# The Dow Chemical Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation - **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:** Not available - **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:** <<>> U.S. Department ofTransportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 DEC 0 4 2 0 17 Ms. Jennifer Ashcraft Senior Regulatory Compliance Specialist The Dow Chemical Company 2301 N. Brazosport Blvd., B-101 Freeport, TX 77541-3257 Dear Mr. Ashcraft: In a March 31, 201 7, letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 192 for your single gas line at Dow Chemical Company(Dow)'s Seadrift Operations manufacturing facility in Seadrift, Texas. You had previously requested an interpretation on these facts from the Railroad Commission of Texas. You provided the following information Seadrift Operations is located on 4, 700 acres with 9 manufacturing plants representing many of Dow's global businesses. Seadrift Operations purchases methane from multiple pipeline operators to use for operating various area of the plant. All of the gas is delivered to Dow on Dow property. Dow is the customer and the consumer of all purchased gas. Dow meets the definition of a" large volume customer" with respect to 49 CFR Part 192. All of the in-plant gas piping that Dow owns and operates is located on Dow property, with the exception of 220-feet of a single 1.5-inch line that crosses a public thoroughfare (TX-185). You stated that the 1.5-inch pipeline carries methane and operates at < 20% SMYS. You provided regulatory information on 49 CFR Part 195 that you believe would exclude this line from Federal pipeline safety regulations if this line were a hazardous liquid line. Therefore, you requested PHMSA's interpretation and position on the applicability of the in-plant piping exemption to this gas line and in general for applying to other Dow situations. Also, you referenced 2010 and 1998 PHMSA interpretations that you believe are applicable to your request. The 2010 interpretation states that "piping operated by the facility operator entirely on the grounds of the facility is considered 'in-plant piping' and would not be subject to the pipeline safety regulations." It continues, however, that the gas pipelines at issue in that interpretation "are not located on the geographically contiguous grounds of a facility. Rather these lines depart [the operator's property] and cross roads and highways accessed by the public, albeit for relatively short distances. To the extent such lines are not on plant property, they are subject to 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 reqµesting 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 the pipeline safety laws." (emphasis added). The interpretation also states that although PHMSA has chosen not to enforce the Federal gas pipeline safety regulations in Part 192 on such lines, it would "not object to a State regulating the portions of such lines that are not on plant property." While the "Regulatory Review: Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Safety Standards" rulemaking (59 FR 33,388 (June 28, 1994)) and 1998 PHMSA interpretation cited by Dow both state there is an exception for in-plant piping that crosses a single public thoroughfare, the scope of the rulemaking and 1998 interpretation was Part 195 of PHMSA's regulations. Many of the Part 192 and 195 regulations are similar, but in this case, the 2010 interpretation clearly shows that the application of in-plant piping is different for Part 192 than the rulemaking and 1998 interpretation treat in-plant piping for Part 195. Because the 2010 interpretation directly addresses Part 192, as does Dow's request, the 2010 interpretation governs Dow's situation. Based upon the 2010 interpretation, Dow's 1.5-inch pipeline is subject to Federal pipeline safety regulations. It leaves Dow's property and crosses a public highway before reentering Dow's property. As pointed out in the 2010 interpretation, "To the extent such lines are not on plant property, they are subject to the pipeline safety laws." Likewise, though PHMSA may choose not to enforce its regulations on these short pipelines, but PHMSA does not object where the state regulating the portions of such lines does enforce the applicable regulations. Therefore, because the Railroad Commission of Texas has regulatory authority over pipeline safety in Texas, it may enforce its pipeline safety regulations on the 1.5-inch pipeline with PHMSA's support. It should be noted that the Railroad Commission of Texas has regulatory authority over intrastate gas pipeline safety in Texas and may impose additional or more stringent safety measures than the Federal regulations. lfwe can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523. Sincerely, Jo Director, Office of Standards and Rulemaking 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. <<>> March 