{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-07-0102","title":"Enterprise Products Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2007-04-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-07-0102 response to Enterprise Products Company concerning 192.5.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-07-0102.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-07-0102.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-07-0102","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2007/g07-04-06_kohler_192.5-lmx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-07-0102\nU.S. Department 400 Seventh St. S.W. Room 2103\nof Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nApril 6, 2007\nMr. Joel E. Kohler, P.E.\nManager Pipeline Compliance\nEnterprise Products Company\nP.O. Box 9\nGonzales, LA 70707-0009\nDear Mr. Kohler:\nThis is in response to your e-mail of August 12, 2004, renewing your earlier request for\ninterpretations of 49 CFR 192.5 and 192.619. You asked for clarification of how the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) considers certain buildings and persons in class\nlocation studies and for the specific meaning of the word “prevalent” in 49 CFR 192.5(b)(4). You also\nrequested clarification on the use of class location factors in revising maximum allowable operating\npressure (MAOP).\nYou ask, “For those areas within 100 yards of the pipeline, is the intent of 192.5(b)(3)(ii) to include,\nas Class 3 locations, building(s) such as a convenience store, i.e. Circle K, 7-11, etc., and video poker truck\nstops where persons may frequent on a daily basis?” You add, “What is the interpretation under\n192.5(b)(3)(ii) as to the 20 persons, such as all 20 present at one time or cumulative throughout the\nday?”\nYes, the intent of § 192.5(b)(3)(ii) is to include convenience stores, video poker truck stops and\nsimilar buildings in Class 3 locations where these facilities lie within 100 yards of the pipeline. Under\n§ 192.5(b)(3)(ii), the 20 or more persons must all be present at the same time. However, this does not\nrequire the continuous presence of 20 or more people. For example, the minimum requirement is met if\n20 people are present at a convenience store at any one time during the day.\nYou ask, “What is the definition and intent under 192.5(b)(4), where it addresses ‘buildings with four\nor more stories above ground are prevalent’? If you have 10 buildings along a pipeline, a downtown\narea for example, and 5 or less of the buildings are four or more stories, would this be defined as\nprevalent and constitute being a Class 4 location?” You add, “Are parking garages, open or closed,\nconsidered to be buildings intended to be utilized for determination of class location under 192.(b)(3)(ii)\nand 192.5(b)(4)?”\nPHMSA regulations define some terms used in the Federal pipeline safety regulations and accepts\ncommonly used definitions found in reputable dictionaries for undefined terms. Though we do not\ndefine “buildings” in 49 CFR Part 192, we believe open or closed parking garages are buildings for class\nlocation determinations using any commonly accepted definition of buildings. Also, PHMSA does not\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\ndefine “prevalent” nor do we specify the number (or percent) of buildings with four or more stories that\nmake up a Class 4 location. However, several dictionaries define prevalent as extensively existing,\nwidespread or prevailing.\nIn the example you use, ten buildings in a downtown area with five or more buildings four stories or\nmore would meet the definition of prevalent (i.e., prevailing). Enterprise must consider public safety\nand the protection of the environment in deciding whether four or less four story or more buildings\nmeans these buildings are prevalent (i.e., extensive or widespread). You must explain your rationale to\nPHMSA, if questioned.\nLastly you state, “In addition, 49 CFR 192.619(a)(3) allows an operator to establish an MAOP based\nupon the 5-year window for older systems prior to July 1, 1970. Once that has been established and\ndocumented and a class location study is performed resulting in a class location change from what it was\non July 1, 1970, does the operator have to incorporate a class location factor for revision of the MAOP\nestablished by the 5-year window? Our contention is that the operator does not.”\nWhile there is a clause in § 192.619(a)(3) which allows the operator to establish the MAOP as the\nhighest actual operating pressure to which a pipeline segment had been subjected to during the five\nyears preceding July 1, 1970, this is only true if that operating pressure is lower than the design pressure\nor adjusted test pressure as explained in § 192.619(a). There is a similar provision in § 192.619(c), the\n“grandfather” clause, which allows an operator to establish the MAOP of a pipeline segment at the\nhighest actual operating pressure to which it had been subjected to during the five years preceding July\n1, 1970, as long as the pipeline segment is in good condition and the operator considered the segment’s\noperating and maintenance histories.\nRegardless, § 192.609 requires operators to conduct class location studies to look for population\ndensity increases along existing steel pipelines operating at a hoop stress above 40% of the specified\nminimum yield strength (SMYS). If a class location study identifies a pipeline segment with a hoop stress\ncorresponding to an established MAOP that is not commensurate with the present class location, the\noperator must confirm or revise the MAOP of the pipeline segment using one of the three methods in §\n192.611(a). Operators must use all the applicable class location factors wherever called for in each of\nthese methods.\nIf I can further assist you with this, or any other pipeline safety matter, please contact me at\n(202) 366-4595.\nSincerely,\nFlorence L. Hamn\nDirector, Office of Regulations","truncated":false,"body_characters":5367}