{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-19-0008","title":"Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2019-10-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-19-0008 response to Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority concerning 192.201, 192.739.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-19-0008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-19-0008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-19-0008","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/72766/connecticut-pi-2019-0008-10-22-2019-part192.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nofTransportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington DC 20590\nOCT 2 2 2019\nMr. Karl H. Baker\nPublic Utilities Supervisor of Technical Analysis\nConnecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority\n10 Franklin Square\nNew Britain, CT 06051\nDear Mr. Baker:\nIn a July 24, 2019, letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), the Gas Pipeline Safety Unit (GPSU) of the State of Connecticut Public Utilities\nRegulatory Authority requested an interpretation of the 49 CFR Part 192 requirements for\nmaximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for gas distribution pipelines during\nmaintenance operations.\nYou stated that PHMSA's interpretation letter dated April 21, 2015, sent to Mr. Christopher\nLeBlanc of Northern Utilities, Inc., doing business as Unitil, discussed MAOP under normal and\nemergency operations; however, it was not clear to you whether activities during maintenance\nare included in this interpretation. Specifically, you asked that \"since the maintenance\nrequirements contained in 49 CFR 192.739(a)(3) require operators to set overpressure protective\ndevices at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of 49 CFR 192.201(a), is it permissible\nfor an operator to exceed the MAOP when setting the overpressure protective device at a\npressure limiting station?\"\nThe overpressure protective device, pressure limiting or regulator station that limits\noverpressure beyond the MAOP must be isolated from the system prior to any testing of\nbuildup and set points. Operators can exceed the MAOP during maintenance of the isolated\noverpressure protection equipment as specified under§ 192.739(a) consistent with the pressure\nlimits of§ 192.201(a), if the MAOP limits are met during a system maintenance and the pipeline\nmeets all Subpart D requirements of 49 CFR Part 192. The overpressure protective device\n(pressure limiting or regulator station) that limits overpressure beyond the MAOP must be\nisolated from the system prior to any testing.\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49 CFR\nParts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts\npresented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to\nhelp the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nMaintenance operations that may result in overpressure conditions are only allowed for the time\ninterval required under§ 192.739(a) to activate the overpressure protection device and are not\nmeant for long term or frequently-occurring normal operating or maintenance conditions.\nIfwe can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523.\nSincerely,\nJo . Gale\nOirector, Office of Standards\nand Rulemaking\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations\n(49 CPR 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 CONNECTICUT\nPUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY\nJuly 24, 2019\nMr. John Gale\nDirector, Standards and Rulemaking Division\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (PHP-30)\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington, DC. 20590\nDear Mr. Gale,\nThe Gas Pipeline Safety Unit (GPSU) of the State of Connecticut Public Utilities\nRegulatory Authority seeks clarification on exceeding the maximum allowable operating\npressure (MAOP) during maintenance operations. Your interpretation letter dated April\n21, 2015, sent to Mr. Christopher LeBlanc of Unitil Corporation, clearly discusses MAOP\nunder normal and emergency operations; however, it is not clear whether maintenance\noperations are included in this interpretation.\nTherefore, the GPSU requests an answer to the following question:\nSince the maintenance requirements contained in 49 CFR 192.739(a)(3) require\noperators to set to overpressure protective devices at pressures consistent with\nthe pressure limits of 49 CFR 192.201(a), is it permissible for an operator to exceed\nthe MAOP when setting the overpressure protective device at a pressure limiting\nstation?\nThank you for your consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact\nme at 860-827-2661 or by email at karl.baker@ct.gov if there are any questions or if you\nrequire any additional information.\nSincerely,\nKarl H. Baker\nPublic Utilities Supervisor of Technical Analysis\n10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051\nAn Equal Opportunity Employer\nwww.ct.gov/pura","truncated":false,"body_characters":5089}