31, 2017 CERTIFIED MAIL #7015 0640 0001 7680 2104 The Dow Chemical Company 2301 N. Brazosport Blvd. Freeport, Texas 77541 USA Mr. John A. Gale Director, Office of Standards and Rulemaking PHMSA, U.S. Departnient of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Averue, SE Washington, D.C. 2050-0001 APR 052011 Re: Request for Witten Regulatory Interpretation on PHMSA Jurisdiction The Dow Cheiiical Company Dear Mr. Gale: The Dow Chemical Cdmpany, respectfully requests a written interpretation concerning the applicability of PHMSA Pipeline Stfety Regulations contained in 49 CFR § 192 to a single gas line at Dow's Seadrift Operations manufactu4ng facility in Seadrift, Texas. Tn Texas, regulatory authority over pipeline safety is delegated to the Railroad Commission of Texas, who has adopted the federal pipeline safety standards, including 49 CFR § 192, in Texas Administrative Code, Title 16, Part 1, Chapter 8 (referenced as 16 TAC §8). Seadrift Operations is ocated on 4,700 acres with 9 manufacturing plants representing many of Dow's global businesses. Se*lrift Operations purchases methane from multiple pipeline operators to use for operating various area of the plant. All of the gas is delivered to Dow on Dow property. Dow is the customer and the consmer of all purchased gas. Dow meets the definition of a "large volume customer" with respect to 49 CF1 Part 192. All of the in-plant gas piping that Dow owns and operates is located on Dow property, with th exception of 220-feet of a single 1 .5 -inch line that crosses a public thoroughfare (TX-185). A map of this line is provided in Attachment 1. Dow understands that, y definition, transmission ends upon delivery to a large volume customer. Dow also understands that 1irt 192 applies to pipelines operating at >20% SMYS. This 1.5-inch methane line is not involved in transportation in or affecting interstate commerce, and it operates at <20% SMYS; therefore, Dow believes that this line is not a transmission line. This line is also clearly not a gathering line, since it doesn't stjtrt at a production facility. The only other Part 192 definition for a regulated pipeline is distribution line, which is a pipeline other than a transmission or gathering line. PHMSA's Inspector Training & Qualifications Glossary further defines a distribution line as, "A pipeline that carries or controls the supply of natural gas from a town border or city gate and moves the gas to the customer. (A distribution line is network ofpiping downstream ofa distribution center used to supply gas to its customers. In practica terms, the distribution piping ends at the customer's regulator and/or meter.)" littn://www.ohnisa.clot eov/staticfiles/PHMSA/Pioeliiie/TOGlossarv/G!ossarv.htnil#DL. This line is not a distribution line as dfined in PHMSA' s Inspector Training & Qualifications Glossary. If this was a liquid 1in4 it would very simply meet the exemption for "in-plant piping" described in 49 CFR § 195.1(b)(8) for, 'Transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide through onshore production (including flow lines), efining, or manufacturing facilities or storage or in-plant piping systems associated with such fcilities." In 59 FR 33389 arid PHMSA Interpretation #PI-98-006 (Nov 18, 1998), PHMSA appears to fu9ther clarify that if the grounds of a plant are separated by a single public thoroughfare, transfer piping that crosses the thoroughfare from one part of the plant to the other is on plant grounds for purposes of the in-plant piping definition. Although there is no specific regulatory in- <<>> Mr. John A. Gale PHMSA, U.S. Dc March 31, 2017 Page 2 of Transportation plant piping exemption or gas lines, PHMSA' s Interpretation #PI-09-0020 (Aug 11, 2010) appears to address the issue of regilation of "in-plant" gas pipelines, in stating that, "Historically, PHMSA has elected not to apply the Federal gas pipeline safety regulations to such lines if they are associated with the plant, meaning they are perated by plant personnel, run between plant buildings, and are less than one mile in length." (Pleaselsee Attachment 2 for these references.) In summary, Dow belie'yes that this line should not be regulated under the Pipeline Safety regulations, since it is not a gathering line, a transmission line, or a distribution line. The particular facts in this situation also may help 1HMSA to reach the decision that this particular pipeline should not be so regulated. Dow also repectfully requests PHMSA' s interpretation and position on the applicability of the in-plant piping exemptidrn to this gas line and in general for applying to other Dow situations. If you would like to disquss, or need any additional information for your consideration, please do not hesitate to contact me a (979) 238-0361. Sincerely, ershct Sr. Regulatory Complia ce Specialist The Dow Chemical Cor!ipany 2301 N. Brazosport BlvL, B-101 