{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-17-0003","title":"Dow Chemical Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2019-03-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-17-0003 response to Dow Chemical Company concerning 195.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-17-0003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-17-0003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-17-0003","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/70721/dow-pi-17-0003-03-11-2019-part-1951.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nofTransportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington DC 20590\nHAR TT28t9\nMs. Jennifer Ashcraft\nSr. Regulatory Compliance Specialist\nThe Dow Chemical Company\n2301 N. Brazosport Blvd., B-101\nFreeport, Texas 77541-3257\nDear Ms. Ashcraft:\nIn a January 24, 2017, letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), you requested an interpretation of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 195.\nSpecifically, you requested an interpretation as to PHMSA's regulatory requirements at your Salt\nDome Operations (SDO) facility in Freeport, Texas.\nYou stated that the primary purpose for the SDO facility is to provide storage capacity (manage\ninventory) and supply brine for facilities in Dow's Texas Operations. In addition, you stated the\nfacility is subject to and complies with the Railroad Commission (RRC) of Texas Oil & Gas\nDivision requirements as well as OHSA's Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations. You\nasked if the in-plant the piping system within the SDO facility meets the in-plant piping\nexemption in§ 195.l(b)(8).\nPHMSA requested additional information specific to the SDO facility first on February 13, 2017,\nand several times thereafter. On July 5, 2018, you provided PHMSA with additional information\nvia email. In your response, you stated the SDO is an integrated storage facility comprised of\nunderground storage caverns, piping, valves and miscellaneous process equipment used for the\nstorage and transfer of various hydrocarbons to and from both Dow manufacturing units and\nthird parties. You stated the facility stores the following products: naphtha, pygas, methane,\nethane, LPG/propane, ethylene, and propylene. From the information you provided, it appears\none or more of these products, such as methane, may be stored in gas form.\nYou stated products and materials enter the SDO facility through Dow's Gulf Coast Pipeline\nOperations (GCPL), Dow's Site Pipeline Operations (SPO) and other third party, PHMSA-\nregulated pipelines. All pipelines entering the SDO are equipped with PHMSA-regulated over\npressure protection (OPP) devices that protect the SDO in-plant piping from experiencing an\nover-pressuring event from outside (mainline) pressure.\nFurther, you stated that the SDO facility does not refine or manufacture products. You stated the\nfacility is only a storage facility associated with Dow Texas Operations' manufacturing and\nchemical plants. You opined that where you believe PHMSA' s regulations on pipelines entering\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\nthe SDO end, piping and equipment used to transport materials throughout the storage facility\nand to the underground storage caverns are regulated by EPA's Risk Management Program\n(RMP) and OHSA's Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations. Similarly, where you\nbelieve RRC's regulations end for cavern surface piping, you opined EPA's RMP and OSHA's\nPSM regulations apply to piping and equipment. In addition, you provided maps, tables, and\nproduct descriptions of the SDO facility.\nThe Pipeline Safety Act, 49 USC§ 60102(a), specifies that ~'pipeline transportation\" includes\n\"the movement of hazardous liquid by pipeline\" and \"storage of hazardous liquid incidental to\nthe movement of hazardous liquid by pipeline,\" but not the movement of hazardous liquids\nthrough \"onshore production, refining, or manufacturing facilities.\" PHMSA has adopted\nminimum safety standards for hazardous liquid pipelines in 49 CFR Part 195. Section\n195.l(b)(8) states that these pipeline safety standards do not apply to the \"[t]ransportation of\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide through onshore production (including flow lines), refining,\nor manufacturing facilities or storage or in-plant piping systems associated with such facilities.\"\nThe exception in§ 195.l(b)(8) does not apply to any facilities that are used directly in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline (see 49 C.F.R. § 195.l(a)).\nBased on the information you provided, it appears the in-plant piping system transporting\nhazardous liquid within your SDO facility is jurisdictional to PHMSA. You stated the SDO\nfacility \"is an integrated storage facility comprised of underground storage caverns, piping,\nvalves and miscellaneous process equipment used for the storage and transfer of various\nhydrocarbons to and from both Dow manufacturing units and third parties.