{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-17-0007","title":"The Dow Chemical Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2017-12-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-17-0007 response to The Dow Chemical Company.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-17-0007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-17-0007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-17-0007","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/56686/dow-pi-17-0007-12-04-2017-part-1921.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nofTransportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington DC 20590\nDEC 0 4 2 0 17\nMs. Jennifer Ashcraft\nSenior Regulatory Compliance Specialist\nThe Dow Chemical Company\n2301 N. Brazosport Blvd., B-101\nFreeport, TX 77541-3257\nDear Mr. Ashcraft:\nIn a March 31, 201 7, letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 192 for your single gas line at Dow\nChemical Company(Dow)'s Seadrift Operations manufacturing facility in Seadrift, Texas. You\nhad previously requested an interpretation on these facts from the Railroad Commission of\nTexas.\nYou provided the following information\nSeadrift Operations is located on 4, 700 acres with 9 manufacturing plants representing\nmany of Dow's global businesses. Seadrift Operations purchases methane from multiple\npipeline operators to use for operating various area of the plant. All of the gas is\ndelivered to Dow on Dow property. Dow is the customer and the consumer of all\npurchased gas. Dow meets the definition of a\" large volume customer\" with respect to 49\nCFR Part 192. All of the in-plant gas piping that Dow owns and operates is located on\nDow property, with the exception of 220-feet of a single 1.5-inch line that crosses a\npublic thoroughfare (TX-185).\nYou stated that the 1.5-inch pipeline carries methane and operates at < 20% SMYS. You\nprovided regulatory information on 49 CFR Part 195 that you believe would exclude this line\nfrom Federal pipeline safety regulations if this line were a hazardous liquid line. Therefore, you\nrequested PHMSA's interpretation and position on the applicability of the in-plant piping\nexemption to this gas line and in general for applying to other Dow situations. Also, you\nreferenced 2010 and 1998 PHMSA interpretations that you believe are applicable to your\nrequest.\nThe 2010 interpretation states that \"piping operated by the facility operator entirely on the\ngrounds of the facility is considered 'in-plant piping' and would not be subject to the pipeline\nsafety regulations.\" It continues, however, that the gas pipelines at issue in that interpretation\n\"are not located on the geographically contiguous grounds of a facility. Rather these lines depart\n[the operator's property] and cross roads and highways accessed by the public, albeit for\nrelatively short distances. To the extent such lines are not on plant property, they are subject to\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 reqµesting 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 pipeline safety laws.\" (emphasis added). The interpretation also states that although PHMSA\nhas chosen not to enforce the Federal gas pipeline safety regulations in Part 192 on such lines, it\nwould \"not object to a State regulating the portions of such lines that are not on plant property.\"\nWhile the \"Regulatory Review: Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Safety\nStandards\" rulemaking (59 FR 33,388 (June 28, 1994)) and 1998 PHMSA interpretation cited by\nDow both state there is an exception for in-plant piping that crosses a single public thoroughfare,\nthe scope of the rulemaking and 1998 interpretation was Part 195 of PHMSA's regulations.\nMany of the Part 192 and 195 regulations are similar, but in this case, the 2010 interpretation\nclearly shows that the application of in-plant piping is different for Part 192 than the rulemaking\nand 1998 interpretation treat in-plant piping for Part 195. Because the 2010 interpretation\ndirectly addresses Part 192, as does Dow's request, the 2010 interpretation governs Dow's\nsituation.\nBased upon the 2010 interpretation, Dow's 1.5-inch pipeline is subject to Federal pipeline safety\nregulations. It leaves Dow's property and crosses a public highway before reentering Dow's\nproperty. As pointed out in the 2010 interpretation, \"To the extent such lines are not on plant\nproperty, they are subject to the pipeline safety laws.\" Likewise, though PHMSA may choose\nnot to enforce its regulations on these short pipelines, but PHMSA does not object where the\nstate regulating the portions of such lines does enforce the applicable regulations. Therefore,\nbecause the Railroad Commission of Texas has regulatory authority over pipeline safety in\nTexas, it may enforce its pipeline safety regulations on the 1.5-inch pipeline with PHMSA's\nsupport.\nIt should be noted that the Railroad Commission of Texas has regulatory authority over intrastate\ngas pipeline safety in Texas and may impose additional or more stringent safety measures than\nthe Federal regulations.