Freeport, Texas 7754 1-257 (979) 238-0361 Enclosures: Attachmeit 1- Map of Seadrift Operations and Pipeline Attachmel* 2- 59 FR 33389; PHMSA Interpretation #PI-98-006 (Nov 18, 1998); PHMSA's Interpretation #PI-09-0020 (Aug 11, 2010) cc: Stephanie Weidman PHMSA Program Manager, Railroad Conmuission of Texas, Austin <<>> Attachment 1 Map of Seadrift Operations and Pipeline <<>> The Dow Chemical Company, Seadrift Operations Manufacturing Facility, Seadrift, Texas gle Earth mKes1 1 A Zoomed-view Pipeline leaves Dow fence-line, crosses one public thoroughfare (HVVY TX-i 85), and re- enters Dow fence-line. The railroad tracks that this line crosses are on Dow property and are operated by Dow. <<>> Attachment 2 59 FR 33389; PHMSA Interpretation #PI-98-006 (Nov 18, 1998); PHMSA's Interpretation #PI-09-0020 (Aug 11, 2010) <<>> 3388 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No.123 / Tuesday, June 28, 1994/ Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Part 195 (Docket P5-127; Amdt. 195-52) R1N2137-AC27 Regulatory Review: Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Safety Standards AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rulemaking amends miscellaneous hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline safety standards to provide clarity, eliminate unnecessary or overly burdensome requirements, and foster economic growth. The changes result from the regulatory review RSPA carried out in response to the President's directive of January 28, 1992, on reducing the burden of government regulation. The changes reduce costs in the liquid pipeline industry without compromising safety. EFFECTIVE DATE This regulation is effective July 28, 1994. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 28, 1994. FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Willock, (202) 366-2392, regarding the subject matter of this final rulemaking, or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046, regarding copies of this final rtilemaking or other material that is referenced heiein. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In a January 28, 1992, memorandum, the President wrote to Department and agency heads about the need to reduce the burden imposed by government regulation. The President was concerned that agencies were not doing enough to review and revise existing regulations to eliminate unnecessary and overly burdensome requirements. The President recognized that regulations that donot keep pace with new technologies and innovations impose needless costs and impede economic growth. In response to the President's memorandum, DOT published a notice requesting public comment on the Department's regulatoryprograms (57 FR 4745; Feb. 7, 1992). Commenters were asked to identify regulations that substantially impede economic growth, may no longerbe necessary, are unnecessarily burdensome, impose needless costs or red tape, or overlap or conflict with. other DOT or federal¯ regulations. The deadline for submitting comments was March 2, 1992. RSPA received comments from six organizations about the pipeline safety regulations in part 195. Comments were from three regulated pipeline companies, a pipeline trade association, a state pipeline safety agency, and a federal agency. RSPA considered all comments in its review of the regulations, and these comments are available in the docket. Some comments will be considered in future rulemakings. Additionally, RSPA has published a separate rulemaking "Update of Standards Incorporated by Reference" (58 FR 14519; March 18, 1993) which updates the editions of the industry standards that are incorporated in part 195. On November 27, 1992, RSPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; NPRM, (57 FR 56304) proposing 18 changes to the regulations based on the comments received from the public and asked for further comments regarding the proposed changes. RSPA received comments from 21 organizations: 15 pipeline companies, 3 pipeline trade associations, 2 environmental organizations, and 1 county government. RSPA considered all comments in preparation of the final rulemaking and the comments are available in the Docket.