{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-18-0016","title":"Washington UTC — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2018-10-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-18-0016 response to Washington UTC concerning 191.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-18-0016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-18-0016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-18-0016","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/69391/washington-utc2-pi-18-0016-10-04-2018-part-1913.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nofTransportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington DC 20590\nO CT O 4 2018\nMr. Sean C. Mayo\nPipeline Safety Director\nWashington Utilities and\nTransportation Commission\n1300 S. Evergreen Part Drive, S.W.,\nP.O. Box 47250\nOlympia Washington 98504-7250\nDear Mr. Mayo:\nIn a July 31, 2018, letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 191. Specifically, you requested an\ninterpretation of the definition of \"incident\" as defined under§ 191.3.\nYou stated a local distribution company (LDC), in Washington State, received call for a natural\ngas leak and dispatched its employees to investigate the source of the leak. Over a period of 4\ndays, the LDC employees made several excavations, found gas migrating through underground\ndrain piping, and finally managed to pinpoint and isolate a segment of2-inch steel main that\nstopped the flow of the natural gas. You stated then the LDC replaced the leaking segment of\nmain. You asked whether the leak repair, which cost the operator more than $50,000, would\nmeet the definition of an \"incident\" under § 191.3?\nYou provided two attachments that show the operator's 30-day follow-up letter to the\nCommission and the operator's total cost for responding, investigating, repairing and replacing\nthe leaking pipeline including right of way restoration and overhead. One of the attachments\nshows that the operator believes the $50,000 in property damage must be a direct result of a gas\npipeline failure ( event) to be a reportable incident to PHMSA, but not the cost to repair the\npipeline. Therefore, the operator does not believe this situation requires an incident report to\nPHMSA.\nUnder§ 191.3, the defmition of incident states, in relevant part:\nIncident means ....\n(ii) Estimated property damage of $50,000 or more, including loss to the operator and\nothers, or both, but excluding cost of gas lost;\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\nHere, the operator incurred costs of $72,986.99, including labor, equipment, and materials but\nnot the cost of gas lost, in responding to and repairing the gas leak. The $72,986.99 cost of the\nrepair is a loss to the operator attributable to the pipeline gas leak. Accordingly, the incident is a\nreportable incident under§ 191.3.\nlfwe can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523.\nSincerely,\nO u-.~ ~ ae\nDirector, Office of Standards\nand Rulemaking\n(\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\nSTATE OF WASHINGTON\nUTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\n1300 S. Evergreen Park Dr. S.W., P.O. Box 47250 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7250\n(360) 664-1160 • TTY (360) 586-8203\nJuly 31, 2018\nJohn A. Gale\nDirector of Standards and Rulemaking\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nRoom 24-310\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington DC 20590\nRE: Request for Interpretation of \"Incident\" as defined in §191.3\nDear Mr. Gale:\nWe are requesting an interpretation as to whether the following odor response and leak repair on a natural\ngas distribution pipeline would meet the definition of an \"Incident\" under CFR § 191.3 since it involved the\nrelease of gas from a pipeline and the total cost to the operator was $72,986.99:\nA Local Distribution Company (LDC) in Washington State received an odor call and immediately\ndispatched a technician to investigate the source. Over a period of 4 days the LDC employees made several\nexcavations, found gas migrating through underground drain piping, and finally managed to pinpoint and\nisolate a segment of 2-inch steel main which stopped the flow of gas. The leaking segment of main was\nthen replaced.\n'\nOur question to you is whether the above detailed leak repair which involved the release of gas from a\npipeline and the cost to the operator exceeded $50,000 would meet the definition of an \"Incident\" under\nCPR§ 191.3?\nIncluded for your review are Attachment A which details the incident in the LDC's 30 day follow-up letter\nto the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and Attachment B which details the total cost\nofresponding, investigating, repairing and replacing the leaking pipeline including right of way restoration\nand overhead.\nIf you have any questions or if we can provide further clarification or details, please contact Scott Rukke at\n(360) 664-1241 or Joe Subsits at (360) 664-1322.\nSincerely,\n~ yo\nPipeline Safety Director\ncc: Kim West, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nEnclosures\nRespect. Professionalism. Integrity. Accountability.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nCNG 234\n(5/2015)\n/t~1f/t\nCASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION\n8113 W. Grandridge Blvd Kennewick WA 99336\nIncident or Hazardous Condition Report\nIncident Type I Evacuation of a Building or HOS/A\nAdgress 221 N 16th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902\nDistrict Yakima I City I Yakima I County! Yakima I Statel WA\nNames(s) and address(es) of any person or persons injured or killed, or whose property was damaged (if applicable):\nN/A\nDescription of the extent of the injuries or property damage (if applicable):\nN/A\nDescription of the incident or hazardous condition including the date, time, place and reason why the incident or\nhazardous condition occurred:\nOutside odor call came in at 3:21, 1/18/17 for 1610 Monroe Ave; area around meter, foundation and service line\nprobed and no gas leaks found. The service next door at 1608 Monroe Ave was alos probed and no gas leaks found.