\"1 You further stated\nproducts enter the SDO facility by pipeline and exit the facility by pipeline.2 Importantly, you\nstated no production, refining or manufacturing activities are performed at the SDO facility, and\ncharacterized the SDO as a storage facility.3 In summary, the information submitted with your\nrequest indicates the SDO facility receives hazardous liquids in transportation by pipeline, stores\nhazardous liquids incidental to their movement by pipeline, and transports hazardous liquids\nfrom the facility by pipeline. The facility is, therefore, engaged in pipeline transportation subject\nto the Pipeline Safety Act and 49 C.F.R. Part 195 unless an exception applies. In addition, the\nfacility may be subject to 49 CFR Part 194 and require an oil spill response plan to be submitted\nto PHMSA for review and approval.\nAs explained above, both the Pipeline Safety Act and Part 195 except the movement of\nhazardous liquids through production, refining, manufacturing facilities or storage or in-plant\npiping associated with such facilities. Since the SDO is not a production, refming or\nmanufacturing facility and does not meet any other exception listed in§ 195.l(b), the in-plant\npiping within the facility is not excepted from PHMSA's jurisdiction.\n1 Dow Letter, (July 5, 2018) at 1.\n2 Id. at2-3.\n3 Id. at 2, 7.\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\nFurther, you noted that the SDO facility \"has equipment and systems in place to process\nmaterials stored to prepare for use in Texas Operations facilities.\"4 Processing involved in\ntransportation that is not otherwise \"production, refining or manufacturing,\" is not exempt from\nthe Pipeline Safety Act under 49 USC§ 60101(a)(22)(B). PHMSA, however, has not currently\nadopted regulations addressing the safety standards of processing equipment.\nFinally, you stated that hazardous liquids are stored in underground storage caverns on the SDO\nfacility site. PHMSA does not currently have specific regulations for underground hazardous\nliquid storage facilities, but does have regulations governing underground natural gas storage\nfacilities in Part 192, specifically in§ 192.12. Because PHMSA does not have specific\nregulations at this time for underground hazardous liquid storage facilities, the application of Part\n195 would stop at the wellhead site valves for underground caverns storing hazardous liquids.\nThe specific valve at the wellhead site can be wellhead, casing head, choke assembly, or line\nvalve, based on your operations and maintenance manual. To the extent any portion of your\nSDO facility meets the definition of a natural gas storage facility under § 192.1, it is subject to\nPHMSA's regulations in Part 192.\nThis interpretation is based upon the information you have provided to support this request. If\nPHMSA discovers that any of the information provided by Dow Chemical Company is not\naccurate or that relevant circumstances change, PHMSA may amend this interpretation to be\nconsistent with the pipeline safety regulations.\nIfwe can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523.\nDirector, Office of Standards\nand Rulemaking\n4 Id. at 2.\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 fonn 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\nJAN302017\nJanuary24,2017\nCERTIFIEDMAIL\nThe DowChemical\nCompany\n2301\nBrazosportBlvd.\nFreeport,Texas 77541\nN.\n#7015 0640 0001 7680 1848\nUSA\nMr. JohnA.Gale\nDirector,Office of Standardsand\nPHMSA,U.S.\nDepartmentof\n1200New\nJerseyAvenue,SE\nWashington,D.C.20590-0001\nRulemaking\nTransportation\nRe:\nRequestforWritten\nTheDowChemical\nRegulatoryInterpretationon\nCompanySaltDome\nPHMSAJurisdiction\nOperations\nDear Mr. Gale:\nThe DowChemical\nCompany,hereinafter\nDow,\nrespectfullyrequestsawritten\ninterpretationasit\npertains\njurisdictionatourSaltDome\nOperations(SDO)\nfacilityin\nFreeport,Texas. SDOisabrine\nminingand\nhydrocarbonstoragefacilitythat\nsupportsand is\nintegraltoDow's\nTexas\nOperations.The\nprimarypurposeforthe\nSaltDome\nOperationisto\nprovidestorage\ncapacity(manageinventory)and\nsupplybrine for facilitiesin\nDow's Texas\nOperations.This\nfacilityis\nsubjecttoand\ncomplieswith\nRailroad\nCommissionof\nTexas\n(RRCT)Oil&\nGasDivision\nrequirements.In\npipeline safetyis\nalso\ndelegatedtotheRRCT.\ntoPHMSA\nTexas,\nregulatoryauthority\nover\nDow contends that PHMSA\nThisstanceis basedonthe\njurisdictiondoesnot\napplytothein\nfollowinginformation:\n-plant pipingsystemsatthe SDO\nfacility.\nAsstated in40 CFR\n195.1\n(b)(8),these\nrequirementsdo\nnot\napplytothe\n\"transportationof\nliquidor\ncarbondioxide\nthroughonshore\nproduction (includingflow\nlines),\nrefining,or\nmanufacturingfacilities\nor\nstorageorin\n-plant pipingsystemsassociated withsuch\nfacilities.\"\nAdditionally,an\"in\n-plant piping system\"isdefinedas\n\"pipingthat\nis locatedonthe\ngroundsofa\nplantand\nusedto\ntransfer hazardous\nliquidorcarbon dioxide\nbetween\nplantfacilitiesanda\npipelineor\nother mode of\ntransportation,not\nincludinganydeviceand\nassociated\npipingthatare\nnecessarytocontrol\ninthe\npressure\npipelineunder\n§\n195.406(b).\"This\nexceptionisbased\nonthe\nUnited States Code\n§601012ofthe\nPipelineSafetyLaw which\nstates\n\"transportinghazardous\nliquiddoesnotinclude\nmovinghazardous\nliquidthrough...