- Advisory Committee The Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC), consisting of 15 members, was established by statute to consider the feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability of proposed pipeline regulations, RSPA implemented the committee balloting process by mail. After initial balloting, the process allowed each member to review the ballots, including comments, of all other members, and to change his or her vote or initial comment if desired. Although some THLPSSC members did not vote on every proposed change, a tally of the second ballots showed that a large majority of THLPSSC members found all -the proposed chan8es technically feasible, reasonable, and practicable. Nonetheless, in developing the final regulations, RSPA considered all final THLPSSC votes and comments, including minority positions. The following discussion explains how RSPA treated THLPSSC positions and public comments on the proposed amendments in developing the final rule... Changes to Part 195 Safety Standards The following discussion explains the changes to various standards in part 195: Section 195.1 Applicability. Offshore production. Part 15 does not apply to pipelines used in offshore production, whether on the Outer Continental Shelf or in state offshore waters. However, this exception is clearly statedin part 195 only for production on the Outer Continental Shelf ( 195.1(b)(5)). To clarify that all offshore pipelines used in production are outside part 195, RSPA proposed to delete from § 195.1(b)(5) the phrase "on the Outer Continental Shelf'. The 10 THLPSSC members who voted on the proposed amendment to § 195.1(b)(5) all approved the amendment. In addition, RSPA received comments from three operators and two pipeline- related associations in support of the amendment and no adverse comments. Therefore, § 195.1(b)(5) is amended as proposed in the NPRM. ¯ We also requested comments on '.whether there is a gap in the regulation of production lines in state offshore waters. Only one commenter responded. This commenter opined that existing state and federal programs adequately regulate production lines in state waters. In Louisiana, the Departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality were said to have comprehensive regulations on facility installation, operation, integrity, and removal, and sufficient authority to address any "gap" that is identified. Since the other states with production lines in state waters have similar regulations, RSPA does not believe there is a gap in the regulation of production lines in state waters. In-plant piping. Part 195 does not apply to pipeline transportation through onshore production, refining, or manufacturing facilities, or storage or in-plant piping systems associated with such facilities ( 195.1(b)(6)). Because the physical distinction between a regulated pipeline serving a plant and unregulated in-plant piping is unclear, RSPA proposed to add a definition of "in-plant piping system" to § 195.2. The definition proposed was: TiiIant piping system means piping that is located on the grounds of a plant and used to transfer hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide between plant facilities or between plant facilities and a pipeline, not including any device and associated piping that are necessary to <<>> Federal Register./ Vol. 59, No. 123 I Tuesday, June 28, 1994 I Rules and Regulations control pressure in the pipeline." The NPRM explained that we would consider in-plant piping to extend to the plant boundary in the absence of a necessary pressure control device on plant grounds. All ten THLPSSC members who voted on this proposal supported it. However, four members believed that because the NPRM primarily concerned pipeline transportation rather than production, refining, or manufacturing plants, it did not give plant owners adequate notice that the proposed definition could affect plant piping. These members wanted RSPA to publish a separate NPRM on the subject of in-plant pi,ping. RSPA does not agree that another NPRM is needed. The subject of in-plant piping and the associated issues were clearly discussed in the published NPRM. Also, all interested persons. including plant owners as well as pipeline operators, were given an opportunity to comment on the subject of in-plant piping. ¯ RSPA received comments on the proposed definition from seven operators, two pipeline-related associations, and one state agency. Two operators and one association fully supported the proposal. One operator and a pipeline-related association thought plant owners were not adequately notified of the proposed rule, and that RSPA should treat the subject in a separate NPRM. Our position on this issue is given supra in response to a similar criticism by four THLPSSC members. Another operator was concerned that the proposed definition would cause operator-owned components, such as pipe, meters, instruments, and manifolds, that are located on plant grounds downstream from the operator's pressure control device to fall outside part 195. The operator was worried that other agencies would .rgulate these components as non-transportation related facilities. We are not -persuaded, however, that the potential for such regulation i sufficient reason to exclude the components from the definition of in. p1ant piping system. The aim of the proposed definition was to distinguish unregulated piping, not to limit the jurisdiction of other government agencies.