\nUpon further investigation an odor was detected at a dead tree tump (12' tall, 5' thick) 75' from nearest gas service.\nThe leak was graded #2 leak. On 1/19/17 all services on Monroe Ave from N 16th to end, N 18th Ave from Browne\nAve to Monroe Ave and N 16th Ave from Monroe Ave to Folosom Ave were surveyed, probed and foundations\nchecked and manholes were checked. Elevated readings were found on N16th Ave and the main was dug up and\nchecked, no leaks were found. 1/20/17 at approx .. 11:00 am the base of the tree stump at 1610 Monroe Ave was\ndug up and a 611 concrete irrigation line was found with a crack at the bell that was leaking natural gas. The\nirrigation pipe was opened up to determine the direction of the flow of gas; it was determined that it was flow from\nthe east towards N 16th Ave. The irrigation line was checked downstream at 3 new locations and checked for flow. A\nsecond location on N 16thAve was opened up and no gas leaks were found. It was determined that the flow was\ncoming from Folsom Ave and the main on Folsom was probed and check for gas presents. Alocation of elevated gas\nreadings was excavated (corner of N 16th & Folsom - 221 N 16th Ave) and no gas leaks were found at the main. The\nmain from the corner of Folsom and N 16th to the main on the far side of N 16th\nwas probed and elevated gas\nreadings were found. When excavating the 2\" steel main at Folsom across N 16th\na leak was found at 9:00 am on\n1/21/17 In the middle of N 16th Ave and Folsom Ave; both are fed from 2 directions a 2 stops were installed on N\n16th Ave and 1 stop on Folsom Ave. This stopped the leak from the 211 steel main In N 16th and stopped the flow of\ngas in the irrigation line at approx .. 3:12 pm on 1/21/17. The gas flow was restored approx .. 8:30 pm on 1/21/17. All\nwork was completed and the road temporarly repaired at 4:00 am on 1/22/17.\nThe time and date CNGC was first notified o.f the incident or hazardous condition:\n3:21 pm 1/18/2017\nThe time and date CNGC first responders arrived on site: 3:40 pm 1/18/2017\nThe time and date the gas pipeline was made safe: 3:12 pm 1/21/2017\nThe date, time and type of any temporary repair that was made (if applicable):\nN/A\nThe date, time and type of any permanent repair that was made:\nAfter placing stops at 3 different locations (2 on N 16th Ave and 1 on Folsom Ave), the gas flow was stopped on\n1/21/2017 at 3:12 pm, 30' of 211 steel main was removed and replaced and gas flow restored at 8:30 pm on\n1/21/2017.\nDescription of the gas pipeline Involved In the incident or hazardous condition:\nSTEEL lg) or PE • MAIN 1251 or SERVICE • PIPE DIAMETER: 2\"\nSystem Operating Pressure (psig) I · 54# MAOP (psig) l 60#\nThe approximate cost of the incident or hazardous condition to CNGC: $ 60,868.00\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nASCADE\nNATURAL GAS\nC O R P O R A T I O ,, <R:\nA Sul>Jki.Jry of MOO-,,,.,_, 1/roop, klc.\n8113 W. GRANDRIDGE BLVD., KENNEWICK, WASHINGTON 99336--7166\nTELEPHONE 509-734-4500 FACSIMILE 509-737-9803\nwww.cngc.com\nMarch 02, 20 I 8\nSean Mayo- Pipeline Safety Director\nState of Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission\n1300 S. Evergreen Park Dr. SW\nP.O. Box 47250\nOlympia, WA 98504-7250\nSubject: Line item costs for state reportable at 221 N. I 6th Ave., Yakima, WA on 01/21/17\nDear Mr. Mayo,\nThe Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) has requested a line by line cost breakdown for the state\nreportable at 221 N. 16th Ave., Yakima, WA on 01/21/17. With this request, the WUTC would like Cascade Natural Gas\nCorporation (CNGC) to identify values associated with property damage and pipeline maintenance costs.\nThe following table categorizes the costs associated with the state reportable:\nCategory Description Amount\nLabor and Labor Related Total Standard and overtime pay $32,988.46\nContractor Costs Total Sand, gravel, asphalt cutting and flagging $18,000.10\nMaterials and Purchases Total Pipe, fittings and tools $1,161.37\nAuto & Work Equipment Total Company vehicles and equipment $3,171.73\nOther Reimbursable Costs Total Hotel for resident, food and water for CNGC crews $456.62\nPermit Total Permit for work $1 ,909.60\nES&GA Overhead Total Administrative processes, material stocking, etc. $15,299.11\nProperty Damage Total Damage or Loss as a direct result of a gas pipeline failure $0.00\nGrand Total $72,986.99\nAs it pertains to these circumstances, PHMSA defines a reportable incident as an event that involves a release of gas\nfrom a pipeline and that results in estimated property damage of$50,000 or more. CNGC has performed an extensive\nreview of applicable regulation, interpretation, and rulemaking and we are confident in our interpretation that the\n$50,000 in property damage must be a direct result of a gas pipeline failure ( event) to be a reportable incident to\nPHMSA. As such, CNGC does not believe a reportable incident to PHMSA was observed. CNGC appreciates the dialog\nwith the WUTC as it pertains to this matter and the opportunity to more clearly understand the nuances of the property\ndamage reporting requirements. We hope that this information sufficiently addresses the WUTC's concerns; however, if\nadditional information or explanation is needed, please feel free to reach out to me directly at (541) 706-6292.\nRespectfully Submitted,\n~k--\nChris Grissom\nManager, Standards and Compliance\nCascade Natural Gas Corporation","truncated":false,"body_characters":11736}