\nlfwe can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523.\nSincerely,\nJo\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 3>>>\n\nMarch 31, 2017\nCERTIFIED MAIL #7015 0640 0001 7680 2104\nThe Dow Chemical Company\n2301 N. Brazosport Blvd.\nFreeport, Texas 77541\nUSA\nMr. John A. Gale\nDirector, Office of Standards and Rulemaking\nPHMSA, U.S. Departnient of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Averue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 2050-0001\nAPR 052011\nRe: Request for Witten Regulatory Interpretation on PHMSA Jurisdiction\nThe Dow Cheiiical Company\nDear Mr. Gale:\nThe Dow Chemical Cdmpany, respectfully requests a written interpretation concerning the applicability\nof PHMSA Pipeline Stfety Regulations contained in 49 CFR § 192 to a single gas line at Dow's Seadrift\nOperations manufactu4ng facility in Seadrift, Texas. Tn Texas, regulatory authority over pipeline safety\nis delegated to the Railroad Commission of Texas, who has adopted the federal pipeline safety standards,\nincluding 49 CFR § 192, in Texas Administrative Code, Title 16, Part 1, Chapter 8 (referenced as 16 TAC\n§8).\nSeadrift Operations is ocated on 4,700 acres with 9 manufacturing plants representing many of Dow's\nglobal businesses. Se*lrift Operations purchases methane from multiple pipeline operators to use for\noperating various area of the plant. All of the gas is delivered to Dow on Dow property. Dow is the\ncustomer and the consmer of all purchased gas. Dow meets the definition of a \"large volume customer\"\nwith respect to 49 CF1 Part 192. All of the in-plant gas piping that Dow owns and operates is located on\nDow property, with th exception of 220-feet of a single 1 .5 -inch line that crosses a public thoroughfare\n(TX-185). A map of this line is provided in Attachment 1.\nDow understands that, y definition, transmission ends upon delivery to a large volume customer. Dow\nalso understands that 1irt 192 applies to pipelines operating at >20% SMYS. This 1.5-inch methane line\nis not involved in transportation in or affecting interstate commerce, and it operates at <20% SMYS;\ntherefore, Dow believes that this line is not a transmission line. This line is also clearly not a gathering\nline, since it doesn't stjtrt at a production facility. The only other Part 192 definition for a regulated\npipeline is distribution line, which is a pipeline other than a transmission or gathering line. PHMSA's\nInspector Training & Qualifications Glossary further defines a distribution line as, \"A pipeline that carries\nor controls the supply of natural gas from a town border or city gate and moves the gas to the customer.\n(A distribution line is network ofpiping downstream ofa distribution center used to supply gas to its\ncustomers. In practica terms, the distribution piping ends at the customer's regulator and/or meter.)\"\nlittn://www.ohnisa.clot eov/staticfiles/PHMSA/Pioeliiie/TOGlossarv/G!ossarv.htnil#DL. This line is not\na distribution line as dfined in PHMSA' s Inspector Training & Qualifications Glossary.\nIf this was a liquid 1in4 it would very simply meet the exemption for \"in-plant piping\" described in 49\nCFR § 195.1(b)(8) for, 'Transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide through onshore production\n(including flow lines), efining, or manufacturing facilities or storage or in-plant piping systems\nassociated with such fcilities.\" In 59 FR 33389 arid PHMSA Interpretation #PI-98-006 (Nov 18, 1998),\nPHMSA appears to fu9ther clarify that if the grounds of a plant are separated by a single public\nthoroughfare, transfer piping that crosses the thoroughfare from one part of the plant to the other is on\nplant grounds for purposes of the in-plant piping definition. Although there is no specific regulatory in-\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nMr. John A. Gale\nPHMSA, U.S. Dc\nMarch 31, 2017\nPage 2\nof Transportation\nplant piping exemption or gas lines, PHMSA' s Interpretation #PI-09-0020 (Aug 11, 2010) appears to\naddress the issue of regilation of \"in-plant\" gas pipelines, in stating that, \"Historically, PHMSA has\nelected not to apply the Federal gas pipeline safety regulations to such lines if they are associated with the\nplant, meaning they are perated by plant personnel, run between plant buildings, and are less than one\nmile in length.\" (Pleaselsee Attachment 2 for these references.)\nIn summary, Dow belie'yes that this line should not be regulated under the Pipeline Safety regulations,\nsince it is not a gathering line, a transmission line, or a distribution line. The particular facts in this\nsituation also may help 1HMSA to reach the decision that this particular pipeline should not be so\nregulated. Dow also repectfully requests PHMSA' s interpretation and position on the applicability of the\nin-plant piping exemptidrn to this gas line and in general for applying to other Dow situations.\nIf you would like to disquss, or need any additional information for your consideration, please do not\nhesitate to contact me a (979) 238-0361.