- - ¯ In contrast, an operator of gathering and processing facilities was concerned that part 195 would apply to plant piping that ties between anynecessary - pressure' control device and the connection to a pipeline. This commenter apparently did not realize- that such piping is subject to part 195. RSPA has applied part 195 to such -piping because. it is subject to pressure 33389 which is controlled by idevice operator and association argued that the operators must have to meet off-grounds segments pose minimum § 195.406(b). However, this application risk to public safety and the has had little effect On plant owners, ¯ environment, because the, segments because we hold the pipeline operator, generally are located'in industrial areas, not the plant owner, responsible for roadways, or railways. The association compliance.- further argued that a plant has the same An-operator commenting-on the plant operational control, including response device exclusion in the proposed capability, over the off-grounds definition advised us to change "control segments as it does over piping on plant pressure" to "prevent overpressure." grounds,- This commenter said the change would In response to these comments, we avoid making pipeline operators note that § 195.1(b)(6) echoes section responsible under part 195 for 201(3) of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline ponessential pressure control devices. Safety Act of 1979 (HLPSA), (49 U.S.C. We agree the suggested 'rewording app. 2001(3)), which excludes certain would better convey the intent of the "in-plant piping systems" from proposal. But, in the final definition, we regulation under the HLPSA; Since have changed "control pressure in the 'neither the HLPSA nor its legislative pipelin&' to "control pressure in the 'history explain "in-plant piping," we pipeline under § 195.406(b)" to convey adopt an ordinary, reasonable the intent even more precisely. understanding of the term. Therefore, The state agency commented that if we do notaccept the interpretation that piping on plant grounds does not the term includes piping that crosses the include a device necessary-to control' property of others outside plant pipeline pressure, the jurisdiction of grounds. However, many plants are part 195 over the pipeline should not separated by a public thoroughfare, and end at the plant boundary. Instead, the plant transfer'piping crosses the- state agency recommended ending thoroughfare. A single public jurisdiction at a component inside the thoroughfare would include any road, plant, such as a flange, where the from a country lane to an interstate pipeline can be isolated for purposes of highway, but it does not include a testing. Although operators may use- railroad. Because transfer piping that such components, part 195 does not crosses such thoroughfares is require that they be on the pipeline. comparable in most respects to other in- Also, we believe the plant boundary is plant piping, RSPA considers the in- a mOre convenient demarcation of in- plant piping exception to include the plant piping than -an unspecific inside- thoroughfare crossings. The the-plant component. Thus, the state thoroughfare exception does not apply agency's comment is not incorporated in to inter-facility lines or delivery lines, the final definition. because these lines are distinct from in- The state agency, an operator, and a ,'plant piping. We did not intend the pipeline-related association were proposed-definition of "in-plant piping concerned that because segments of systems" to expand our present transfer piping located off plant grounds - interpretation of the term. So the final were not included in the proposed definition does not incorporate any of definition, a large number of short the comments concerning piping- pipelines would come under part 195.- 'located off plant grounds other than for RSPA recognizes that production, thoroughfare crossings. refining, or manufacturing plants often However the proposed definition's install transfer piping off plant grounds. first use of the term "pipeline" is A plant may use this piping to transfer changed to "pipeline or other mode of hazardous liquids between its different transportation." This change is needed. facilities located on the same grounds; to include, within the definition, piping between its different facilities located on plant grounds that transfer hazardous on separate grounds'(usually separated liquid or carbon dioxide between plant by a roadway,'railway, waterway, or' facilities and modes of transportation- - industrial area); between its facilities and a transportation system, such as a other than pipeline. Terminalfacilities. Part 195 does not railroad or pipeline; or between its apply to the transportation of hazardous facilities and the facilities of another liquid or carbon dioxide by vessel,' - plant or industrial consumer. The three- - aircraft, tank truck, tank car, or other commenters thought the Off-grounds', vehicle, or by terminal facilities used segments