire\nProtection Association (NFPA). Both agree that the term \"important buildings\" refers to significant buildings\nfrequented by the public that are not associated with a gas plant, such as office buildings, factories, schools, prisons,\nand the like.\nWe agree with Mr. Stannard and Mr. Lemoff that \"it would have made little sense, in the days when process\ncontrol was either direct or through pneumatic instrumentation, to require such a separation distance for buildings or\nstructures associated with the [gas] facility, particularly for those housing process and control functions.\" Therefore,\nfor purposes of the gas pipeline safety regulations, \"important buildings\" does not include buildings associated with\nthe gas plant, such as control rooms, compressor buildings, motor control centers, warehouses, and fire pump houses.\nIf you have any further questions about the pipeline safety regulations, please contact me at (202) 366-4565.\nSincerely,\nRichard D. Huriaux, P.E.\nDirector, Technical Standards\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nCommonwealth of Virginia\nState Corporation Commission\nTyler Building\n1300 East Main Street\nRichmond, VA 23219-3630\nDecember 23, 2004\nMr. Richard Huriaux Director,\nTechnical Standards\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n400 Seventh Street, Room 2103\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nWashington, D.C. 20006\nDear Mr. Huriaux,\nI am writing to request an interpretation from the Office of Pipeline Safety (\"OPS\") relative to the definition of\nthe words \"important buildings\" in the 1998 Edition of NFPA 59, as incorporated by reference in 49 C.F.R. § 192.7.\nCertain background information is needed to provide the necessary information for your review.\nPivotal Propane of Virginia, LLC (\"Pivotal\") is constructing a new propane-air plant in Chesapeake, Virginia, which\nwill supply a propane-air mixture to Virginia Natural Gas, Inc. (\"VNG\"), a Virginia public service company. As you are\naware, 49 C.F.R. § 192.11(a), states that \"[e]ach plant that supplies petroleum gas by pipeline to a natural gas\ndistribution system must meet the requirements of this part and ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59.\"\nThe Pivotal propane-air facility will employ a 3,300,000-gallon refrigerated tank for the storage of liquid\npropane. Under Table 3-5.1 of NFPA 59 (1998 Edition), a refrigerated tank with a capacity of more than 1,000,000\ngallons must be at least 400 feet from \"important buildings.\" Table 3-5.1 does not contain a precise definition of what\nconstitutes an \"important building.\"\nThe definition of an important building is important to the design of any propane- air facility. In this case, the\nPivotal refrigerated tank is located less than 400 feet away from the facility's control room, compressor building,\nmotor control center, warehouse building, and fire pump house. As the term \"important building\" is not defined in\nthe 1998 edition of NFPA 59, we have been working with Pivotal to determine what the proper definition is.\nPivotal has provided the State Corporation Commission (\"SCC\") Staff with a letter from Mr. James H. Stannard,\nJr., who was the chairman of the NFPA's Technical Committee which drafted the 1998 version of NFPA 59. A copy of\nMr. Stannard's letter is attached.\nIn Mr. Stannard's letter (copy attached), he states, among other things, that \"[i]t is my opinion that the\nstatement \"not associated with the LP-Gas plant\" reflects the intent of most of us on the [NFPA 59] Committee with\nrespect to the concept of an 'important building'.\" He goes on say that \"[i]t would have made little sense, in the days\nwhen process control was either direct or through pneumatic instrumentation, to require such a separation distance\nfor buildings or structures associated with the facility, particularly for those housing process and control functions.\"\nMr. Stannard also noted that in Section 2 of the NFPA 59 (1998 edition), the term \"...important building or group\nof buildings not associated with the LP-Gas plant\" is used. It appears in Section 2-4.1.2 and Table 2-4.1.2 of NFPA 59\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n(1998 edition). Pivotal has also provided the SCC Staff with a letter (copy attached) from Theodore C. Lemoff, NFPA\nStaff Liaison, to Mr. Stannard regarding the meaning of the term \"important buildings.\"\nIn his response, Mr. Lemoff says that \". .control buildings or vaporizer buildings should not be considered to be\nimportant buildings.\" However, Mr. Lemoff went on to say that this \"...is the personal opinion of the author, and does\nnot necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees.\"\nBecause the issue of the proper definition of \"important buildings\" arises as a result of the spacing of buildings\nassociated with Pivotal's facility, we are requesting an interpretation regarding whether, in the 1998 edition of NFPA\n59, an \"important building\" includes buildings associated with the gas plant such as the control room, compressor\nbuilding, motor control center, warehouse building, and fire pump house. This will enable the SCC Staff to determine\nwhether the Pivotal facility will need a waiver in order to continue into operation.\nWe hope that we can resolve this issue quickly, as this facility may be needed by VNG to meet its load\nrequirements for the 2004/2005 heating season. Please provide us with a response as soon as possible. Should you\nhave questions or comments, please let us know.\nSincerely,\nJames M. Hotinger, PE\nSenior Utilities Engineer\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nNovember 11, 2004\nMr. Massoud Tahamtani\nDivision of Energy Regulation\nVirginia State Corporation Commission\n1300 East Main Street\nRichmond, VA 23219\nDear Mr. Tahamtani:\nI have been asked to provide you with an opinion regarding my interpretation of section 3-5 of the 1998 Edition of\nNFPA 59, \"Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases at Utility Gas Plants.