\n(ii)onshore\nproduction,refining,or\nmanufacturingfacilities;or\n(iii)\nstorageorin\n-plantpipingsystemsassociated with onshore\nproduction,refining,or\nmanufacturingfacilities.\"\nhazardous\nSDOisan\nunderground\nstoragefacilitywhich receives\nmaterialfrom\nregulated\npipelinesand\nstoresthe material until\ntransported\nthroughregulated\npipelinesas\napplicabletobe usedas a\nmaterial for the various\nproductsthataremanufacturedat\nDow's Texas\nOperationssite and/orto\nstorefinished\nproduct priorto\ntransportationeither backto\nTexas\nOperationsor\nthrougha\nregulated\npipeline.Therefore,it\nisour\nunderstandingthat the in\n-plant\npipingsystemsofSDOdo\nnot meetthe\nterm\n\"transportinghazardous\nliquid\"asstated in the\nUnitedStates Code\n§60101of\nPipeline SafetyLaw\nsince this\nsystemisa\nstoragefacilityassociated with\na\nmanufacturing\nTexasNatural\nResourceCode\n§117.012statesthat\n(b)Rules that\nadopt\nsafetystandarddonot\napplyto\nofhazardous\nliquidsorcarbon\ndioxide\nthroughgatheringlinesin\nrural locations\nor\nproduction,\nrefining,or\nmanufacturingfacilitiesor\nstorageorin\n-plant\npipingsystemsassociated with\nanyofthose\nResourceCode\n§117.011\nJURISDICTION.\n(a)The\ncommissionhas\njurisdictionoverall\npipeline\ntransportationof\nhazardous\nliquidsor\ncarbondioxide andoverall\nliquidor\ncarbondioxide\npipelinefacilitiesas\nprovided by49\nU.S.C. Section 60101et\nseq.\nraw\nthe\n1\nmovement\nfacilities\n2\nNatural\nhazardous\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nMr.JohnA.\nGale\nPHMSA,U.S.\nDepartmentof\nJanuary24,2017\nPage2\nTransportation\nfacility.These\npipingsystemsthat\n\"transportinghazardous\nliquid\"\nareand have been\nfor\ndecades,\nregulated byRRCT\nunder theirOil and Gas\nregulationsand/or\nOSHA'sProcess\nSafety\nManagement(PSM)\nregulations.The Oiland\nGas\nregulations\nspecify\nrequirementsthat minimize the\nrisktolife and\npropertythroughactivitiessuchas\nimplementationofan\nintegritymanagement\nprogramfor\nproduct,freshwaterand brine\nsurface\npipingassociated with\nundergroundstoragecaverns.\ndonotmeetthe definition\nof\n2. From\nInterpretation#PI\nPart\n195\nappliesto\nparticulartransfer\nprimarilyonthree\nfromthe\nregulations:\nLow\n-stress\npipelinesor\npipelinesegmentsare\nexempt,unless\ntheytransporta\nhighlyvolatile\nliquid(HVL)orare\nlocated ina non-rural\nwaterway,oroffshore\n(195.1(b)(3)).\nRefiningand\nmanufacturingfacilities\n(e.g.,\npetrochemical\nplantfacilities)are\nincludingin\n-plant pipingsystemsand\nstorageassociatedwith those\nfacilities\nFacilitiesonthe\ngroundsof\nmaterials\ntransportationterminalsare\nexemptif the\nexclusivelytransfer\nhazardous\nliquidbetween\nnon\n-pipelinemodes of\ntransportation (e.g.,\nbargeand\nrailroad)orbetweena non\n-pipelinemode anda\npipelinemode,not\nassociated\npipingthatare\nnecessarytocontrol\nin the\npressure\npipelineunder\n195.1(b)(7)(ii)).\n-plantand terminal\npiping exemptionsunder\n§195.\n1(b)(6)and\n(b)(7)are\nsubjecttothe\nfollowingdefinitionand\ninterpretations:\nTheterm\"in\n-plant\npipingsystem\"isdefined\nin\n§195.2as\n\"pipingthat is locatedonthe\ngroundsofa\nplantandused\ntotransfer hazardous\nliquidorcarbon dioxide\nbetween\nplant\nfacilitiesorbetween\nplantfacilities anda\npipelineorother mode of\ntransportation,not\nincludinganydeviceand associated\npipingthatare\nnecessarytocontrol\npressurein the\npipelineunder\n§\n195.406(b).\"\nIf\nthere isno\npressurecontrol deviceon\nplantgroundsthatis\nrequired by§\n195.406(b)for safe\noperationofa\njurisdictional\npipeline servingthe\nplant,in\n-plant\npipingextendstothe\nplant\nboundary(57FR\n56305and\n59FR\n33389)....\"\nSDOisan\nstoragefacilityassociated with\nOperationssite.SDOstores\ntransported through regulated\npipelinesto\nand/or fromTexas\nOperationsfacilities\n-plant pipingsystemsof SDOmeetthe\nintent of the \"in\nPHMSA\n-95-056\n(enclosed):\n\"Whether\npiping depends\nexemptions\n•\narea,\nnavigable\n•\nexempt,\n(195.l(b)(6)).\n•\nfacilities\nincludingany\ndeviceand\n§\n195.406(b)(\nThe in\n•\n•\nDow's Texas\nunderground\nmaterialuntil\nand\nbelieves that the in\n-plant\npiping\"\nexemptionin\n§195\nIna\nProposedFAQfrom theSubcommittee\nonMidstream\nFacility\nSafety,PHMSA\nGas&\nLiquidsTechnical\nAdvisoryCommittees,the\nfollowing\nquestionwasasked and\naddressed:\nFAQ6\nQ-\"How is\nstorageand\nassociated\npipinglocatedonthe\ngroundsofa\nprocessing\nfacilityregulated?\nA-\n\"Pipingassociated with\nundergroundstorageused for the\nof\npurpose\nprocessing facility\ninventory\"is\nsubjectto\nregulatory\noversightunder\nOSHAPSM..\n.406(b).\nunderground\n\"managing\nSDO\ncomplieswithOSHA's\nProcess\nSafetyManagementof\nHighlyHazardous\nregulations,whichinclude\nrequirementsfor\npreventingand\nminimizing\nconsequences\ncatastrophicreleases of\ntoxic,\nreactive,or\nexplosivechemicalsthat\ncould result in\ntoxic,fire\nexplosionhazards.Asthese\nrequirementshave been\nappliedtoall hazardous\npipingand\nequipmentwithin the\nSDO\nfacility,Dow\nbelieves that\ncompliancewith OSHA\nPSMismore\nChemicals\n(PSM)\nof\nor\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nMr.\nJohn A. Gale\nPHMSA,U.S.