should qualify as in-plant- exclusively to transfer hazardpus liquid piping if they connect facilities of the- or carbon dioxide between such modes same plant. The assOciatiOn 'also wanted of transportation ( 195i(b)(7)). RSPA to include under the definition' off- proposed to amend § 195.1(b)(7) to grounds segments that conned facilities, clarify that terminal facilities lOcated off of different plants. In addition, the terminal grounds are subject to part 195, <<>> 33390 Fuderal Rester / Vol. 59, No. 123, I Tuesday, June 28, 1994 I Rulas and Regulations and to distinguish unregulated terminal facilities from a regulated pipeline entering or leaving the terminal. As with the proposed in-plant piping definition, any device and associated piping on terminal grounds necalsary to-control pressure in a regulated pipeline would not be excepted from part 195. The THLPSSC voted to approve this proposal, but four members believed the NPRM did not, give terminal owners adequate notice that the proposed¯ amendment could affect their piping. These members wanted RSPA to publish a separate NPRM on the subject. For the reasons stated supra in response to a similar argument by these THLPSSC members concerning implant piping, RSPA does not agree that another NPRM is needed. Five oper tors and two pipeline- related associations commented on the propos&l amendment to § 195.i(b)(7). Of'these commenters, two operators and one association agreed with the proposal. A few commenters eçpressed the same concerns about the proposed amendment to §.195.1(b)(7) as they did, about the proposed in-plant piping definition. These concerns were that the NPRM did not adequately notify plant (terminal) owners of the proposed rule, and that some operator-owned components located on plant (terminal) grounds would fall outside part 195. Our response to these concerns is the same as stated supra regarding in-plant piping. In regard to transfer lines located outside terminal grounds at ports, an operator and a pipeline-related association pointed out that the U.S. Coast Guard regulates transfers between terminal storage and dock facilities.. These commenters suggested that RSPA and Coast Guard develop a memorandum of wuierstanding to limit Coast Guard's regulatipns to dock facilities. We recognize that Coast Guard and RSPA jurisdictions overlap in port areas, but the two agencies have different responsibilities. Also, the overlap does not automatically result in regulatory conflicts, and the commenters did not mention any. Nonetheless, though we have not changed the final rule as a result of this comment, in enforcing part 195 at port areas, RSPA will act appropriately to resolve any unnecessary regulatory burdens. Carbon dioxide injection system. Section 195.1(b)(8) provides that part 195 does not apply to "lt]ransportation' of carbon dioxide downstream from a point in the vicinity of the well site at which carbon dioxide is delivered to a production facihity" RSPA proposed to¯ amend this section to clarify that the exception covers pipelines used in the- injection of carbon dioxidefor oil recovery operations. The THLPSSC approved the proposed amendment (10 voted in favor and 5 did not vote), and w.e received no adverse comments from the-public. The- proposed amendment to § 195.1(b)(8) is, therefore, adopted as final. Section 195.2 Definitions. The proposed revision of the definition of "Secretary" is -not adopted in this rulemaking. Instead, it is being handled in an omnibus rulemaking covering all regulations involving pipeline safety. The definition of "In-plant piping system" is discussed above in § 195.1 Applicability.- - Two commenters objected to the proposed definition for petroleum products because of its use of the terms "flammable", "toxic", and "corrosive" which are not defined-under part 195. The commenters stated that absent specific definitions for these terms, their applicability could be unclear. RSPA agrees with the comments about the lack of clarity in the proposed definition for petroleum products. So, the final rule for this section includes new definitions for "flammable", "toxic", and "corrosive" that come from the definitions contained in 49 CFR part 173 for Transportation and Packaging of Hazardous Materials for the terms "flammable liquid', "poisonous- material", and "corrosivematerial", respectively. RSPA has adopted the definition of "poisonous material" for "toxic" because it considers the terms synonymous.- Sections 1952, i95.W6,.195.112, 195.212 and 195.413 , (Nominal Outside Diameter of the Pipe in Inches) RSPA proposed to standardize the dimensioning of pipe size throughout part 195 (Changes are made to § 195.2, 195.106(b), 195.106(c), 195.112(c),- 195.212(b)(3)(ii) and 195.413(a)). All 10 THLPSSC members who voted were in favor of the proposal and no commenter objected thereto. Accordingly, the proposed amendment is adopted as final.