{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-10-0026","title":"New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2011-06-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-10-0026 response to New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission concerning 191.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-10-0026.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-10-0026.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-10-0026","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/Pipeline/2011/New%20Mexico%20PRC-PI-10-0026-06-14-11-Part%20191.3.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJUN 1 4 2011\nMr. Jason Montoya, PE\nBureau Chief\nNew Mexico Public Regulatory Commission\n1120 Paseo de Peralta, Room 416\nSanta Fe, NM 87504-1269\nDear Mr. Montoya:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nNovember 29,2010, you requested an interpretation of the applicability of the incident reporting.\nrequirements for events involving the release of gas from a gas pipeline. Specifically, you\nrequested clarification on how the definition of the word \"incident\" in 49 CFR 191.3 would\napply with respect to three separate events that occurred in New Mexico in 2010 that resulted in\nfatalities or hospitalization. You described the incidents as follows:\nThe first fatality (Report No. 2010041-15053) involved a driver hitting a gas meter and\ncontinuing down the street where he ran into a tree; the second fatality (Report No. 2010078-\n15106) was identical except that the driver ran into a horse trailer; and the third fatality\n(Report No. 20100106-15140) was very similar as well. All incidents resulted in less than\n$15,000 operator property damage, including cost of gas lost and repairs.\nYou stated your understanding that § 191.3 would require all three incidents to be reportable\nincidents because each of the events involved a release of gas and either a death or inpatient\nhospitalization. You further stated that PHMSA informed you that incident reporting was not\nrequired for incidents 2010041-15053 and 2010078-15106 but PHMSA did not mention the\nsimilar incident 20100106-15140 and this has caused uncertainty in making determinations on\nwhat is and is not considered a reportable incident.\nYou further asked PHMSA to clarify the manner in which operators are required to calculate\nestimated property damage costs for incidents similar to the ones you described. In particular,\nyou asked whether the damage to the vehicles involved in these incidents needed to be included\nin estimating the costs.\nAt the time of these particular incidents, the definition of an incident in § 191.3 read:\nIncident means any of the following events:\n(l) An event that involves a release of gas from a pipeline or ofliquefied natural gas or\ngas from an LNG facility, and\n(i) A death, or personal il1iury necessitating in-patient hospitalization; or\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\n(ii) Estimated property damage, including cost of gas lost, of the operator or others, or\nboth, of $50,000 or more.\n(2) An event that results in an emergency shutdown of an LNG facility.\n(3) An event that is significant, in the judgment of the operator, even though it did not\nmeet the criteria of paragraphs (1) or (2).\nSince then, the agency modified the definition of incident in § 191.3 as follows (75 FR 72905,\nNovember 26,2010):\nIncident means any of the following events:\n(1) An event that involves a release of gas from a pipeline, or of liquefied natural gas,\nliquefied petroleum gas, refrigerant gas, or gas from an LNG facility, and that results in\none or more ofthe following consequences:\n(i) A death, or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization;\n(ii) Estimated property damage of $50,000 or more, including loss to the operator and\nothers, or both, but excluding cost of gas lost;\n(iii) Unintentional estimated gas loss of three million cubic feet or more;\n(2) An event that results in an emergency shutdown of an LNG facility. Activation of an\nemergency shutdown system for reasons other than an actual emergency does not\nconstitute an incident.\n(3) An event that is significant in the judgment of the operator even though it did not\nmeet the criteria of paragraphs (1) or (2) of this definition.\nUnder both definitions, each report describes a series of events, beginning with a vehicle striking\na gas pipeline facility and gas being released. At that moment, there did not appear to be any\ninjuries or fatalities. After the initial contact with gas pipeline facilities and the gas release, each\nvehicle struck other objects. The injuries and fatalities reportedly occurred in conjunction with\nthese later events. That is, they did not happen as a result of the vehicle striking the gas pipeline.\nSince the initial event including the release of gas did not involve injuries,Jatalities, or property\ndamage exceeding $50,000, the criteria in paragraphs (1 )(i) and (ii) have not been met for any of\nthe three incidents. Therefore, reporting was not required for any of these three incidents. If the\noperator elects to report one or more of the events under paragraph (3) of the incident definition\nanyway, it should exclude the injuries and fatalities from the report. Since PHMSA is no longer\nprocessing requests for rescinding telephonic notices to the National Response Center, no action\nis needed related to any telephonic notices associated with these events.\nFor the determination of the property damage calculation, the cost of the damage to a vehicle\nstriking a gas pipeline facility would normally be included in determining whether the incident\nwas reportable. In this case, however, it was acceptable not to include these costs in the\ncalculations because it is unknown whether the vehicle damage was incurred as a result of\nstriking the gas facility or as a result of subsequently striking structures elsewhere. I\nI An operator would, however, be expected to make a reasonable effort to ascertain the extent to which the damage\nwas attributable to striking the gas pipeline facility.\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\nI hope that this infonnation is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me\nat 202-366-4046.