\nSincerely,\nershct\nSr. Regulatory Complia ce Specialist\nThe Dow Chemical Cor!ipany\n2301 N. Brazosport BlvL, B-101\nFreeport, Texas 7754 1-257\n(979) 238-0361\nEnclosures: Attachmeit 1- Map of Seadrift Operations and Pipeline\nAttachmel* 2- 59 FR 33389;\nPHMSA Interpretation #PI-98-006 (Nov 18, 1998);\nPHMSA's Interpretation #PI-09-0020 (Aug 11, 2010)\ncc: Stephanie Weidman PHMSA Program Manager, Railroad Conmuission of Texas, Austin\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nAttachment 1\nMap of Seadrift Operations and Pipeline\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nThe Dow Chemical Company, Seadrift Operations Manufacturing Facility, Seadrift, Texas\ngle Earth mKes1\n1 A\nZoomed-view\nPipeline leaves Dow fence-line, crosses one\npublic thoroughfare (HVVY TX-i 85), and re-\nenters Dow fence-line.\nThe railroad tracks that this line crosses are\non Dow property and are operated by Dow.\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nAttachment 2\n59 FR 33389;\nPHMSA Interpretation #PI-98-006 (Nov 18, 1998);\nPHMSA's Interpretation #PI-09-0020 (Aug 11, 2010)\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n3388 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No.123 / Tuesday, June 28, 1994/ Rules and Regulations\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nResearch and Special Programs\nAdministration\n49 CFR Part 195\n(Docket P5-127; Amdt. 195-52)\nR1N2137-AC27\nRegulatory Review: Hazardous Liquid\nand Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Safety\nStandards\nAGENCY: Research and Special Programs\nAdministration (RSPA), DOT.\nACTION: Final rule.\nSUMMARY: This rulemaking amends\nmiscellaneous hazardous liquid and\ncarbon dioxide pipeline safety standards\nto provide clarity, eliminate\nunnecessary or overly burdensome\nrequirements, and foster economic\ngrowth. The changes result from the\nregulatory review RSPA carried out in\nresponse to the President's directive of\nJanuary 28, 1992, on reducing the\nburden of government regulation. The\nchanges reduce costs in the liquid\npipeline industry without\ncompromising safety.\nEFFECTIVE DATE This regulation is\neffective July 28, 1994. The\nincorporation by reference of certain\npublications listed in the regulations is\napproved by the Director of the Federal\nRegister as of July 28, 1994.\nFOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.\nWillock, (202) 366-2392, regarding the\nsubject matter of this final rulemaking,\nor the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046,\nregarding copies of this final rtilemaking\nor other material that is referenced\nheiein.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nBackground\nIn a January 28, 1992, memorandum,\nthe President wrote to Department and\nagency heads about the need to reduce\nthe burden imposed by government\nregulation. The President was\nconcerned that agencies were not doing\nenough to review and revise existing\nregulations to eliminate unnecessary\nand overly burdensome requirements.\nThe President recognized that\nregulations that donot keep pace with\nnew technologies and innovations\nimpose needless costs and impede\neconomic growth.\nIn response to the President's\nmemorandum, DOT published a notice\nrequesting public comment on the\nDepartment's regulatoryprograms (57\nFR 4745; Feb. 7, 1992). Commenters\nwere asked to identify regulations that\nsubstantially impede economic growth,\nmay no longerbe necessary, are\nunnecessarily burdensome, impose\nneedless costs or red tape, or overlap or\nconflict with. other DOT or federal¯\nregulations. The deadline for submitting\ncomments was March 2, 1992.\nRSPA received comments from six\norganizations about the pipeline safety\nregulations in part 195. Comments were\nfrom three regulated pipeline\ncompanies, a pipeline trade association,\na state pipeline safety agency, and a\nfederal agency. RSPA considered all\ncomments in its review of the\nregulations, and these comments are\navailable in the docket. Some comments\nwill be considered in future\nrulemakings. Additionally, RSPA has\npublished a separate rulemaking\n\"Update of Standards Incorporated by\nReference\" (58 FR 14519; March 18,\n1993) which updates the editions of the\nindustry standards that are incorporated\nin part 195.\nOn November 27, 1992, RSPA\npublished a Notice of Proposed\nRulemaking; NPRM, (57 FR 56304)\nproposing 18 changes to the regulations\nbased on the comments received from\nthe public and asked for further\ncomments regarding the proposed\nchanges. RSPA received comments from\n21 organizations: 15 pipeline\ncompanies, 3 pipeline trade\nassociations, 2 environmental\norganizations, and 1 county\ngovernment. RSPA considered all\ncomments in preparation of the final\nrulemaking and the comments are\navailable in the Docket.-\nAdvisory Committee\nThe Technical Hazardous Liquid\nPipeline Safety Standards Committee\n(THLPSSC), consisting of 15 members,\nwas established by statute to consider\nthe feasibility, reasonableness, and\npracticability of proposed pipeline\nregulations, RSPA implemented the\ncommittee balloting process by mail.