\" I gather that\nyour interest relates to the spacing of \"important buildings\" with respect to refrigerated propane containers.\nI have been a member of the NFPA Technical Committee responsible for that Standard for several decades and I\nserved as Chair of the Committee during the period in which the '1998 edition was promulgated. I also played a role in\nthe adoption of both NFPA 58 and 59 into 49CFR Part 192 by the Department of Transportation. In spite of that\ninvolvement, I must state, without reservation, that any opinions or comments expressed in this letter are my own\nand that they should not be considered the official position of the Committee or the National Fire Protection\nAssociation. Such a statement, or position, would require a request for a \"Formal Interpretation\" (FI), which would\nresult in a formal balloting of the entire Committee.\nSub-section 3-5.1 states in part: \"Spacing of refrigerated propane containers from important buildings, storage\ncontainers ....shall be in accordance with Table 35.1.\" Then Table 3-5.1 indicates that such spacing for a container of\nthe size proposed for the Pivotal Propane facility would be 400 feet (122 meters). Apparently there seems to be some\nquestion as to what constitutes an \"important building: The term has not been specifically defined in the standard,\neven though it appears several times within the text, thereby leaving some question as to the Committee's intent.\nSub-section 2-4.1.2, of the standard, reads:\nContainers shall be located in accordance with Table 2-4.1.2 with respect to the distance between containers,\nthe distance between containers and the nearest important building or group of buildings not associated with\nthe LP-Gas plant, or a line of adjoining property that can be built upon.\" (Italics added for emphasis.)\nIt is my opinion that the statement \"not associated with the LP-Gas Plant\" reflects the intent of most of us on the\nCommittee with respect to the concept of an \"important building.\" It should also be noted that a similar statement is\nincluded in the header of Table 2-4.1.2. 1 would be inclined to believe that most of us would consider an important\nbuilding, in this particular context, to be an office building housing many workers or a building open to, and\nfrequented by, the general public. It would have made little sense, in the days when process control was either direct\nor through pneumatic instrumentation, to require such a separation distance for buildings or structures associated\nwith the facility, particularly for those housing process and control functions,.\nIt is my belief that the apparent ambiguity regarding \"important buildings\" occurred as a result of an editorial slip-up\nwhen a complete update of the refrigerated storage portions of both NFPA 58, “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code,\" and\nNFPA 59 was undertaken. That reworked version was placed in NFPA 58 and abstracted into NFPA 59. The effort was\njointly undertaken by the two Committees and, I am sure, the issue of \"important buildings\" was overlooked while the\nmore contentious technical issues were considered. That rewrite and move to NFPA 58 came about as a result of the\nrecognition of the importance of the numerous non-utility LP-Gas import terminals that had been built or were\ncontemplated.\nI have reviewed the Site Plan drawings that have been provided to me and it is my opinion that building and container\nspacing does comply with the intent of Section 3-5 of the 1998 edition of NFPA 59. Please feel free to call on me if you\nhave any additional questions to ask regarding this subject.\nSincerely,\nJames H. Stannard, Jr.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nNational Fire Protection Association\n1 Batterymatch Park\nQuincy, MA 02169-7471\nDecember 9, 2004\nMr. James H. Stannard, Jr.\nStannard & Company\nP.O. Box 2185\nLawrenceville, GA 30046-2185\nDear Mr. Stannard,\nI have reviewed your request for an informal interpretation of NFPA 59-1998, Standard for the Storage and Handling\nof Liquefied Petroleum Gases at Utility Gas Plants. I am pleased to offer the following.\nYou asked:\nIn the 1998 edition of NFPA 59, \"Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases at Utility\nGas Plants,\" the term \"important building\" appears in 2-4.1.2 (5.4.1.2) and its associated table, 2-4.2.4 (5.4.2.4),\n3-5.1 and 4-3.4 (7.3.4). Would an \"important building or group of buildings not associated with the gas plant,\"\ninclude such occupancies as an office building housing employees who are not directly associated with the\noperation of the LP-Gas plant, or a building that is either frequented by or open to the general public, as\ndifferentiated from plant buildings such as compressor buildings, control buildings or vaporizer buildings?\nI reviewed the paragraphs you cited and believe that the answer is yes, an \"important building or group of buildings\nnot associated with the gas plant,\" includes the types of buildings you cite, while plant buildings such as compressor\nbuildings, control buildings or vaporizer buildings should not be considered to be important buildings.\nThis correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the\npersonal opinion of the author, and does not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical\nCommittees. In addition, this correspondence is neither intended, nor should be relied upon, to provide professional\nconsultation services.\nVery truly yours,\nTheodore C. Lemoff\nStaff Liaison","truncated":false,"body_characters":12839}