{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-19-0016","title":"Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2020-01-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-19-0016 response to Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission concerning 191.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-19-0016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-19-0016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-19-0016","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/73266/pennsylvania-puc-pi-19-0016-01-27-2019-part191-3.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nofTransportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington DC 20590\nJAN 2 :120,0\nMs. Stephanie M. Wimer\nSenior Prosecutor\nPennsylvania PUC\nP.O. Box 3265\nHarrisburg, PA 17105-3 265\nDear Ms. Wimer:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nOctober 17, 2019, you requested an interpretation of the pipeline safety regulations in 49 Code of\nFederal Regulations (CFR) Parts 191 and 192. Specifically, you requested clarification on the\ndefinition of ''transportation of gas\" under § 191.3.\nYou stated the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's (Commission) Bureau of Investigation\nand Enforcement (l&E) Safety Division is currently investigating a natural gas pipeline incident\nthat happened on September 10, 2018, in Center Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The\nincident occurred on the Revolution Pipeline, which is made of carbon steel and is 24 inches in\ndiameter. The pipeline runs approximately 42 miles from a compressor station in Butler County,\nPennsylvania to a cryogenic processing plant in Washington County, Pennsylvania.\nYou stated the Revolution Pipeline is owned and operated by Energy Transfer Company (ETC),\nOPID 32099, and construction of the pipeline was completed in or about March 2018. When the\nincident occurred on September 10, 2018, the line was being brought up to optimal operating\npressure and the valve serving the cryogenic processing plant was closed. With that valve\nclosed, the cryogenic processing plant was unable to receive natural gas. You stated that on the\ndate of the incident, ETC had not reached the deadline to register the Revolution Pipeline with\nthe Commission, because registration of pipeline miles for the 2018 calendar year was due on\nMarch 31, 2019.\nYou stated that on the date of the incident, the Revolution Pipeline was in the commissioning\nphase and, therefore, not all valves along the pipeline were open for packing the line and, as\nnoted above, the valve at the cryogenic processing plant was shut such that the plant could not\nreceive gas.\nYou ask PHMSA's responses for the following questions:\nQuestion 1: Is packing the pipeline with product during the commissioning phase,\nwhere the line is in the process of being brought up to optimal operating pressure, remote\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 are not generally applicable, do not create legally-enforceable rights or\nobligations, and are provided to help the specific requestor understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nvalves are disengaged and the downstream valve to the cryogenic processing plant is\nclosed, still deemed the \"transportation of gas?\"\nResponse to Question 1:\nYes, once a pipeline has gas to flow into it, regardless of flow conditions and pressurization, the\nline is in-service and deemed to be transporting gas.\nSection 191.3 defines transportation of gas as:\nTransportation of gas means the gathering, transmission, or distribution of gas by\npipeline, or the storage of gas in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.\nPlacing gas into an empty pipeline during the commissioning phase, and adding pressure into it\nis ''transportation of gas.\"\nQuestion 2: If Question 1 is answered in the negative, does PHMSA agree that the Revolution\nPipeline was not jurisdictional to the Commission at the time of the September 10, 2018\nincident?\nResponse to question 2:\nThe answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative. Therefore, the Revolution Pipeline was a\nregulated pipeline at the time of the incident. It is important to note that the Revolution Pipeline\nwas also subject to the pipeline safety regulations before the line began transporting gas. Part\n192 of the pipeline safety regulations prescribes the minimum safety requirements for pipeline\nfacilities and the transportation of gas. See, 49 C.F .R. § 192.1. The pipeline safety regulations\napply to the materials, design, construction and testing of the Revolution Pipeline before the\nfacility transported gas.\nIfwe can be of further assistance, plea,se contact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523.\nSincerely,\nDirector, Office of Standards\nand Rulemaking\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 are not generally applicable, do not create legally-enforceable rights or\nobligations, and are provided to help the specific requestor understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n,u-1 utu r m1,c11aarn.Jo\"\nCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA\nPENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION\nP.O. BOX 3265, HARRISBURG, PA 17105-3265\nOctober 17, 2019\nVia Electronic Mail and First-Class Mail\nMr. Shane Kelley\nDirector, Standards and Rulemaking Division\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nin focntr(a),dot. gov\nRe: Request for Written Regulatory Interpretation\nDear Mr. Kelley:\nThis letter represents a request from the Safety Division of the Pennsylvania\nPublic Utility Commission's (\"Commission\") Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement\n(\"I&E\") for an interpretation of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (\"PHMSA\") pipeline safety regulations under 49 CFR § 191.3 related to\nthe definition of \"transportation of gas.\"\nThe I&E Safety Division participates in PHMSA's State Pipeline Safety Program.\nThrough its agreement with PHMSA and participation in the Program, the I&E Safety\nDivision has assumed the safety responsibilities of intrastate pipeline facilities in\nPennsylvania over which it has jurisdiction as authorized by state law.