\nAfter initial balloting, the process\nallowed each member to review the\nballots, including comments, of all other\nmembers, and to change his or her vote\nor initial comment if desired. Although\nsome THLPSSC members did not vote\non every proposed change, a tally of the\nsecond ballots showed that a large\nmajority of THLPSSC members found\nall -the proposed chan8es technically\nfeasible, reasonable, and practicable.\nNonetheless, in developing the final\nregulations, RSPA considered all final\nTHLPSSC votes and comments,\nincluding minority positions. The\nfollowing discussion explains how\nRSPA treated THLPSSC positions and\npublic comments on the proposed\namendments in developing the final\nrule...\nChanges to Part 195 Safety Standards\nThe following discussion explains the\nchanges to various standards in part\n195:\nSection 195.1 Applicability.\nOffshore production. Part 15 does\nnot apply to pipelines used in offshore\nproduction, whether on the Outer\nContinental Shelf or in state offshore\nwaters. However, this exception is\nclearly statedin part 195 only for\nproduction on the Outer Continental\nShelf ( 195.1(b)(5)). To clarify that all\noffshore pipelines used in production\nare outside part 195, RSPA proposed to\ndelete from § 195.1(b)(5) the phrase \"on\nthe Outer Continental Shelf'.\nThe 10 THLPSSC members who voted\non the proposed amendment to\n§ 195.1(b)(5) all approved the\namendment.\nIn addition, RSPA received comments\nfrom three operators and two pipeline-\nrelated associations in support of the\namendment and no adverse comments.\nTherefore, § 195.1(b)(5) is amended as\nproposed in the NPRM.\n¯ We also requested comments on\n'.whether there is a gap in the regulation\nof production lines in state offshore\nwaters. Only one commenter responded.\nThis commenter opined that existing\nstate and federal programs adequately\nregulate production lines in state\nwaters. In Louisiana, the Departments of\nNatural Resources and Environmental\nQuality were said to have\ncomprehensive regulations on facility\ninstallation, operation, integrity, and\nremoval, and sufficient authority to\naddress any \"gap\" that is identified.\nSince the other states with production\nlines in state waters have similar\nregulations, RSPA does not believe there\nis a gap in the regulation of production\nlines in state waters.\nIn-plant piping. Part 195 does not\napply to pipeline transportation through\nonshore production, refining, or\nmanufacturing facilities, or storage or\nin-plant piping systems associated with\nsuch facilities ( 195.1(b)(6)). Because\nthe physical distinction between a\nregulated pipeline serving a plant and\nunregulated in-plant piping is unclear,\nRSPA proposed to add a definition of\n\"in-plant piping system\" to § 195.2. The\ndefinition proposed was: TiiIant\npiping system means piping that is\nlocated on the grounds of a plant and\nused to transfer hazardous liquid or\ncarbon dioxide between plant facilities\nor between plant facilities and a\npipeline, not including any device and\nassociated piping that are necessary to\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nFederal Register./ Vol. 59, No. 123 I Tuesday, June 28, 1994 I Rules and Regulations control pressure in the pipeline.\" The\nNPRM explained that we would\nconsider in-plant piping to extend to the\nplant boundary in the absence of a\nnecessary pressure control device on\nplant grounds.\nAll ten THLPSSC members who voted\non this proposal supported it. However,\nfour members believed that because the\nNPRM primarily concerned pipeline\ntransportation rather than production,\nrefining, or manufacturing plants, it did\nnot give plant owners adequate notice\nthat the proposed definition could affect\nplant piping. These members wanted\nRSPA to publish a separate NPRM on\nthe subject of in-plant pi,ping.\nRSPA does not agree that another\nNPRM is needed. The subject of in-plant\npiping and the associated issues were\nclearly discussed in the published\nNPRM. Also, all interested persons.\nincluding plant owners as well as\npipeline operators, were given an\nopportunity to comment on the subject\nof in-plant piping.\n¯ RSPA received comments on the\nproposed definition from seven\noperators, two pipeline-related\nassociations, and one state agency. Two\noperators and one association fully\nsupported the proposal.\nOne operator and a pipeline-related\nassociation thought plant owners were\nnot adequately notified of the proposed\nrule, and that RSPA should treat the\nsubject in a separate NPRM. Our\nposition on this issue is given supra in\nresponse to a similar criticism by four\nTHLPSSC members.\nAnother operator was concerned that\nthe proposed definition would cause\noperator-owned components, such as\npipe, meters, instruments, and\nmanifolds, that are located on plant\ngrounds downstream from the operator's\npressure control device to fall outside\npart 195. The operator was worried that\nother agencies would .rgulate these\ncomponents as non-transportation\nrelated facilities. We are not -persuaded,\nhowever, that the potential for such\nregulation i sufficient reason to exclude\nthe components from the definition of\nin. p1ant piping system. The aim of the\nproposed definition was to distinguish\nunregulated piping, not to limit the\njurisdiction of other government\nagencies.