- Section 195.3 Matter incorporated by reference.- Section 195.3 sets out the general requirements for the incorporation in the regulations of industry standards for the design, construction and operation of hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. Paragraph 195.3(a) states that incorporation of a -document by reference has -the- same force' as if the document were copiOdin the-- -- - - regulations. Some operatorshave- misinterpreted this-section to mean that they must- comply with all of the terms - contained in a referenced 'document.- - Acäordingly, RSPA hereby revises § 195.3(a) tO clarify that an entire document is not incorporated when the document is incorporated by reference; rather, only those portions specifically referenced in the regulations are incorporated. The rule is being revised to conform to a recent update of references in another rulemaking (Update of Standards Incorporated by Reference (58 FR 14519; March 18, 1993)). Also, references to ASME/ANSI Codes B31 :8 and B31.G are beingadded. The 10- THLPSSC members who voted and 7 commenters favored the revision. Section 195.5 Conversion to service.- subject to this part.- - Section' 195.5 regulates the conversion of steel pipelines to hazardous liquid or' carbon -dioxide service that is subject to part 195. Under § 195 .5(a)(4), a converted pipeline must be hydrostatically tested to substantiate the maximum operatingpressure (MOP) permitted by § 195.406.1 To substantiate the MOP of a converted pipeline, an operator must know the pipe design pressure (see - current § 195.406(a)(1)). Consequently. if pipe design pressure.is unknown, a steel pipeline may not be con earted under § 195.5. Although the design.- pressure of components is an MOP factor under § 195.406(a)(2), pipeline components hre normally designed to be - as strong or stronger than attached pipe. Thus, pipe design is the critical factor in substantiating MOP under § 195.5(a)(4), and lack of knowledge of component design pressure is not a significant safety concern. RSPA proposed to amend § '195.5 to permit conversion using an approach found in section 845.214 and Appendix N of ASME B31.8 for gas pipelines whose design pressure is imknown. Under this proposal, operators would pressim test the pipeline under Appendix N until pipe yield occurs.' Instead of design pressure, this yield test pressure would he used to-compute MOP by applying certain reduction factors to 80 percent of the first pressure that produces pipe yield. All THLPSSC members who voted on the proposed amendment to § 195.5- I Section 195.51a)(4) actually uses the term "maximum allowable operating pressure," but for consistency with 195.406, this term is changed below to MOP byremoving the word "allowable." <<>> Federal Register / Vol. 59, No., 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 1994 / Rules and Regulations supported it in concept. However, two members thought the wording of Appendix N should be copied directly into part 195 to avoid referencing a gas pipeline code in liquid pipeline regulations. We believe the principles of Appendix N apply equally to gas and liquid pipelines. And since the B31.8 Code is widely used, operators of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines will not find it difficult to obtain and appjy Appendix N. RSPA received five comments on the proposed amendment to § 195.5. Two operators and a pipeline-related association agreed with the proposed amendment. One operator suggested that if pipelines operating at less than 20 percent of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) are subject to § 195.5, RSPA- should allow operators up to 10 yearsto meet the testing requirements. At present, none of the standards in part 195, including § 195.5, applies to pipehnes operating at less than 20 percent of SMYS (see §.195.1(b)(3)). However, this commenter may have had in mind §206.of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-508), which provides that exceptions to regulations under the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C. app. 2001 et seq.), such as part 195, may not be based solely on low internal stress. Because of this statutory mandate, RSPA has proposed to apply-part 195 to certain low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines (Docket PS-117; 58 FR 12213; March 3, 1993). Still, that proposal would not require any existing low- stress hazardous liquid pipeline to he tested under § 195.5, because such pipelines would not be converted pipelines. Of course, if part 195 becomes applicable to low stress pipelines, any pipeline converted to low stress hazardous liquid service subject to part 195 would have to be tested under § 195.5. But, since testing is the backbone of the conversion process, RSPA does not believe § 195.5 should be amended to extend the time for, testing to 10 years.