# Technical Response Planning Corp — Pipeline Safety Interpretation - **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:** Not available - **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:** <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration OCT 0 6 2014 1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Mr. Greg Desmond Senior Project Manager Technical Response Planning Corp 1610 Woodstead, Suite 355 The Woodlands, TX 77380 Dear Mr. Desmond: In an email to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated November 4, 2013, you asked for an interpretation of the five percent reduction offered for tertiary containment of breakout tanks when determining a worst case discharge. Under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations § 194.105, operators of onshore pipeline facilities may claim prevention credits for breakout tanks that contain oil. These credits correspond to secondary containment and other specific spill prevention measures. One of the other specific spill prevention measures is tertiary containment. Under§ 194.105(b)(4), operators can claim a five percent credit for a tertiary containment system. The definition of the word "tertiary" is in the place or position counted as number three. The main purpose of a tertiary containment system is to prevent the release of oils from breakout tanks to the environment in the event of a failure of both the primary and secondary containment systems. Thus, it is the number three or third line of protection. Additionally, it would be employed to contain leakage, a product release, and drainage.1 In this case, it is intended to assure that the operator does not lose control of the petroleum product and drainage because of such an event. It also allows time for additional measures to be deployed if an incident escalates. The tank, in these circumstances, would be the primary containment system, while a diked or remote impoundment would be the secondary. A remote or diked impoundment comprised of various combinations such as site drainage, sumps, diversion tanks, pits, ponding areas, lagoons, and/or impervious liners would be considered the tertiary containment. 1 Although NFPA 30 does not require the containment offrre-fighting water contaminated from oil, chemicals, foams and combustion sediments, etc., during a prolonged tank frre, this emergency condition should be considered in the design of containment systems. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations ( 49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations. <<>> 2 Therefore, PHMSA's interpretation of a tertiary containment system is an impoundment (a National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) term) that is installed in accordance with NFPA 30 and is outside of a secondary containment that complies with 49 CFR 194.1 05(b ). If we can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe of my staff at (202) 366-5523. Sincerely, The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications ofthe Regulations (49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations. <<>> From: Licari, Frank (PHMSA) To: Asebe, Tewabe (PHMSA) Subject: FW: Tertiary containment/drainage/treatment per NFPA 30 Date: Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:34:45 PM The interpretation is enclosed in this message & dated November 4, 2013. From: Lehman, David (PHMSA) Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 10:19 AM To: Gale, John (PHMSA) Cc: Licari, Frank (PHMSA) Subject: FW: Tertiary containment/drainage/treatment per NFPA 30 I’ve assigned Frank Licari as the SME to help develop a response. From: Greg Desmond [mailto:gdesmond@trpcorp.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 12:40 PM To: Lehman, David (PHMSA); Barber, Melanie (PHMSA) Subject: Tertiary containment/drainage/treatment per NFPA 30 Mr. Lehman, I am writing for an interpretation of the 5% reduction offered for tertiary containment of breakout tanks. I have been unable to locate a definition of tertiary containment. Do you have one? Thank you, Greg Desmond Senior Project Manager Technical Response Planning Corp 1610 Woodstead Ste. 355 The Woodlands TX 77380 (281) 955-9600 ext 115 Phone (281) 955-0369 Fax - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 4751