\nSincerely,\nDirector, Office of Standards\nand Rulemaking\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\n(/I--) /-6 Ij\nNEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS\nDISTRICT I JASON MARKS\nDISTRICT 2 DAVID W. KING, CHAIRMAN\nDISTRICT 3 JEROME D. BLOCK, VICE CHAIRMAN\nDISTRICT 4 THERESA BECENTI-AGUILAR\nDISTRICT 5 SANDY JONES\nDEC 08 2010\n1120 Paseo de Peralta\n4th Floor Room 416\nSanta Fe, NM 87504-1269\nTRANSPORTATION DIVISION\nDIRECTOR\nLarry L. Lujan\nPIPELINE SAFETY BUREAU\n(505) 476-0298 Main Line\n(505) 827-4388 Fax\nCHIEF OF STAFF\nMichael A. Rivera\nNovember 29, 2010\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n1200 New Jersey Ave SE, P-80\nWashington, DC 20590\nTo Whom It May Concern:\nThis letter is requesting an interpretation from the Office of Pipeline Safety (\"OPS\") relative to the definition of the\nword \"incident\" in 49 C.F.R. § 191.3. Certain background information is provided below for reference.\nOn May 29,2010 (2010041-15053L September 2,2010 (2010078-15106) and October23, 2010 (20100106-15140L\nsimilar \"incidents\" occurred in New Mexico which resulted in fatalities or in-patient hospitalization.\nThe \"incidents\" involved a vehicle striking a gas meter causing a release of gas from the pipeline. However, the cause\nof death or hospitalization . did not result from the release of gas, and an OPS interpretation would be appreciated.\nThe first fatality involved a driver hitting a gas meter and continuing down the street where he ran into a tree, the\nsecond fatality was identica\" except that the driver ran into a horse trailer, and the third was very similar as well. All\n\"incidents\" resulted in less than $15,000 operator property damage, including cost of gas lost and repairs.\n49 CFR Part 191.3 defines a reportable incident as:\n(1) An event that involves a release of gas from a pipeline or of liquefied natural gas or gas from an LNG Facility and\n(i) A death, or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization; or\n(ii) Estimated property damage, including cost of gas lost, of the operator or others, or both, of $50,000 or more.\n(2) An event that results in an emergency shutdown of an LNG facility.\n(3) An event that is significant, in the judgment of the operator, even though it did not meet the criteria of paragraphs\n(1) or (2).\nThis regulation would require all three incidents to be reportable because of the presence of either a death or in-\npatient hospitalization in combination with a release of gas due to the word \"and\" following paragraph (1) above. Per\nthe attached email, PHMSA has requested 2010041-15053 and 2010078-15106 be rescinded but not 20100106-15140\nand has caused confusion on how operators shall determine what is and isn't considered a reportable \"incident\".\n1 888 4 ASK PRe\nwww.nmprc.state.nm.us\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nDEC 082010\nIt \\\\'ould ai'so be helpful if OPS could clarify how operators shall calculate estimated property damage costs for\n\"incidents\" similar to these in question above. For example, does the damage to the vehicles involved in these\nincidents need to be included?\nWe look forward to your response and feel free to contact me with any questions at (505) 946-8314.\nSincerely,\n~ Jason Montoya, P.E.\nBureau Chief\nIL: il\n1 888 4 ASK PRe\nwww.nmprc.state.nm.us\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nDEC 08 2010\nMontoya, Jason N, PRe\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nCc:\nChris. MClaren@dot.gov\nTuesday, November 30,20106:52 AM\nMontoya, Jason N, PRC\nBlaine. Keener@dot.gov; joseph. elmer@dot.gov\nSubject: Request for rescinding of incident reports GD20100041 & GD20100078 by New Mexico Gas\nCompany\nAttachments: GasDistrlncidentlnstructionsPHMSA_F71 00-1. pdf; GasDistribution_201 00078_151 06_\n10.04.2010.pdf; GasDistribution_201 00041_15053_06.28.201 O.pdf\nJason,\nI need some support in asking New Mexico Gas (NMG) to formally ask PHMSA to rescind two (2) Gas Distribution\nIncident reports. NMG can email the link below with the request. These two significant incidents are not reportable\n(based on the data reviewed), and the two significant incidents are really affecting our data analysis at HQ adversely.\nPHMSA is appreciative of Operators reporting incidents in a thorough and comprehensive manner and realizes that\ntheir lack of reporting can be a compliance issue. However, in these 2 cases, we respectfully request that these reports\nbe rescinded. The two reports are as follows (see attachments):\n1. GD20100041 in NM from New Mexico Gas Co. Event involved a car hitting, among other things, a gas meter. \"'7-9-\n2010 all parties agree the event was not reportable and the report should be rescinded.\n2. GD20100078 in NM from New Mexico Gas Co. Event involved a car hitting, among other things, a gas meter.\nNarrative states that the release of natural gas was not the cause of the fatality or associated damage. At a\nminimum, fatality should be removed. Based on property damage less than $50,000, report could be rescinded.\n(from page 4 of instruction attachment)\nRESCINDING A REPORT\nAn operator who reports an incident and upon subsequent investigation determines that the event did not meet the\ncriteria in 49 CFR 191.3 may request that their report be rescinded. Requests for rescission should be submitted on\ncompany letterhead and mailed or faxed to the Information Resources Manager at the address/fax number above.\nRequests may also be submitted by email to InformationResourcesManager0)dot.gov. Requests should include the\nfollowing information:\na: Operator name,\nb: PHMSA-issued operator ID number,\nc. The number assigned by the National Response Center when telephonic report was made in accordance with 49\nCFR 191.5,\nd. Date of the incident,\ne. Location of the incident (city, county, state), and\nf. A brief statement as to why the report should be rescinded.\nThanks, Chris.\nChris McLaren\nus DOT PHMSA Southwest Region\n8701 South Gessner, Suite 1110\nHouston, Texas 77074\nchris.mclaren@dotgov\n713-272-2847 office number\n281-2164455 cellular\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":13079}