\nDepartmentof\nJanuary24,2017\nPage3\nTransportation\nPSM\napplicableto\nfacilityoperations\nsupportinga\nchemical\nmanufacturing\nscopeof the\nPipelineSafety\nRequirements.Itshould\nalsobe noted that in\nrequirementsmustbe\nappliedto\npipeline\nspecificationstoensuresafe\nfacilitythan the\nsome\ncases,OSHA\noperationsofcertain\nlimited\nlines.\nhi\nand\nthe\nsummary,basedonthe\npipingwithin theSDO\nfacilitymeetsthe\nSDO\ncomplieswith\nstandards,Dowdoesnot\nbelievePHMSA's\nstandards\napplytoSDOin\n-plant piping.Dow\nrequeststhat\nprovidea\napplicabilityofPHMSA\njurisdictionfor the in\n-plant\npipingsystemsatthe SDO\nfact that\ndefinition of in\n-plant piping\nOSHAPSM\npipeline\nsafety\nPHMSA\nwritten\ninterpretationon\nfacility.\nIf\nhesitatetocontactmeat\nyouwould liketo\ndiscuss,orneed\nanyadditional information for\nyourconsideration,\npleasedonot\n(979)238-0361.\nSincerely,\nJenniferAshcraft\nSr.\nRegulatory Compliance\nSpecialist\nTheDowChemical\nCompany\n2301\nN.\nBrazosportBlvd.,B-101\nFreeport,Texas\n77541-3257\n(979)238-0361\nEnclosures:PHMSA\nInterpretation#PI\nProposedFAQfrom\nPHMSA\n-95-056,\nSubcommitteeon\nMidstream\nFacility\nSafety(PHMSATAC)\ncc:\nStephanieWeidmanPHMSA\nProgramManager,Railroad\nCommission of\nSamuel\nCopeland,Railroad Commission\nof\nTexas,Houston District Office\nTexas,Austin\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nBEIGHLE.\n195\nPage1\nDecember\n27,1995\nMr. Bruce D.\nBeighle\nPipelineEngineer\nUnifield\nEngineering\n320South 24thStreet\nBillings,Montana 59101\nDear Mr.\nBeighie:\nThisletteranswersthe\nhazardous\nWewere\nquestionsin\nyourletterofNovember\n18,\n1994,about\napplyingthe\nliquidpipeline safety regulations(49CFRPart\n195)totransfer\npipingat\npetrochemical plants.\nunableto\nrespondsoonerbecause\nofthe\nneedfor\nagency-wide\ncoordinationonmatters\ninvolvingthisnew\nprogramarea.\nDepartment's\nWhetherPart\nappliesto\nparticulartransfer\npiping dependsprimarilyonthree\nexemptionsfrom the\npipelinesor\npipelinesegmentsare\nexempt,unless\nthey\ntransporta\nhighlyvolatile\n(HVL)or arelOcatedina\nnon-rural\narea,\nnavigablewaterway,oroffshore\n(195.1(b)(3)).\nRefiningand\nmanufacturingfacilities\n(e.g., petrochemical\nplantfacilities)are\nexempt,includingin-\nplant pipingsystemsand\nstorageassociated with\nthose facilities\n(195.1(b)(6)).\ngroundsofmaterials\ntransportationterminalsare\nexemptifthe\nfacilities\nexclusively\nliquidbetweennon\n-pipelinemodes of\ntransportation(e.g., bargeand\nrailroad)or\n-pipelinemode anda\npipelinemode,not\nincludinganydevice andassociated\npipingthat\nare\nnecessaryto\ncontrol\npressurein the\npipelineunder\n§195.406(b) (195.1(b)(7)(ii)).\nNoneofthe other\nexemptionsfromPart 195 is\nrelevantto\n(exceptforthe\nexemptionmentioned inanswerto\nquestion im).\nThe in\n-plantand terminal\npiping\nexemptionsunder\n§195.1(b)(6)and\n(b)(7)are\nsubjecttothe\ndefinition and\ninterpretations:\noTheterm\"in\n-plant\npipingsystem\"is defined in\n§195.2as\n\"pipingthat is\nlocatedonthe\ngroundsofa\nplantand used\ntotransfer hazardous\nliquidor\ncarbondioxide between\nplantfacilitiesorbetween\nfacilities anda\npipelineorother\nmode of\ntransportation,not\nincludinganydeviceand\nassociated\npipingthatare\nnecessarytocontrol\nii\nthe\npressure\npipelineunder\n§195.406(b).\"\noIfthere isno\npressurecontrol deviceon\nplant groundsthatis\nrequired by§195.406(b)for safe\noperationofa\njurisdictionalpipeline servingthe\nplant,in\n-plant\npipingextendstothe\n(57FR56305\nand59 FR\n33389).\noIfthere\nis sucha\ndeviceon\nplantgrounds,Part\n195\nappliestothe deviceand\nto\nplant\npipingthat\nconnectsthe\ndevicetothe\njurisdictional\npipeline(57FR56305 and\n59FR\n33389).\noIfthe\ngroundsofa\nplantare\nseparated bya\nsingle\npublic thoroughfare,transfer\npipingthatcrossesthe\nthoroughfarefromone\npartofthe\nplanttothe\nother ison\nplant groundsfor\npurposesofthe in\npipingdefinition\n(59FR\n33389).\npublic thoroughfaresare\nroadwaysbutnotrailroads\n(59FR\n33389).\noBecausethe in\n-plant pipingexemption (195.1(b)(6))is\ncomparabletothe terminal\nfacilities\nexemption (195.1(b)(7)(ii)),the above\ninterpretationsofin\n-plant pipingalso\napplyto\nexemption.\n195\nregulations:\noLow-stress\nliquid\no\noFacilitiesonthe\ntransfer hazardous\nbetweena\nnon\nyourinquiry\ngathering\nfollowing\nplant\nplant boundary\n-plant\no\nSingle\ndetermining\nthe limits oftheterminal\nfacilities\n95-12-27.doc\n195.302,\n195.1,\n195.2, 195.5, 195.106,\n195.401, 195.402,195.406\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nBEIGHLE.195\nPage2\nQuestionla Dothe above in\n-plant,intra\n-facility, delivery,and inter\n-facilitytransfer\npipingdefinitions\ncorrectlydefinethe\nfour\ntypesof\npetrochemicalfacilitytransfer\npipingsystems(excluding gathering\ntransfer\npiping)?\nAnswerThe\ntypeoftransfer\npipingisnotafactor in\ndecidingwhether\nparticularlow-stress\npipingis\nthe\nsubjecttoPart\nQuestionlbDoattached\nFigures1, 2, 3,and4\nfour\ntypesoflow-stresstransfer\npipingsystems?\n195.\ncorrectlydelineate\nOPS\njurisdictionalboundaries for\nFigure1\ndepictsa\nplantserved\nby\npipeline,rail, truck,and vessel\ntransportation,with low-\nstresstransfer\npipingon\nplantgrounds.Exceptfor the intrastate\npipeline,which\nappearstocrossthe\nplantgrounds,all\npipingwouldcomeunder the in\n-plant piping exemptionifthere isno\npressurecontrol\ndevice\nonthe\npipingtocontrol\nin the\npressure\npipelineunder\n§195.406(b).If\nsuchadevice\nexists,the\npipingbetween the device and the intrastate\npipelinewouldcomeunderPart\n195.