{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-17-0016","title":"Home Owner — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2017-12-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-17-0016 response to Home Owner concerning 192.903.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-17-0016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-17-0016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-17-0016","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/56676/limpert-pi-17-0016-12-07-2017-part-192903.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nofTransportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington DC 20590\nD EC 0 7 2017\nMr. William F. Limpert\n4102B Garfield Road\nSmithsburg, MD 21783\nDear Mr. Limpert:\nIn an email to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nJune 7, 2017, you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 192. You specifically requested an\ninterpretation of high consequence areas under the definition of§ 192.903.\nYou described your request as follows.\nI am seeking information about the determination for high consequence areas for natural\ngas pipelines.\nMy wife and I and a number of neighbors live in Little Valley, in Bath County, Virginia.\nThis is a narrow and very steep valley with one road that ends at the upper end of the\nvalley. This is the only road in or out of the valley. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) is\nproposed to be built just below our home and other homes in the valley. These homes\nwould be in the blast zone and evacuation zone of the pipeline. In a pipeline emergency,\nour only egress from the valley would be blocked by the pipeline. The road above us\nends in the evacuation zone of this proposed pipeline, thus preventing us from escaping\nfrom the evacuation zone. Due to the very steep slopes and remote location, rescue\nwould be impossible as well.\nThe ACP has stated that we would be rescued by cutting in a new road in a pipeline\nemergency. This is false, because the road would have to be constructed for many miles\nthrough high, steep, wooded mountains, and across private land in a matter of minutes.\nThe ACP has also stated that we would be rescued by airlifting us out. This is also false.\nThere are no helicopters within 40 miles of our location, there are no designated landing\nlocations in Little Valley, any landing location would be difficult due to the steep terrain,\nand a helicopter may not be able to land in the evacuation zone of the pipeline due to fire\nand heat issues. This would also have to be accomplished in a matter of minutes.\nI believe that we must be considered a high consequence area, and the operator must\ndevelop an integrity management plan under your regulations as follows.\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49 CFR\nParts 190-199) in the fonn 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\nPHMSA regulations as shown in 49 CFR Part 192 require the following:\n192.903(1)(iv) and (2)(ii) defines a high consequence area as an area within the potential\nimpact circle of a pipeline containing an identified site.\n192.903(4)(c) defines an identified site as a facility occupied by persons who would be\ndifficult to evacuate.\n192.905 states that an operator must identify high consequence areas.\n192.907 states that an operator must develop an integrity management plan for high\nconsequence areas that meets the requirements of 192.911.\nI should also mention that a neighbor in the same situation as my wife and I, who would\nalso be trapped, has mobility issues. He is elderly, had half of a lung previously removed,\nhas chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, can only walk about 50 feet at a time, and his\ndriver's license is being revoked. So, he meets the criteria in your regulations for a\nmobility impaired person, although I believe that is not necessary on its own merit, since\nwe all meet the criteria regarding evacuation issues.\nPlease advise me on your interpretation of the regulations covering this matter as soon as\npossible.\nIn addition, in a September 19, 201 7, email, you provided figures, sketches and photographs of\nthe location.\nUnder Federal pipeline safety regulations, an operator must have an integrity management\nprogram for each pipeline located in a \"high consequence area\" (HCA). An HCA is either (1)\nany Class 3 or Class 4 location, and an identified site; or (2) 20 or more dwellings for human\noccupancy within the potential impact radius or an identified site(§ 192.903). An HCA also\nincludes Class 1 or Class 2 locations if they contain an \"identified site,\" which is further defined\nto include places frequently populated, such as recreational facilities, community centers and\nhospitals(§ 192.903). It is the responsibility of the operator of a pipeline to identify high\nconsequence areas. 49 CFR § 192.905(a).\nBased on the information that you have provided, your neighborhood is located in a Class 1\nlocation because it has \"10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy.