{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-14-0010","title":"Technical Response Planning Corp — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2014-09-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-14-0010 response to Technical Response Planning Corp concerning 194.105.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-14-0010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-14-0010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-14-0010","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2014/Technical_Response_Planning_Corp-PI-14-0010-10-06-2014-Part_194-105.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nOCT 0 6 2014\n1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. Greg Desmond\nSenior Project Manager\nTechnical Response Planning Corp\n1610 Woodstead, Suite 355\nThe Woodlands, TX 77380\nDear Mr. Desmond:\nIn an email to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nNovember 4, 2013, you asked for an interpretation of the five percent reduction offered for\ntertiary containment of breakout tanks when determining a worst case discharge.\nUnder Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations § 194.105, operators of onshore pipeline\nfacilities may claim prevention credits for breakout tanks that contain oil. These credits\ncorrespond to secondary containment and other specific spill prevention measures. One of\nthe other specific spill prevention measures is tertiary containment. Under§ 194.105(b)(4),\noperators can claim a five percent credit for a tertiary containment system.\nThe definition of the word \"tertiary\" is in the place or position counted as number three. The\nmain purpose of a tertiary containment system is to prevent the release of oils from breakout\ntanks to the environment in the event of a failure of both the primary and secondary\ncontainment systems. Thus, it is the number three or third line of protection. Additionally, it\nwould be employed to contain leakage, a product release, and drainage.1 In this case, it is\nintended to assure that the operator does not lose control of the petroleum product and\ndrainage because of such an event. It also allows time for additional measures to be deployed\nif an incident escalates.\nThe tank, in these circumstances, would be the primary containment system, while a diked or\nremote impoundment would be the secondary. A remote or diked impoundment comprised\nof various combinations such as site drainage, sumps, diversion tanks, pits, ponding areas,\nlagoons, and/or impervious liners would be considered the tertiary containment.\n1 Although NFPA 30 does not require the containment offrre-fighting water contaminated from oil, chemicals,\nfoams and combustion sediments, etc., during a prolonged tank frre, this emergency condition should be considered\nin the design of containment systems.\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written\nclarifications of the Regulations ( 49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters\nreflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts presented by the person requesting\nthe clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to help\nthe public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nTherefore, PHMSA's interpretation of a tertiary containment system is an impoundment (a\nNational Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) term) that is installed in accordance with\nNFPA 30 and is outside of a secondary containment that complies with 49 CFR 194.1 05(b ).\nIf we can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe of my staff at\n(202) 366-5523.\nSincerely,\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written\nclarifications ofthe Regulations (49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect\nthe agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts presented by the person requesting the\nclarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to help the\npublic understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFrom: Licari, Frank (PHMSA)\nTo: Asebe, Tewabe (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Tertiary containment/drainage/treatment per NFPA 30\nDate: Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:34:45 PM\nThe interpretation is enclosed in this message & dated November 4, 2013.\nFrom: Lehman, David (PHMSA)\nSent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 10:19 AM\nTo: Gale, John (PHMSA)\nCc: Licari, Frank (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Tertiary containment/drainage/treatment per NFPA 30\nI’ve assigned Frank Licari as the SME to help develop a response.\nFrom: Greg Desmond [mailto:gdesmond@trpcorp.com]\nSent: Monday, November 04, 2013 12:40 PM\nTo: Lehman, David (PHMSA); Barber, Melanie (PHMSA)\nSubject: Tertiary containment/drainage/treatment per NFPA 30\nMr. Lehman,\nI am writing for an interpretation of the 5% reduction offered for tertiary containment of\nbreakout tanks. I have been unable to locate a definition of tertiary containment. Do you have\none?\nThank you,\nGreg Desmond\nSenior Project Manager\nTechnical Response Planning Corp\n1610 Woodstead Ste. 355\nThe Woodlands TX 77380\n(281) 955-9600 ext 115 Phone\n(281) 955-0369 Fax","truncated":false,"body_characters":4751}