\nAnswer\ndevice and\nFigure2\ndepictsa\nplantin which\nstoragefacilitiesare\nseparatedfrom\nprocessfacilities\nbya\nthoroughfareand othernon\n-plantpropertyina\npopulatedarea.A\nlow-stresstransfer line\nconnectsthe\nprocessand\nstoragefacilities. The line\nsegmentbetween the\nprocessand\nstoragegroundsdoesnot\nqualifiasin\n-plant pipingbecause it\ncrosses morethana\nsingle\nthoroughfare.Thus,thisoff-\npublic\ngroundssegmentis\nsubjecttoPart 195.The\nsegmentoftransfer line inside the\nprocessgroundsis also\nsubjecttoPart\n195,becauseit\nconnectsthe\njurisdictionaloff\n-groundssegmenttoa\nnecessary\npressure\ncontroldevice. Ifthere isno\nnecessary\npressurecontrol deviceonthe transfer line\nsegmentinside the\nstoragegrounds,that\nsegmentwouldmeetthe in\n-plant pipingdefinition because it transfers hazardous\nliquidbetweenthe\njurisdictionaloff\n-groundssegmentand\nplantfacilities\n(thestoragetanks).\nsingle\npublic\nSononeofthe\njurisdictional\nin\narenot\nStorageassociated with\nrefiningand\nmanufacturingfacilities is\nexemptfromPart 195under\n§195.1(b)(6).\nstoragetanks wouldcomeunderPart\n195,unless the tank\nprovidessurgerelieffora\npipelineor\npipelinesegment.When\nstoragetanks\nprovidethis\npipelineoperationalfunction\nadditiontotheir\nplantstoragefunction,\ntheyarenot\nexemptunder\n§195.1(b)(6). Similarly,such\nexemptasterminal facilities under\n§195.1(b)(7).\ntanks\nFigure3\ndepictsa\nplantserved\nby pipeline,truck, rail,and vessel\ntransportationoff\nplant groundsina\nruralarea.These\ntransportationmodesareconnectedtothe\nplantfacilities\nbyalow-stresstransfer\nsystemthat\nbeginsina\nnavigablewaterwayoroffshore andcrosses aninland\nnavigablewaterway.\nBecausethe\nsystemis ina\nrural\narea,the\nlow-stress\npipeline exemptionwould\napply,exceptfor\nsegmentofthe\nsystemthat transfersHYLand the\nsegmentsthatcrossoffshoreor\nareas.IfHYLis\ntransferred,the\nsegmentofthe\nsystemthat transfersHVLoff\nplantgroundswouldnot\nbein\n-plant pipingand, thus,wouldbe\nsubjecttoPart195.\nAlso,Part\n195would\napplytothetransfer line\nsegmenton\nplantgroundsthatconnectsthe\nnecessary pressurecontrol devicetothe\njurisdictionaloff-\ngroundsHYL\nsegment.\npiping\nany\nnavigablewaterway\nFigure4\ndepictstwo\nplants,Aand\nB,ina\npopulatedareaconnected\nbyalow-stresstransferlinethat\ncrosses a\nrailroad,a\npublicthoroughfare,and othernon\n-plantproperty.The\ntransferline\nsegment\nbetweenthetwo\nplantscrossesnon\n-plantpropertyin additiontoa\npublic thoroughfare,and, thus,isnot\nin\n-plantpiping.The transfer line\nsegmentinside PlantAisnotin\n-plant pipingbecauseit\nconnectsthe\njurisdictionalsegmentbetween the\nplantstoa\nnecessary pressurecontrol device. The\nsegmentinside\nPlantBconnectsthe\njurisdictionalsegmenttoanother\nnecessary\npressurecontrol\ndevice, and, thus,is\nsubjecttoPart\n195.\nalso\n95-12-27.doc\n195.1, 195.2, 195.5, 195.106,\n195.302, 195.401, 195.402,195.406\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nBEIGHLE.195\nPage3\nQuestionic Is\nhighstress\nSMYS)transfer\nwaterwaysorthird\npropertyin\npopulatedareas\nsubjectto49 CFRPart\n195?\npipingdoesnot\nqualififor the\npipeline\nexemptionorthe in\nexemption.Itwould be\nsubjecttoPart\n195,unless\notherwise\nexemptunder\n§195.1(b).\n(>20%\npiping crossing navigable\nparty\nAnswerThetransfer\nlow-stress\n-plant piping\nQuestionidIf\none\nhighstress\ntransfer\npipingsegmentis\nsubjectto49CFRPart\n195,is theentire\ntransfer\npipingsystemcovered\nfromeach\nline's\npressurecontroldevicetothe\n(inthe\nabsence ofanother\npressurecontrol\ndevice)?\nAnswer\nApplicationof\nPart 195toone\nsegmentofatransfer\nsystemdoesnot\nnecessarilycausePart\n195to\napplytoother\npartsofthe\nsystem.The\napplicationofPart\n195toother\npartsofthe\nsystem\ndependson\napplicationofthe\nexemptionsunder\n§195.1(b)(3),(b)(6),and\n(b)(7),as\nexplainedabove.\nadjacent facility's\nproperty\nline\nQuestionle\nIstransfer\npipingwhich\ncrossesa\nrailroad\nspur,levee,third\npartyeasement\n(i.e.,\npipeline),\northird\nparty property(i.e.,\npumpstation fee\nproperty)whichis\nentirelywithina\nplant facility'sfenced\npropertyboundaryconsidered in\n-plantpipingorintra\n-facility\npiping?\nAnswerThe\npipingwould bein\n-plant pipingas\nlongasit is located and\nfunctionsas\nprovided\nbythe definition\nofin\n-plantpipingsystem.Part 195does\nnotusetheterm\"intra\n-facility\npiping.\"Within\nafenced\nboundary,\nindicatingtheextent\nof\nplant grounds,in\n-plant pipingcaninclude\ncrossingsofrailroad\nspurs,levees,\npipelineeasements,andeven\nseparatelyowned\npipeline\npumpstations,becausethe\ncrossingsare onland that is\ngenerallyassociatedwith\nplantfunctions,with\naccess\nsubjectto\ntransfer\nplant\ncontrol.\nQuestionif Isintra\n-facilitytransfer\npipingwhich\ncrosses a\nnavigablewaterwayor crossesthird\npropertyina\npopulatedarea,other thana\nsingle\npublic thoroughfare,\nsubjectto\n49CFRPart\n195?\nparty\nAnswerTransfer\npipingbetween\nadjacent groundsofthesame\nplantin\na\npopulatedarea,\npropertyother thana\nsingle\npublicthoroughfare,is\nsubjecttoPart 195\nbecauseneither the low\n-plant piping exemptionapplies.