{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-10-0015","title":"Alta Mesa Services, LP — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2011-05-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-10-0015 response to Alta Mesa Services, LP concerning 192.612.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-10-0015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-10-0015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-10-0015","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/Pipeline/2011/Alta%20Mesa_PI_10_0015.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave, $.E.\nWashington, DL 20590\nMAY - 2 20U\nMs. Ronda Louderman\nAlta Mesa Services, LP\n15415 Katy Freeway, Suite 800\nHouston, TX 77094\nDear Ms. Louderman:\nIn an August 2, 2010, letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), you asked for an interpretation of 49 CFR 192.612, the regulation that establishes the\nunderwater inspection and reburial requirements for shallow-water pipelines in the Gulf of\nMexico (GOM) and its inlets. Specifically, you asked whether: (a) an operator had to perform an\nunderwater inspection prior to the issuance of 69 FR 48406 (Aug. 10, 2004), the final rule that\nimposed the requirements that are currently codified in § 192.612; (b) an operator must\ndetermine the interval for performing these inspections based on documentation of engineering\nmethodology as opposed to historical data and other performance factors; and (c) your company,\nAlta Mesa Services, LP (AMS), can be subject to an enforcement action for committing an\nalleged violation of § 192.612 under certain specified terms and conditions.\nBackground\nIn December 1991, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) issued a final\nrule on the underwater inspection and reburial of certain shallow-water natural gas pipelines in\nthe GOM and its inlets (i.e., those pipelines located in waters less than 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep\nas measured from mean low water, 49 CFR 192.3), 56 FR 63764 (Dec. 5, 1991); see Pub. L.\n101-599 (Nov. 16, 1990). That final rule required that these pipelines be inspected after\nOctober 3, 1989, and before November 16, 1992, and that additional actions be taken upon\ndiscovery of exposure on the seabed or a condition that would constitute a hazard to navigation.\nIn August 2004, RSP A amended those requirements (69 FR 48400; Aug. 10, 2004). That final\nrule required each operator to have written procedures in effect by August 10, 2005, for (1)\nidentifying shallow-water pipelines in the GOM and its inlets that could be exposed or present a\nhazard to navigation, (2) conducting appropriate periodic inspections of those pipelines, and (3)\nensuring their prompt reporting, marking and reburial. These are the requirements that are\ncurrently codified in § 192.612, the regulation that forms the basis for your request for\ninterpretation.\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49 CFR\nParts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts\npresented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to\nhelp the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nAnalysis\nYour first question is whether an operator had to perform an inspection of shallow-water\npipelines in the GOM and its inlets prior to the effective date of the requirements that are\ncurrently codified in § 192.612. As noted above, the December 1991 final rule required that an\nunderwater inspection be performed after October 3, 1989, and before November 16, 1992. 1 The\nAugust 2004 final rule further required that each operator have written procedures in effect by\nAugust 10, 2005, for identifying those shallow-water pipelines that might be exposed on the\nseabed floor or constitute a hazard to navigation, and conducting appropriate periodic underwater\ninspections. Accordingly, operators had an obligation to inspect these pipelines under both the\nDecember 1991 and August 2004 final rules.\nYour next question is whether the interval for inspecting shallow-water pipelines in the GOM\nand its inlets must be based on documentation of engineering methodology as opposed to\nhistorical data and other performance factors. An operator must demonstrate, through the use of\na risk-based analysis and adequate supporting documentation, that it has chosen an \"appropriate\"\ninterval for performing these periodic inspections. Such an analysis should include consideration\nof all relevant factors (e.g., the construction methods used and initial burial depth, the prevailing\nsoil characteristics and erosion rates and the effects of hurricanes, waves, tidal forces, and vessel\ntraffic)?\nYour final question is whether AMS can be subject to an enforcement action for committing an\nalleged violation of § 192.612 under certain specified terms and conditions. In this case, the\nState of Texas is certified to regulate the intrastate natural gas pipelines within its jurisdiction,3\nincluding \"all pipeline facilities originating in Texas waters (three marine leagues and all bay\nareas),,,4 and has adopted the requirements of § 192.612.5 As your pipeline is regulated under\nthese authorities, PHMSA will not comment on whether AMS can, or should, be subject to an\nI According to the information provided to PHMSA, AMS was the operator of a pipeline subject to the requirements\nof § 192.612 at the time of the December 1991 fmal rule. Therefore, your company should have performed an\nunderwater inspection of that pipeline within the applicable timeframes.\n2 An example of a proposed risk analysis for pipeline burial inspections, developed by the Texas Transportation\nInstitute, is included in the docket for the August 2004 final rule.\n3 A State that has an approved certification or agreement and standards that are consistent with the minimum\nFederal requirements may regulate the intrastate pipelines within its jurisdiction. 49 U.S.C. §§ 60lO4(d), 60lO5,\n60lO6. A State may also inspect interstate pipelines with PHMSA's consent, but may not adopt or apply any of its\nown safety regulations to those facilities. 49 U.S.C. §§ 60lO4(c), 60lO6(b).\n4 Tex. Admin. Code tit. 16, § 8. 1 (a)(l)(D).\n5Id. at (b)(I).\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations\n(49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the\nspecific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and\nare provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n3\nenforcement action for violating the periodic underwater inspection requirements for shallow-\nwater pipelines in the GOM and its inlets.6\nI hope that this information is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me\nat 202-366-4046.\nSincerely,\nae\nDirector, Office of Standards\nand Rulemaking\n649 U.S.C. § 60105 (stating that \"the Secretary of Transportation may not prescribe or enforce safety standards and\npractices for an intrastate pipeline facility or intrastate pipeline transportation to the extent that the safety standards\nand practices are regulated by a State authority ... that submits to the Secretary annually a certification for the\nfacilities and transportation that complies with subsections (b) and (c) of this section.\").\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations\n(49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the\nspecific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and\nare provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nALTA MESA SERVICES, LP\n15415 Katy Freeway, Suite 800\nHouston, Texas 77094\n(281) 530-0991\n(281) 530-5278 Fax\nAugust 2, 2010\nMr. John A. Gale\nDirector, Office of Regulations\nPipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Gale,\nAlta Mesa Services, LP (AMS) respectfully requests some clarification on the regulation\nfor 49 CFR Part 192.612, Underwater Inspection and Reburial of Pipelines in the Gulf of\nMexico and it's inlets.\nCurrently, the rule states that the written procedure had to be in place by August 10,\n2005, and periodically the inspections were to be performed.\nIs there any guidance on this that requires that (a) a baseline or initial inspection had to be\nperformed prior to or upon the inception of the final rule; (b) that documentation of\nengineering methodology is required to be used and documented vs historical and\nperformance factors for the inspection interval; and (c) even if this pipeline system would\nhave been in operation under AMS as of August 10, 2005, can a notice of violation or\nalleged violation be issued for not performing this inspection 4 months prior to August\n10,2010 for a 5 year interval schedule?\nYour assistance with this is greatly appreciated.\nSincerely,\n~nuiJLJ~\n~onda Loudennan\nALTA MESA SERVICES, LP\n281-943-5579","truncated":false,"body_characters":9141}