- A state agency was concerned that if test pressure must be measured at the high elevation point of test segments, the test could stress the low point of the segment beyond yield. However, the Appendix N test method should not result in overstress at the tow elevation, because the method does not require increases in test pressure after the first yield occurs in the test segment. In a separate rulemaking proceeding (Docket No. PS-124; 57 FR 39572; August 31, 1992), RSPA proposed to allow the use of the Appendix N method in converting pipelines to gas service under 49 GFR 192.14. This gas pipeline conversion standard is similar to § 195.5. Comments to that notice argued that pressure testing to yield is unnecessary to qualify certain pipelines that operate at low stress (generally pipelines 12~ inches or less in nominal outside diameter operating at pressures of 200 psig or 'less). RSPA believes these comments are-also relevant to hazardous liquid pipelines All other factors being equal, hazardous liquid pipelines operating at low internal stress present less risk of failure from 'time-dependent defects than higher stress hazardàus liquid pipelines. Because of the lower risk, RSPA has modified the final rule to provide that pipelines 12~ inches or less in nominal outside diameter to be operated at a pressure of 200 psig or less may be converted without testing to yield. The MOP of such pipelines may be determined under § 195.406 by'using 200 psig as pipe design pressure. The proposed rule has been redrafted to improve clarity, to better relate conversion to design pressure and MOP under § 195.406, and to include the changes discussed supra. In the final rule, the proposed amendment to § 195.5(a)(1) is revised and published as an amendment to § 195.406(a)(1). This latter section deals. specifically with pipe design pressure and MOP. 'As set forth Infra, revised § 195.406(a)(1) provides that- when pipe design pressure is unknown for steel pipelines being converted, a reduced value of first yield hydrostatic test pressure may be usOd as design pressure to compute MOP. If the pipeline to be converted is 12/4 inches or less in nominal outside diameter and is not yield tested, 200 psig may be used as design pressure. Section 195.8 Transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in pipelines constructed with other than steel pipe. The proposal to replace the word "he" with "the Secretary" to remove any implication'of gender is not adopted in this rulemaking. Instead, this proposal will be handled in an omnibus rulemaking to make minor clarifications and error corrections covering all the pipeline safety regulations. Section 195.50. Reporting accidents and § 195.52 Telephonic notice of certain accidents; - Sections 195.50(1) and 195.52(a)(3)- - require operators to prepare reports and- give telephonic notice of accidents,- respectively, when the estimated property damage due to an accident - exceeds $5,000. RSPA discovered from its regulatory review and previous enforcement cases that a significant 33391 amount of confusion exists among pipeline operators as to which Cost estimates must be included in calculating the "estimated property damage to the property of the operator -or others* * " Frequently, when reporting accidents, pipeline operators fail to include as "property damage" the fair market value of the product released or those costs associated with cIeanup and recovery efforts. RSPA believes - these costs should be included when reporting accidents. Because the $5,000 reporting requirement requires the reporting of minor accidents, RSPA proposed amending § 195.50(f) and 195.52(a)(3) to increase the reporting threshold to $50,000, the same level as required in 49 CFR part 192 and to include as property damage the value of the product released and the costs - associated with clean-up end recovery efforts. The THLPSSC voted 10 toO in favor of the change (5 members did not vote). Two of those favoring the proposed changes recommended that RSPA modify the final rule to limit property damage to fair market value of the lost product and initial clean-up and product recovery costs. One member said that clean-up and recovery costs should not be included in total property damage.- Three commenters disagreed with the proposed changes and recommended that the rule be withdrawn. One complaint was that the statistical base would be discontinuous because, in the future, RSPA would not receive information on accidents costing between $5,000 and $50,000. Another complaint was that the change could affect the developmeyit of environmental protection requirements. RSPA understands that a change in reporting levels will cause a slight skewing due to truncation of the data, but believes requiring operators to report accidents based solely on the $5,000 property damage criterion is unnecessary arid burdenso - **truncated:** true - **body characters:** 89760