\nigIsintra\n-facilitytransfer\npipingwhich\ncrossesthird\nparty\npropertyinaruralareaor\nsingle public thoroughfareina\npopulatedarea\nexceptedfrom\nseparatedby\n-stressnor\nin\ncrosses\nQuestion\na\n49CFRPart 195?\nAnswerTransfer\npipingbetweenthe\ngroundsofa\nplantthatare\nseparated bypropertyother than\nsingle public thoroughfareisnotin\n-plantpiping.Such\npipingwould be\ncovered\nbyPart\n195,unlessthe\nlow\n-stress\nexemption applies.Ifthe\nplantgroundsare\nseparated only bya\nsinglepublic thoroughfare,the\ntransfer\npipingwould be\nexemptasin\n-plant\npiping,evenifthe\npiping\ntransportsHVL.Whetherthearea\nis ruralor\npopulatedis\nonlya\nfactor in\ndeterminingifthe\nexemption appliestothe\na\nlow-stress\npiping.\nthird\nQuestionih\nIs\ndeliveryorinter\n-facilitytransfer\npipingwhich\ncrossesa\nnavigablewaterwayor crosses\npropertyina\npopulatedarea,\nincludinga\nsubjectto49 CFRPart\nparty\nsingle public thoroughfare,\n195?\nAnswer Part\n195wouldcoverthe\npipingthat\n95-12-27.doc\ncrosses\npipingbecause the low\n-stress\npipelineexemptiondoes\nnavigablewaterwaysor\npopulatedareas.The in\n-plant\napplyto\npiping exemptionis\nnot\n195.1,\n195.2,195.5, 195.106,\n195.302,195.401,\n195.402,195.406\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nBEIGHLE.195\nPage4\ninapplicablein\nthissituation because it\nappliesto\npipinginsidea\nplantorbetween\npartsofthesame\nplantseparated bya\nsingle public thoroughfare.\nQuestionii\nIs\ndeliveryorinter\n-facilitytransfer\npipingwhich\nexceptedfrom49 CFRPart\n195?\nAnswerIfthe\nlow-stress\npipeline,the\npartypropertyinaruralarea\npipingisa\ncrossingofrural\npropertyoff\n-plant groundsis\nexempt\nunder the low\n-stress\npipeline exemption,unlessthe\npipelinetransportsHVL.Ifnotalow-stress\npipeline,\nthe rural\ncrossingwouldcomeunderPart\n195,even\ntransportedisnot\nhighly\nonly\ncrossesthird\nifthehazardous\nliquid\nvolatile.\nQuestion\nijIsa\nroadwaylocatedon an\nArmyCorpsof\nEngineer'slevee\nconsidereda\nsingle public\nthoroughfare?\nAnswerIfthe\nroadwayisa\nsingle\npublic thoroughfare,it\nstructureonwhichthe\nroadwaylies.\nthe\nSo\napplytoa\natopalevee.\nQuestion1k\njointlyowned and\noperated,which\nsegments\ncrossingthe\nowner's\npropertyare\nsubjectto49 CFRPart\n195?\nAnswer\nJoint\nownershipisnotafactor in\ndecidingwhetheratransfer line\ncomesunderPart 195.\nHowever,ifthe\nadjacent\nplantgroundsare\ncontiguous,we\nconsider each\nsegmenton\nplant groundstobe\nin\n-plant\npipingthat is\nexemptfromPart\n195,\nexceptfor\nany\nsegmentthatconnectsa\nwouldnotlosethis\ncharacterization because\nofthe\nthoroughfareinterpretationmay\nroadway\nIfatransfer line is\nadjacent\nplant\nnecessarypressure\ncontrol devicetoanoff\n-grounds\npipeline.\nQuestion11If\npartorall ofthe\n\"plantgrounds\"areleased froma\nthird\npartyorstate/local\nagency,are\nthe\nplant's pipingfacilitieslocated\nonthese\ngroundsconsidered in\n-plant piping\nuptothe\nline\n(inthe absenceofa\npressurecontrol\ndevice)?\nAnswerThe\nleasingofreal\npropertytoconduct\nplantprocesses\ndeterminingtheextent\nplantgrounds.Thus,transfer\npipinglocatedonleased real\npropertymay\nqualififor the in\n-plantpiping\nexemption.Ifa\nnecessarypressurecontrol\ndevice isnot\npartofthe\npipingon\nplant grounds,the\nboundaryofthe\ngroundsdefines the limit\nofin\n-plant piping.\nQuestionim Arelow-stress\ngatheringline\nsegments\ncrossing navigablewaterwaysin rural\nsubjectto49 CFRPart 195?\nAnswerRural\npetroleumgatheringlinesare\nexemptfromPart 195under\n§195.1(b)(4),regardlessof\noperatingstresslevelor\ncrossingsof\nnavigable\nwaterways.\nQuestioninIf\nonly10%ofa\ntransferline is\nsubjectto49 CFRPart\n195,whatarethe\nmaintenance,\noperations,and\nemergency\nresponserequirementsfor the\nremaining90% ofin\nuptothe\nplant'spressurecontrol device?\nAnswer\nAssumingthe\njurisdictional\nsegmentlies\nimmediatelyoff\nplantgrounds,the\nline\nsegment\npressurecontrol deviceand the off\n-groundssegmentis also\nsubjecttoPart\nleased\nproperty\nisafactor in\nof\nareas\nminimum\n-plant\npiping\nbetween the\n195.\nnecessary\n95-12-27.doc\n195.1,\n195.302,\n195.2, 195.5, 195.106,\n195.401, 195.402,195.406\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nBEIGHLE.195\nPage5\nThe minimum\noperations,and\nemergency\nmaintenance,\nSubpartFofPart 195.\nQuestionloIfamarine\nand\n29 CFR 1910.119\n(OSHA),canthe dock\nrequestforwaiver?\nresponserequirementsfor\npiping subjecttoPart\n195arein\ntransfer lineis\nmaintained and\noperatedin\npipingbe\nexceptedfrom\ncompliancewith\n49 CFRPart\n33 CFR\n(USCG)\n195\nby\nfilinga\nAnswer\nAbsenta\nnecessary\npressurecontrol\ndeviceonthe\ndock,the\ndock\npipingwould be\nexcepted\nbytheterminal\nexemption(195.1(b)(7)(ii)).Ifnot\nexempt,any\noperatormay\npetitionfor\nPart\n195\nany\nrequirement.However,waiversare\ngranted onlywhena\nrequirementis found\ninappropriateor\nunnecessaryfor\nsafetyin\nparticularcircumstances.\nOverlappingjurisdictionwouldnot\nbyitselfbe sufficient\nreasonforawaiver.\nQuestion\nipArethermal\nrelief\ndevices,which\nprovidelimited\noverpressureprotectionto\naboveground\npiping,considered\npressurecontrol devices under\n§\n195.406(b)and demarcatethe\nin\nfromPart\n195\nwaiver of\n-plant jurisdiction\nboundary?