\"§ 192.5(b)(ii).\nTherefore, the neighborhood is not an HCA unless there is an identified site. An identified site is\nspecifically defined as follows:\n(a) An outside area or open structure that is occupied by twenty\n(20) or more persons on at least 50 days in any twelve (12)-month\nperiod. (The days need not be consecutive.) Examples include but\nare not limited to, beaches, playgrounds, recreational facilities,\ncamping grounds, outdoor theaters, stadiums, recreational areas\nnear a body of water, or areas outside a rural building such as a\nreligious facility; or\n(b) A building that is occupied by twenty (20) or more persons on\nat least five (5) days a week for ten (10) weeks in any twelve (12)-\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 3>>>\n\n3\nmonth period. (The days and weeks need not be consecutive.)\nExamples include, but are not limited to, religious facilities, office\nbuildings, community centers, general stores, 4-H facilities, or\nroller skating rinks; or\n( c) A facility occupied by persons who are confined, are of\nimpaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate. Examples\ninclude but are not limited to hospitals, prisons, schools, day-care\nfacilities, retirement facilities or assisted-living facilities.\n§ 192.903, Identified site.\nIn the August 6, 2002, in its Rule, \"Pipeline Safety: High Consequences Areas for Gas\nTransmission Pipelines\" (67 FR 50824), PHMSA revised the definition of\"high consequence\narea.\" The Preamble for the Final Rule provided additional clarity on how to correctly designate\nan \"identified site.\" The Preamble states that:\nAn identified site is a building that can be identified through any\nof the following means-it has a sign; it is licensed or registered\nby a federal, state or local agency; it is known to public safety\nofficials; or it appears on a list or map that is available through a\nfederal, state or local agency, or through a publicly available or\ncommercially available database. This revision should alleviate\nthe concern that operators will be required to identity a family\nhome that has elderly or disabled persons, or daycare age\nchildren.\n67 FR 50824 at 50828.\nWhile an identified site is not specifically limited by \"a minimum number of occupants,\" this\ndefinition necessarily excludes private homes, and instead focuses on \"facilities\" such as\nretirement communities with multiple residents.\nBased on the information that you provided, the area is not an HCA. The area is a Class 1\nlocation, and it does not include an identified site. You have not identified any specific outside\narea or open structure that is occupied by twenty (20) or more persons on at least 50 days in any\ntwelve (12)-month period, a building that is occupied by twenty (20) or more persons on at least\nfive (5) days a week for ten (10) weeks in any twelve (12)-month period, or a facility occupied\nby persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate. As\nexplained in the August 6, 2002 Preamble, your neighbor's home does not meet the definition of\nan identified site for \"a facility occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility,\nor would be difficult to evacuate,\" regardless of his individual mobility issues. Examples of such\nan identified site are, among other things, hospitals, retirement facilities and assisted-living\nfacilities.\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 4>>>\n\n4\nAlthough the area is not an HCA, any gas pipeline constructed in your area must meet all of the\napplicable pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192, including standards for pipeline\ndesign, construction, operation, and maintenance. If we can be of further assistance, please\ncontact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523.\nae\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 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 5>>>\n\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (PHP-30)\nPHMSA\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nRe: Determination of High Consequence Area for Natural Gas Pipeline\nJune 7, 2017\nTo Whom It May Concern:\nI am seeking information about the determination for high consequence areas for natural gas\npipelines.\nMy wife and I and a number of neighbors live in Little Valley, in Bath County, Virginia. This is\na narrow and very steep valley with one road that ends at the upper end of the valley. This is the\nonly road in or out of the valley. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) is proposed to be built just\nbelow our home and other homes in the valley. These homes would be in the blast zone and\nevacuation zone of the pipeline. In a pipeline emergency our only egress from the valley would\nbe blocked by the pipeline. The road above us ends in the evacuation zone of this proposed\npipeline, thus preventing us from escaping from the evacuation zone. Due to the very steep\nslopes and remote location rescue would be impossible as well.