-\n-\n¯ In contrast, an operator of gathering\nand processing facilities was concerned\nthat part 195 would apply to plant\npiping that ties between anynecessary\n- pressure' control device and the\nconnection to a pipeline. This\ncommenter apparently did not realize-\nthat such piping is subject to part 195.\nRSPA has applied part 195 to such\n-piping because. it is subject to pressure\n33389\nwhich is controlled by idevice\noperator and association argued that the\noperators must have to meet\noff-grounds segments pose minimum\n§ 195.406(b). However, this application\nrisk to public safety and the\nhas had little effect On plant owners,\n¯ environment, because the, segments\nbecause we hold the pipeline operator,\ngenerally are located'in industrial areas,\nnot the plant owner, responsible for\nroadways, or railways. The association\ncompliance.-\nfurther argued that a plant has the same\nAn-operator commenting-on the plant\noperational control, including response\ndevice exclusion in the proposed\ncapability, over the off-grounds\ndefinition advised us to change \"control\nsegments as it does over piping on plant\npressure\" to \"prevent overpressure.\"\ngrounds,-\nThis commenter said the change would\nIn response to these comments, we\navoid making pipeline operators\nnote that § 195.1(b)(6) echoes section\nresponsible under part 195 for\n201(3) of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline\nponessential pressure control devices.\nSafety Act of 1979 (HLPSA), (49 U.S.C.\nWe agree the suggested 'rewording\napp. 2001(3)), which excludes certain\nwould better convey the intent of the\n\"in-plant piping systems\" from\nproposal. But, in the final definition, we\nregulation under the HLPSA; Since\nhave changed \"control pressure in the\n'neither the HLPSA nor its legislative\npipelin&' to \"control pressure in the\n'history explain \"in-plant piping,\" we\npipeline under § 195.406(b)\" to convey\nadopt an ordinary, reasonable\nthe intent even more precisely.\nunderstanding of the term. Therefore,\nThe state agency commented that if\nwe do notaccept the interpretation that\npiping on plant grounds does not\nthe term includes piping that crosses the\ninclude a device necessary-to control'\nproperty of others outside plant\npipeline pressure, the jurisdiction of\ngrounds. However, many plants are\npart 195 over the pipeline should not\nseparated by a public thoroughfare, and\nend at the plant boundary. Instead, the\nplant transfer'piping crosses the-\nstate agency recommended ending\nthoroughfare. A single public\njurisdiction at a component inside the\nthoroughfare would include any road,\nplant, such as a flange, where the\nfrom a country lane to an interstate\npipeline can be isolated for purposes of\nhighway, but it does not include a\ntesting. Although operators may use-\nrailroad. Because transfer piping that\nsuch components, part 195 does not\ncrosses such thoroughfares is\nrequire that they be on the pipeline.\ncomparable in most respects to other in-\nAlso, we believe the plant boundary is\nplant piping, RSPA considers the in-\na mOre convenient demarcation of in-\nplant piping exception to include the\nplant piping than -an unspecific inside-\nthoroughfare crossings. The\nthe-plant component. Thus, the state\nthoroughfare exception does not apply\nagency's comment is not incorporated in\nto inter-facility lines or delivery lines,\nthe final definition.\nbecause these lines are distinct from in-\nThe state agency, an operator, and a\n,'plant piping. We did not intend the\npipeline-related association were\nproposed-definition of \"in-plant piping\nconcerned that because segments of\nsystems\" to expand our present\ntransfer piping located off plant grounds\n- interpretation of the term. So the final\nwere not included in the proposed\ndefinition does not incorporate any of\ndefinition, a large number of short\nthe comments concerning piping-\npipelines would come under part 195.-\n'located off plant grounds other than for\nRSPA recognizes that production,\nthoroughfare crossings.\nrefining, or manufacturing plants often\nHowever the proposed definition's\ninstall transfer piping off plant grounds.\nfirst use of the term \"pipeline\" is\nA plant may use this piping to transfer\nchanged to \"pipeline or other mode of\nhazardous liquids between its different\ntransportation.\" This change is needed.