\nAnswer Under\n§\n195.406(b),\noperatorsmusthave\nadequatecontrolsand\nprotective\nequipmentto\ncontrol\npressurewithin\nthe allowable\nlimit.\nAlthougha\nthermal reliefdevice\nmaybe\nnecessaryunder\n§\n195.406(b)tocontrol\npressurein\nsome\naboveground\npiping,additional\nequipmentor\ncontrols\nmaybe\nneeded,\nconsideringthe\nforeseeable\ncausesof\npressurevariations.\nTherefore,the\nmayor\nmaynotmark the end\nofPart 195\njurisdictionover\npipinginside the\nplant.\nQuestion\nlqIsa\nlow-stresstransfer line\nsegment,with\novertwo\nyearsof\nconsistent\nservice,which\nis\n195.5-\nsubjectto49 CFRPart\n7/12/96,then\nrequiredto\ncomplywith\nthermal reliefdevice\ndetermined\ntobe\n195after\nConversiontoService?\nAnswerThe\nconversion\nregulationin\n§195.5\nappliesto\npipelines\nbeingconverted\ndioxideservice fromsome\nother\ntypeofservice\n(e.g.,natural\ngas).Section195.5\napplyto\npipelines alreadyin\nhazardous\nliquidservice whenPart 195\nbecomes\napplicabletothe lines.\nQuestion2a Arethe\nfollowingline\nFigure5]\nexceptedfrom49CFRPart\n195\nduringinter-\nfacilitytransfersfrom PlantA\ntoPlantB:\nSegmentbetweenPlantA\npressurecontrol device and PlantA\npropertyline\n(consideredin\npiping)\nSegmentbetween\npropertylines\n(considereda\nsingle public\ncrossing)\nSegmentbetweenPlantB\npropertylineand Plant\nB\nstoragetanks\n(consideredin\n-plant\npipingdueto\nabsenceofaPlantB\npressurecontrol device\nlocateddownstream\nofthe\npropertyline)\npressurecontrol device\n(considereda\ndevice\noperatedas\npartofan\nexceptedtransfer\nline)\nFigure5\ndepictsstoragefacilities oftwo\nplants,Aand\nB,\nseparatedbya\nsingle public\nthoroughfareand other\nproperty.The\nseparate\nstoragefacilitiesare\nconnected\nbyalow\npipingsystemthat\nalsoconnectsbetween the\nplantstoanintrastate\npipelinethat delivers\nto,and receives\nfrom,both\nplants.Weassumeall\nstorageisassociated with\nplantfacilitiesthatare\nexemptunder\n§195.1(b)(6),and that\nownershipand\noperationofthe\ntransfer lineare\nindependentofthe intrastate\npipeline.Our\nanswersfollow in thesameorder\n95-12\n-27.doc\ntohazardous\nliquid\norcarbon\ndoesnot\nsegments[in\no\n-plant\no\nPlantAand PlantB\nthoroughfare\no\noPlantA\nAnswer\n-stresstransfer\nasthe\nquestions:\n195.1, 195.2,\n195.5, 195.106,\n195.302,\n195.401, 195.402,195.406\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nBEIGHLE.195\nPage6\noThe line\nsegmentinside PlantAwould be\nsubjecttoPart\nsegmentbetween the\nplantsis\nsubjecttoPart\nand the\n195\npressurecontrol device inside PlantAis\nrequiredby§195.406(b)for safe\noperationofthe\nbetween-the\n-plantssegment.\noThe between-the\n-plantssegmentisnotcovered\nbythe\ninterpretation,becausethe\nthoroughfaredoesnotdividea\nsolitary plant.Ifthe between-the\n-plantssegmentis inarural\narea,the\nsegmentis covered\nbythe low-stress\npipeline\nexemption,unless it\ntransportsHVL.Iftheareais\npopulated(non-rural),the\nsegmentis\nsubjecttoPart\noThe\nsegmentinside PlantBis covered\nbythe in\n-plantpiping exemptionif,asthe\ndrawingindicates,\nnecessary\npressurecontrol deviceonthe PlantB\npressurecontrol deviceis\nsubjecttoPart 195if it is\nrequired by§\n195.406(b)for\noperationof\nany\njurisdictionalsegmentofthe transfer lineorofthe\nifthe\n195\nthoroughfare\n195.\nthere is\nno\nsegment.\noThe PlantA\nintrastate\npipeline.\nQuestion2bIfthe transfer linealso ties intoan\nintrastate\npipeline(trunkline)on/off\nplant grounds,is\nthe\nsegmentoftransfer line from PlantA\npressurecontroldevice\n(tank\npump)tothe third\npartypipeline\nconnection consideredalow-stressbranch line ofthe intrastate\npipelinesystem,withtheintrastate\npipelineoperatorresponsibleforbranch\nline\ncomplianceand the\nplant only\nresponsiblefor\ncompliancewith49 CFRPart\n195?\nintrastate\npipelinewouldnot\nbyitselfmake\nanypartofthe\npipelineand shift\nresponsibilityfor\ncompliancetothe intrastate\npipelineoperator.\ncompliancewithPart\n195is the\nresponsibilityofthe\nentitythatowns\nor\noperatesa\npipeline\ncomesunderPart\n195.\nHowever,ifthe intrastate\npipelineoperatorrelieson a\ncontrol\nplantpressure\ndeviceor\nstoragetanktocontrol\npressurein the\nintrastate\npipeline,that\noperatorwould also\nhaveto\nassurethat the device\nortank\npiping complywithPart\n195.Whena\nand associated\npipelineoperatorand\na\nplanthave\noverlapping compliance responsibility,weholdthe\npressure\ncontrol\ndevice\nAnswerConnection with the\ntransfer linea\nbranch ofthe intrastate\nIn\ngeneral,\nthat\npipeline\noperatorprimarily responsible.\nQuestion2cIfboth\nplantsAandB\nown/operatethe\nsegmentoftransfer line from the\nintrastate\npipelineconnectiontoPlant\nB,which\npipelineoperator(intrastate,Plant\nA,orPlant\nB)is\nresponsiblefor\ncompliancewith\nrequirementsfor the\njointly\n49CFRPart 195\njurisdictionalsegment(s)?\nAnswer\nAlthougheach\njointowner\nis\nultimatelyresponsiblefor\ncompliance,wewould\nholdtheowner\nthat\noperatesthe transfer line\nprimarily responsible.IfA\nandB\njointlyoperatethe PlantB\nsegment,then\neitherAor\nB,or\nboth,would be\nheld\nresponsiblefor\ncompliance.Wewould holdthe\noperatorofthe\npipeline primarily\nresponsibleonlyifthat\noperatorwereto\nrelyon a\nplantpressurecontrol\nstoragetank for\nnecessary pressurecontrol in the intrastate\npipelineand the\nintrastate\ndeviceor\nPlantB\nsegment\neffectsthat\ncontrol.