\nPursuant to Pennsylvania's Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipelines Act, 58 P.S.\n§ 801.101 et seq., the Commission has authority to regulate and supervise pipeline\noperators within Pennsylvania consistent with Federal pipeline safety laws. 58 P.S.\n§ 801.50l(a). Pipeline operators are defined as \"a person that owns or operates\nequipment or facilities in this Commonwealth/or the transportation of gas or hazardous\nliquids by pipeline or pipeline facility regulated under Federal pipeline safety laws.\" 5 8\nP .S. § 801.102 ( emphasis added). Pipeline operators are required to register with the\nCommission by March 31 of each year and report gathering, transmission and\ndistribution pipeline mileage in class 1, 2, 3 and 4 locations for the preceding calendar\nyear. See 58 P.S. § § 801.30l(c)(l) and Act 127 of 2011 - The Gas and Hazardous\nLiquids Pipeline Act; Assessment of Pipeline Operators, Docket No. M-2012-2282031\n(Final Implementation Order entered February 17, 2012).\nThe PHMSA pipeline safety regulations define \"operator\" as a \"person who\nengages in the transportation of gas.\" 49 CFR §§ 191.3 and 192.3 (emphasis added).\nMoreover, \"pipeline\" means \"all parts of those physical facilities thorough which gas\nIN REPLY PLEASE\nREFER TO OUR FILE\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nShane Kelley\nOctober 17, 2019\nPage 2\nmoves in transportation.\" 49 CFR § 192.3 (emphasis added). \"Pipeline facility\" is\ndefined as \"new and existing pipelines, rights-of-way, and any equipment, facility, or\nbuilding used in the transportation of gas or in the treatment of gas during the course of\ntransportation.\" 49 CFR § 192.3 ( emphasis added).\nThe I&E Safety Division is currently investigating a natural gas pipeline incident\nthat happened on September 10, 2018 in Center Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.\nThe incident occurred on the Revolution Pipeline, which is a twenty-four (24) inch\ncarbon steel pipeline that was constructed between 2016 and 2018. The pipeline extends\napproximately forty-two (42) miles from a compressor station in Butler County, PA to a\ncryogenic processing plant in Washington County, PA. The Revolution Pipeline is\nowned and operated by Energy Transfer Company (\"ETC\"), OPID 32099.\nConstruction of the Revolution Pipeline was completed in approximately March of\n2018. When the incident occurred on September 10, 2018, the line was being brought up\nto optimal operating pressure and the valve serving the cryogenic processing plant was\nclosed. Thus, the cryogenic processing plant was unable to receive natural gas.\nAs of the date of the incident, ETC had not reached the deadline to register the\nRevolution Pipeline with the Commission pursuant to the Gas and Hazardous Liquids\nPipelines Act as construction of the pipeline was only completed in March of 2018.\nRegistration of pipeline miles for the 2018 calendar year was due on March 31, 2019.\nOn the date of the incident, the Revolution Pipeline was in the commissioning\nphase in that construction of the pipeline was complete but transportation had not started.\nSome, but not all, of the valves along the pipeline were open for packing the line and\nnotably, the valve at the cryogenic processing plant was shut such that the plant could not\nreceive gas. While it is clear that the Revolution Pipeline was constructed to transport\ngas by pipeline, it appears that such transportation had not yet been initiated. The\nPHMSA pipeline safety regulations, as mentioned above, appear to be predicated on a\npipeline transporting gas, and not merely packing gas, in order for the regulations to\napply to this incident.\nI&E seeks an interpretation from PHMSA related to the definition of\n\"transportation of gas,\" which means \"the gathering, transmission, or distribution of gas\nby pipeline, or the storage of gas in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.\" 49 CFR\n§ 191.3. The I&E Safety Division has classified the Revolution Pipeline as a gathering\nline and the incident occurred on an area of the pipeline that the l&E Safety Division\nclassified as a class 3 gathering line. A \"gathering line\" is defined as a \"pipeline that\ntransports gas from a current production facility to a transmission line or main.\" 49 CFR\n§ 192.3. The I&E Safety Division's classification of the Revolution Pipeline as a\ngathering line is also based upon the definition of \"gathering line\" in the American\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nShane Kelley\nOctober 17, 2019\nPage 3\nPetroleum Institute's Recommended Practice 80, API RP80, incorporated by reference,\nDocket No. PHMSA-1998-4868; Arndt. 192-102, Final Rule April 14, 2006. 1\nl&E's questions to PHMSA are as follows:\n( 1) Is packing the pipeline with product during the commissioning phase where the\nline is in the process of being brought up to optimal operating pressure, remote\nvalves are disengaged and the downstream valve to the cryogenic processing plant\nis closed still deemed the \"transportation of gas?\"; and\n(2) If Question No. 1 is answered in the negative, does PHMSA agree that the\nRevolution Pipeline was not jurisdictional to the Commission at the time of the\nSeptember 10, 2018 incident?\nThank you for your consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions\nor seek further clarification or details with respect to this request, please do not hesitate to\ncontact the undersigned.\nSincerely,\nStephanie M. Wimer\nSenior Prosecutor\nPA Public Utility Commission\nBureau oflnvestigation and Enforcement\n717.772.8839\nstwimer@pa.gov\ncc: Richard A. Kanaskie, Director, l&E (via e-mail only)\nMichael L. Swindler, Deputy Chief Prosecutor, I&E (via e-mail only)\nMichael Chilek, l&E Safety Division (via e-mail only)\nMatthew Matse, l&E Safety Division (via e-mail only)\n1 Should PHMSA disagree with I&E's classification of the Revolution Pipeline as a gathering line, I&E\nwould also request PHMSA's interpretation with respect to the pipeline's classification.","truncated":false,"body_characters":12086}