\nfacilities located on the same grounds;\nto include, within the definition, piping\nbetween its different facilities located\non plant grounds that transfer hazardous\non separate grounds'(usually separated\nliquid or carbon dioxide between plant\nby a roadway,'railway, waterway, or'\nfacilities and modes of transportation-\n- industrial area); between its facilities\nand a transportation system, such as a\nother than pipeline. Terminalfacilities. Part 195 does not\nrailroad or pipeline; or between its\napply to the transportation of hazardous\nfacilities and the facilities of another\nliquid or carbon dioxide by vessel,'\n-\nplant or industrial consumer. The three-\n- aircraft, tank truck, tank car, or other\ncommenters thought the Off-grounds',\nvehicle, or by terminal facilities used\nsegments should qualify as in-plant-\nexclusively to transfer hazardpus liquid\npiping if they connect facilities of the-\nor carbon dioxide between such modes\nsame plant. The assOciatiOn 'also wanted\nof transportation ( 195i(b)(7)). RSPA\nto include under the definition' off-\nproposed to amend § 195.1(b)(7) to\ngrounds segments that conned facilities,\nclarify that terminal facilities lOcated off\nof different plants. In addition, the\nterminal grounds are subject to part 195,\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\n33390 Fuderal Rester / Vol. 59, No. 123, I Tuesday, June 28, 1994 I Rulas and Regulations\nand to distinguish unregulated terminal\nfacilities from a regulated pipeline\nentering or leaving the terminal. As with\nthe proposed in-plant piping definition,\nany device and associated piping on\nterminal grounds necalsary to-control\npressure in a regulated pipeline would\nnot be excepted from part 195.\nThe THLPSSC voted to approve this\nproposal, but four members believed the\nNPRM did not, give terminal owners\nadequate notice that the proposed¯\namendment could affect their piping.\nThese members wanted RSPA to\npublish a separate NPRM on the subject.\nFor the reasons stated supra in response\nto a similar argument by these THLPSSC\nmembers concerning implant piping,\nRSPA does not agree that another NPRM\nis needed.\nFive oper tors and two pipeline-\nrelated associations commented on the\npropos&l amendment to § 195.i(b)(7).\nOf'these commenters, two operators and\none association agreed with the\nproposal.\nA few commenters eçpressed the\nsame concerns about the proposed\namendment to §.195.1(b)(7) as they did,\nabout the proposed in-plant piping\ndefinition. These concerns were that the\nNPRM did not adequately notify plant\n(terminal) owners of the proposed rule,\nand that some operator-owned\ncomponents located on plant (terminal)\ngrounds would fall outside part 195.\nOur response to these concerns is the\nsame as stated supra regarding in-plant\npiping. In regard to transfer lines located\noutside terminal grounds at ports, an\noperator and a pipeline-related\nassociation pointed out that the U.S.\nCoast Guard regulates transfers between\nterminal storage and dock facilities..\nThese commenters suggested that RSPA\nand Coast Guard develop a\nmemorandum of wuierstanding to limit\nCoast Guard's regulatipns to dock\nfacilities.\nWe recognize that Coast Guard and\nRSPA jurisdictions overlap in port\nareas, but the two agencies have\ndifferent responsibilities. Also, the\noverlap does not automatically result in\nregulatory conflicts, and the\ncommenters did not mention any.\nNonetheless, though we have not\nchanged the final rule as a result of this\ncomment, in enforcing part 195 at port\nareas, RSPA will act appropriately to\nresolve any unnecessary regulatory\nburdens.\nCarbon dioxide injection system.\nSection 195.1(b)(8) provides that part\n195 does not apply to \"lt]ransportation'\nof carbon dioxide downstream from a\npoint in the vicinity of the well site at\nwhich carbon dioxide is delivered to a\nproduction facihity\" RSPA proposed to¯\namend this section to clarify that the\nexception covers pipelines used in the-\ninjection of carbon dioxidefor oil\nrecovery operations.\nThe THLPSSC approved the proposed\namendment (10 voted in favor and 5 did\nnot vote), and w.e received no adverse\ncomments from the-public. The-\nproposed amendment to § 195.1(b)(8) is,\ntherefore, adopted as final.\nSection 195.2 Definitions.\nThe proposed revision of the\ndefinition of \"Secretary\" is -not adopted\nin this rulemaking. Instead, it is being\nhandled in an omnibus rulemaking\ncovering all regulations involving\npipeline safety.\nThe definition of \"In-plant piping\nsystem\" is discussed above in § 195.1\nApplicability.-\n- Two commenters objected to the\nproposed definition for petroleum\nproducts because of its use of the terms\n\"flammable\", \"toxic\", and \"corrosive\"\nwhich are not defined-under part 195.\nThe commenters stated that absent\nspecific definitions for these terms, their\napplicability could be unclear.\nRSPA agrees with the comments\nabout the lack of clarity in the proposed\ndefinition for petroleum products. So,\nthe final rule for this section includes\nnew definitions for \"flammable\",\n\"toxic\", and \"corrosive\" that come from\nthe definitions contained in 49 CFR part\n173 for Transportation and Packaging of\nHazardous Materials for the terms\n\"flammable liquid', \"poisonous-\nmaterial\", and \"corrosivematerial\",\nrespectively. RSPA has adopted the\ndefinition of \"poisonous material\" for\n\"toxic\" because it considers the terms\nsynonymous.-\nSections 1952, i95.W6,.195.112,\n195.212 and 195.413\n, (Nominal\nOutside Diameter of the Pipe in Inches)\nRSPA proposed to standardize the\ndimensioning of pipe size throughout\npart 195 (Changes are made to § 195.2,\n195.106(b), 195.106(c), 195.112(c),-\n195.212(b)(3)(ii) and 195.413(a)). All 10\nTHLPSSC members who voted were in\nfavor of the proposal and no commenter\nobjected thereto. Accordingly, the\nproposed amendment is adopted as\nfinal.