\nThe ACP has stated that we would be rescued by cutting in a new road in a pipeline emergency.\nThis is false, because the road would have to be constructed for many miles through high, steep,\nwooded mountains, and across private land in a matter of minutes. The ACP has also stated that\nwe would be rescued by airlifting us out. This is also false. There are no helicopters within 40\nmiles of our location, there are no designated landing locations in Little Valley, any landing\nlocation would be difficult due to the steep terrain, and a helicopter may not be able to land in the\nevacuation zone of the pipeline due to fire and heat issues. This would also have to be\naccomplished in a matter of minutes.\nI believe that we must be considered a high consequence area, and the operator must develop an\nintegrity management plan under your regulations as follows.\nPHMSA regulations as shown in 49 CFR Part 192 require the following:\n192.903(1)(iv)and (2)(ii) defines a high consequence area as an area within the potential impact\ncircle of a pipeline containing an identified site.\n192.903(4)(c) defines an identified site as a facility occupied by persons who would be difficult\nto evacuate.\n192.905 states that an operator must identify high consequence areas.\n192.907 states that an operator must develop an integrity management plan for high consequence\nareas that meets the requirements of 192.911.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nI should also mention that a neighbor in the same situation as my wife and I, who would also be\ntrapped, has mobility issues. He is elderly, had half of a lung previously removed, has chronic\nobstructive pulmonary disease, can only walk about 50 feet at a time, and his driver’s license is\nbeing revoked. So he meets the criteria in your regulations for a mobility impaired person,\nalthough I believe that is not necessary on its own merit, since we all meet the criteria regarding\nevacuation issues.\nPlease advise me on your interpretation of the regulations covering this matter as soon as\npossible.\nThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) draft environmental impact statement for\nthis project does not include us in a high consequence area, despite my ongoing arguments to the\ncontrary. FERC will be issuing a final environmental impact statement in the near future and the\nhigh consequence area designation should be included in that document.\nThank you for your prompt response.\nSincerely,\nWilliam F. Limpert\nwflimpert@gmail.com\n4102B Garfield Road\nSmithsburg, MD 21783\n301-416-0571\n540-839-3202\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nEvacuation zone\nNeighbor\nPrivate\nO Nughbor\nGated End or Road\nM\nour House G\nEvacuation Zone\nNeighbor\nlast zone\nA was Road\nPipel\nONighbor\neach\nPipeline\nO Pighbor\nEvacuation zone\n6(ast lone\nOnughbor\nNeighbar\nLittle Valley Road\nRoute 694\nL of\nonly tond ou\nLittle Valle\nEvacuation zone\n3805\nTo\nJPG 9976\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nveranbor's\nHoust\nJack Moultain\nAcist Lond\nEvacuation 2nd to M\nBlast zom\nAccess Rond\nOur\nreighbor\nHake none\nHotte\nBlast 20\nNeighbors House\nEvacuation\nAccess Road\nRoute 6a4\nLittle Valky Road\nonly road out\nLitle valley\n_ Neighbors\nHouse\nNeighbor's House\nRoad\nEvacuation zone\nLittle Mountain\nEnd of\nNeighbor's House\nJPG 9978\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nBolar Spring Topo Map in Highland County Virginia\nproposed\npipeline\nValley\nLittle\nBoulder Blockage\n694\nCem\n3+4\nкріорако\npipelie\nLimpet\nобриту\n00d\nH\nGoogle\n200 m\nB Print this map\nMap provided by TopoZone.com\nFiguo 4\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nPhotos to USFS\n1) 9686 - Slide on our property 34 inches deep x 9 feet 6 inches wide x 6 feet 5 inches long.\n2) 9687 - Slide on our property 4 foot 10 inches deep x 14 feet wide x 15 feet long.\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nPhotos to USFS\n3) 9690 - 3 large slides on our property estimated at (1) 4 feet deep x 8 feet wide x 12\nfeet long (2) 8 feet deep x 30 feet wide x 30 feet long (3) 3 feet deep x 30 feet wide x\n30 feet long-These slide dimensions were estimated due to safety concerns.\n4) 9694 - Slide on bank of Little Valley Run estimated as 5 feet deep x 40 feet wide x\n40 feet long with 3 foot diameter tree uprooted - 300 feet upstream of proposed\ncrossing.\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nPhotos to USFS\nThe next six pictures shows a large landslide on the east side of Little Mountain within\nseveral hundred feet of the proposed pipeline.\n5) 9827 - Near bottom of slide.\n6) 9829 - Further up slide.\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nPhotos to USFS\n7) 9833 - Further up slide.\n8) 9838 - Standing above slide.\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nPhotos to USFS\n9) 9846 - Near top of slide.\n10) 9847 - Standing above slide.","truncated":false,"body_characters":15633}