\nQuestion3a\n-plant pipingand transfer facilities\n[Figure6]are\nproperty(third\nparty),which line\nsegmentsare\nsubjectto49 CFRPart\n195?\nallin\nSince\nlocatedon or acrossleased\nFigure6\ndepictsPlantA\ninsidea\nleased,fenced\narea,which is connected\nbya\nlow-stress\ntransfer linetoaleased\ndock locatedon a\nnavigablewaterwayoroffshore.Between\nPlantA\nand the\ndock,thetransferlinecrosses\npropertyleased\nbyPlant\nB,afenced\npublic thoroughfarebuiltona\nandwaters\nleadingtothe dock.\nAnswer\nlevee,\nRegardingthe\nleases,the\nexistence ofalease\nauthorizing\nplantorterminal\noperationsisa\nfactorin\ndecidingtheextentof\nplantorterminal\ngroundsunder the in\n-plant pipingand terminal\npipingexceptions.\nAnother factor isthe\npresenceofafenceorother demarcation\nindicating\npropertyused for\nplantor\nterminal\noperations. Applyingthese\nfactors,it\nappearsthat the PlantAfencedareaand the\nleased dock\n95-12-27.doc\n195.1, 195.2, 195.5, 195.106,\n195.302,\n195.401, 195.402,195.406\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nBEIGHLE.195\nPage7\nrepresentplantand\ngrounds.\nAlthoughPlant\nBleased\npropertymayalso\nqualifias\nplant\ngrounds,the\ntransfer line in\nquestion merelycrosses\nPlantB\npropertywithno\napparentinvolvement\nin\nPlantB\nprocesses.So\nPlantB\ncrossingdoes\nnot\nqualififor the\nin\n-plant\npipingexemption.\nAstowhich\nsegmentsare\nsubjecttoPart\n195,ifthe\ntransfer line\nHVL,the\ntransports\nexemptionwouldnot\napply.However,in theabsence\nofa\nnecessarypressurecontrol\ndevice,the\nterminal\nexemptionwould\nexcludethe dock\nsegment.The\nin\n-plant\nexemptionwould\nnotexclude the\nsegmentin\nPlantA\nbecauseofthe\npressurecontrol device.Ifa\nhazardous\nliquidother than\nHVLis\ntransported,the\nlow\n-stress\nexemptionwouldnot\nexclude\nanysegmentina non\n-rural,\nnavigable\nwaterway,or\noffshore\narea.\nThein\n-plantand\nterminal\npipingexemptionswouldthen\napplyasstated for\nHYL\ntransfers.\nQuestion3b\nWhen\npumpingfromthe dock\ntothe\nplant,is\nonlythe\naboveground\nsegmentofmarine\npressurecontrol device\n(dock\npump)tothe\nnavigable\nwaterwayhightide line\ndeliverypiping\nsubjectto\n49 CFRPart\n195?\nThedirection\nofflowwould\nnot\nchangethe\nexplainedin\nanswerto\n3a,unlessthe dock\nsegmenthasa\npressurecontrol device\n195.406(b)Sucha\ndevice\nbe\nsomethingother than the\npumpitse11\nsuchas a\npumpcontrol\ndeviceor\npressurereliefvalve.\nQuestion3c\nConsideringthe\ndefinitionsofin\n-plant\npipingand\ndeliverylines,can\nanymarinetransfer\nsystem'sdock\nfacilities be\nexceptedfrom\n49 CFRPart\n195under\nanycircumstances?\nYes,ifthedock\nfacilitiesare\nbythe in\n-plantor\nterminal\npipingexemptions,as\nabove.\nOtherwise,low-stress\npipelinesegmentsthatcross\nnavigable\nwaterwaysoroffshore\nexemptfromPart\n195.\nQuestion3d\nWhen\npumpingfromPlantA\ndock,is the\nsegmentofmarine\ntransfer linefrom\nthe\npressurecontrol device\n(tank\npump)tothe\npropertyline\nconsidered in\n-plantpipingand\nnot\nsubjectto49\nterminal\nthe\nlow-stress\ntransfer line\nfrom the\nconsidered\nAnswer\nPart195\ncoverage\nQuestion\nwould\nrequired by§\nAnswer\ncovered\ndiscussed\nare\nnot\ntothe\nCFRPart\n195?\nAnswer\n(hydrostatic\ntesting\nthe\nYes,unlessthe\ncontinuingline\nsegment\nimmediatelyoff\nplantgroundsis\nsubjecttoPart\n195\nand the device\nis\nrequiredto\npressurein\nthat\nsegment.Also,the\ndevicemustbe\nsomethingother\nthan the\npumpitself.\nQuestion3eWill the\nexistingMemorandum of\nUnderstanding(MOU)between\nRSPAand\nUSCG\nremainin\neffect\ngrantingUSCG\nprimacyfor\nenforcingmarine\ndeliveryline\noperator\ncompliancewith\nOPA 1990\nregulations(33CFRPart154\nin\nplaceof49 CFRPart\n194),\ngiventhe\nnew49 CFRPart\noverlapforthese\nlines?\nAnswer RSPAand\nhaveanMOU\nconcerningregulationsunder\nOPA 1990.\ntheUSCG's\nauthorityunderOPA\npreclude applicationofPart\n195tomarine\nQuestion4aIf\nlow-stress\ntransfer line\nsegments\nsubjectto\n8/11/94are\nexceptedfrom\nSubpartC\n(designrequirements)and\nSubpartE\nrequirements),but\nnot\nSubpartF\n(operationand\nrequirements),then\npressurelimit\ncriteria\n(5)above\n[195.406(a)(5)]onlyusedto\ndeterminethe\nsegment'sMOP?\ncontrol\n195\nUSCGdonot\nHowever,\n90 doesnot\ntransferlines.\n49 CFRPart 195which\naremodified\nor\nconstructed\nbefore\nmaintenance\nis\n95-12\n-27.doc\n195.1,\n195.302,\n195.2, 195.5,\n195.106,\n195.401, 195.402,195.406\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nBEIGHLE.195\nPage8\nAnswer Todetermine theMOPofalow\npipelineconstructed before\nAugust11, 1994,a\npressure\nin\n§\n195.406(a)that\nappliestothe\npipeline.MOPisthe\n§195.406(a)(5)donot\napplytolow-stress\npipelinesconstructed\ntransportsHVL\nand isnot\npressuretested under\n§195.302\n-stress\nmustbe calculated under each ofthe criteria\nlowest ofthese\nThe\ncriteria of\npressures.\nbefore\nAugust11,1994,unless the\npipeline\n(see§195.302(b)(1)(iv)).\nQuestion4bIf4a\napplies,cantheMOPbe established\nby\npressurelimit criteria\n(5)above foralow-\nstressmarine transfer line\nsegmentwhich\nhas\nexperiencedadocum","truncated":true,"body_characters":48061}