-\nSection 195.3 Matter incorporated by\nreference.-\nSection 195.3 sets out the general\nrequirements for the incorporation in\nthe regulations of industry standards for\nthe design, construction and operation\nof hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide\npipelines. Paragraph 195.3(a) states that\nincorporation of a -document by\nreference has -the- same force' as if the\ndocument were copiOdin the--\n-- -\n-\nregulations. Some operatorshave-\nmisinterpreted this-section to mean that\nthey must- comply with all of the terms\n- contained in a referenced 'document.-\n- Acäordingly, RSPA hereby revises\n§ 195.3(a) tO clarify that an entire\ndocument is not incorporated when the\ndocument is incorporated by reference;\nrather, only those portions specifically\nreferenced in the regulations are\nincorporated.\nThe rule is being revised to conform\nto a recent update of references in\nanother rulemaking (Update of\nStandards Incorporated by Reference (58\nFR 14519; March 18, 1993)). Also,\nreferences to ASME/ANSI Codes B31 :8\nand B31.G are beingadded. The 10-\nTHLPSSC members who voted and 7\ncommenters favored the revision.\nSection 195.5 Conversion to service.-\nsubject to this part.-\n-\nSection' 195.5 regulates the conversion\nof steel pipelines to hazardous liquid or'\ncarbon -dioxide service that is subject to\npart 195. Under § 195 .5(a)(4), a\nconverted pipeline must be\nhydrostatically tested to substantiate the\nmaximum operatingpressure (MOP)\npermitted by § 195.406.1\nTo substantiate the MOP of a\nconverted pipeline, an operator must\nknow the pipe design pressure (see\n-\ncurrent § 195.406(a)(1)). Consequently.\nif pipe design pressure.is unknown, a\nsteel pipeline may not be con earted\nunder § 195.5. Although the design.-\npressure of components is an MOP\nfactor under § 195.406(a)(2), pipeline\ncomponents hre normally designed to be\n- as strong or stronger than attached pipe.\nThus, pipe design is the critical factor\nin substantiating MOP under\n§ 195.5(a)(4), and lack of knowledge of\ncomponent design pressure is not a\nsignificant safety concern.\nRSPA proposed to amend § '195.5 to\npermit conversion using an approach\nfound in section 845.214 and Appendix\nN of ASME B31.8 for gas pipelines\nwhose design pressure is imknown.\nUnder this proposal, operators would\npressim test the pipeline under\nAppendix N until pipe yield occurs.'\nInstead of design pressure, this yield\ntest pressure would he used to-compute\nMOP by applying certain reduction\nfactors to 80 percent of the first pressure\nthat produces pipe yield.\nAll THLPSSC members who voted on\nthe proposed amendment to § 195.5-\nI Section 195.51a)(4) actually uses the term\n\"maximum allowable operating pressure,\" but for\nconsistency with 195.406, this term is changed\nbelow to MOP byremoving the word \"allowable.\"\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nFederal Register / Vol. 59, No., 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 1994 / Rules and Regulations supported it in concept. However, two\nmembers thought the wording of\nAppendix N should be copied directly\ninto part 195 to avoid referencing a gas\npipeline code in liquid pipeline\nregulations. We believe the principles of\nAppendix N apply equally to gas and\nliquid pipelines. And since the B31.8\nCode is widely used, operators of\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\npipelines will not find it difficult to\nobtain and appjy Appendix N.\nRSPA received five comments on the\nproposed amendment to § 195.5. Two\noperators and a pipeline-related\nassociation agreed with the proposed\namendment.\nOne operator suggested that if\npipelines operating at less than 20\npercent of specified minimum yield\nstrength (SMYS) are subject to § 195.5,\nRSPA- should allow operators up to 10\nyearsto meet the testing requirements.\nAt present, none of the standards in part\n195, including § 195.5, applies to\npipehnes operating at less than 20\npercent of SMYS (see §.195.1(b)(3)).\nHowever, this commenter may have had\nin mind §206.of the Pipeline Safety Act\nof 1992 (Pub. L. 102-508), which\nprovides that exceptions to regulations\nunder the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline\nSafety Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C. app. 2001\net seq.), such as part 195, may not be\nbased solely on low internal stress.\nBecause of this statutory mandate, RSPA\nhas proposed to apply-part 195 to\ncertain low-stress hazardous liquid\npipelines (Docket PS-117; 58 FR 12213;\nMarch 3, 1993). Still, that proposal\nwould not require any existing low-\nstress hazardous liquid pipeline to he\ntested under § 195.5, because such\npipelines would not be converted\npipelines. Of course, if part 195\nbecomes applicable to low stress\npipelines, any pipeline converted to low\nstress hazardous liquid service subject\nto part 195 would have to be tested\nunder § 195.5. But, since testing is the\nbackbone of the conversion process,\nRSPA does not believe § 195.5 should be\namended to extend the time for, testing\nto 10 years.-\nA state agency was concerned that if\ntest pressure must be measured at the\nhigh elevation point of test segments,\nthe test could stress the low point of the\nsegment beyond yield. However, the\nAppendix N test method should not\nresult in overstress at the tow elevation,\nbecause the method does not require\nincreases in test pressure after the first\nyield occurs in the test segment.\nIn a separate rulemaking proceeding\n(Docket No. PS-124; 57 FR 39572;\nAugust 31, 1992), RSPA proposed to\nallow the use of the Appendix N\nmethod in converting pipelines to gas\nservice under 49 GFR 192.14. This gas\npipeline conversion standard is similar\nto § 195.5. Comments to that notice\nargued that pressure testing to yield is\nunnecessary to qualify certain pipelines\nthat operate at low stress (generally\npipelines 12~ inches or less in nominal\noutside diameter operating at pressures\nof 200 psig or 'less). RSPA believes these\ncomments are-also relevant to hazardous\nliquid pipelines All other factors being\nequal, hazardous liquid pipelines\noperating at low internal stress present\nless risk of failure from 'time-dependent\ndefects than higher stress hazardàus\nliquid pipelines. Because of the lower\nrisk, RSPA has modified the final rule\nto provide that pipelines 12~ inches or\nless in nominal outside diameter to be\noperated at a pressure of 200 psig or less\nmay be converted without testing to\nyield. The MOP of such pipelines may\nbe determined under § 195.406 by'using\n200 psig as pipe design pressure.\nThe proposed rule has been redrafted\nto improve clarity, to better relate\nconversion to design pressure and MOP\nunder § 195.406, and to include the\nchanges discussed supra. In the final\nrule, the proposed amendment to\n§ 195.5(a)(1) is revised and published as\nan amendment to § 195.406(a)(1). This\nlatter section deals. specifically with\npipe design pressure and MOP. 'As set\nforth Infra, revised § 195.406(a)(1)\nprovides that- when pipe design pressure\nis unknown for steel pipelines being\nconverted, a reduced value of first yield\nhydrostatic test pressure may be usOd as\ndesign pressure to compute MOP. If the\npipeline to be converted is 12/4 inches\nor less in nominal outside diameter and\nis not yield tested, 200 psig may be used\nas design pressure.\nSection 195.8 Transportation of\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in\npipelines constructed with other than\nsteel pipe.\nThe proposal to replace the word\n\"he\" with \"the Secretary\" to remove\nany implication'of gender is not adopted\nin this rulemaking. Instead, this\nproposal will be handled in an omnibus\nrulemaking to make minor clarifications\nand error corrections covering all the\npipeline safety regulations.\nSection 195.50. Reporting accidents\nand § 195.52 Telephonic notice of\ncertain accidents;\n-\nSections 195.50(1) and 195.52(a)(3)-\n-\nrequire operators to prepare reports and-\ngive telephonic notice of accidents,-\nrespectively, when the estimated\nproperty damage due to an accident\n-\nexceeds $5,000. RSPA discovered from\nits regulatory review and previous\nenforcement cases that a significant\n33391\namount of confusion exists among\npipeline operators as to which Cost\nestimates must be included in\ncalculating the \"estimated property\ndamage to the property of the operator\n-or others* * \" Frequently, when\nreporting accidents, pipeline operators\nfail to include as \"property damage\" the\nfair market value of the product released\nor those costs associated with cIeanup\nand recovery efforts. RSPA believes\n-\nthese costs should be included when\nreporting accidents.\nBecause the $5,000 reporting\nrequirement requires the reporting of\nminor accidents, RSPA proposed\namending § 195.50(f) and 195.52(a)(3)\nto increase the reporting threshold to\n$50,000, the same level as required in\n49 CFR part 192 and to include as\nproperty damage the value of the\nproduct released and the costs -\nassociated with clean-up end recovery\nefforts. The THLPSSC voted 10 toO in\nfavor of the change (5 members did not\nvote). Two of those favoring the\nproposed changes recommended that\nRSPA modify the final rule to limit\nproperty damage to fair market value of\nthe lost product and initial clean-up and\nproduct recovery costs. One member\nsaid that clean-up and recovery costs\nshould not be included in total property\ndamage.-\nThree commenters disagreed with the\nproposed changes and recommended\nthat the rule be withdrawn. One\ncomplaint was that the statistical base\nwould be discontinuous because, in the\nfuture, RSPA would not receive\ninformation on accidents costing\nbetween $5,000 and $50,000. Another\ncomplaint was that the change could\naffect the developmeyit of environmental\nprotection requirements. RSPA\nunderstands that a change in reporting\nlevels will cause a slight skewing due to\ntruncation of the data, but believes\nrequiring operators to report accidents\nbased solely on the $5,000 property\ndamage criterion is unnecessary arid\nburdenso","truncated":true,"body_characters":89760}