{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-20-0001","title":"Public Utilities Commission of Nevada — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2021-06-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-20-0001 response to Public Utilities Commission of Nevada concerning 192.197, 192.201.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-20-0001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-20-0001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-20-0001","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/75161/nevada-puc-pi-20-0001-06-02-2021-part192197-and-192201.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration June 02, 2021\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. Neil Pascual\nSenior Pipeline Engineer\nPublic Utilities Commission of Nevada\n1150 East William Street\nCarson City, NV 89701\nDear Mr. Pascual:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), you\nrequested an interpretation of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 192. Specifically, you\nrequested an interpretation regarding §§ 192.197 and 192.201.\nYou stated that the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada's Pipeline Safety Program (Nevada\nPSP) requested its two largest regulated gas pipeline operators to provide documentation of the\nmaximum safe delivery pressure for each of its “large volume customers” (recipient) where the\ndelivery pressure provided to the recipient’s facilities exceeds 5 pounds per square inch gauge\n(psig) pressure. You stated that Nevada PSP is aware that the operators set the over-\npressure/relief devices at the recipient sites at a pressure above the minimum delivery pressure to\nmaintain service to each recipient. You stated, however, that the operators provided\ndocumentation to Nevada PSP of only the minimum calculated/required delivery pressure for\neach recipient, but did not provide the maximum safe delivery pressures.\nYou stated that these two gas pipeline operators provide elevated pressure service ranging from\n6 psig to 690 psig to approximately 200 recipients, and that these recipients include power\ngeneration plants, large resort properties, and manufacturing/industrial facilities. Your letter\nstated that the Nevada PSP believes that the operators should know the maximum safe delivery\npressure for each of the recipients; that the operators should have a record of the maximum safe\ndelivery pressure for each recipient; and that the operators make that information available to\npersonnel when overpressure protection equipment at a recipient’s facility is being worked on or\nmaintained. You stated that the Nevada PSP is concerned about the potential for a gas pipeline\noperator over-pressurizing a recipient’s piping or equipment. You stated that one of the two\nlargest regulated gas pipeline operators in your state does not believe it is the operator’s\nresponsibility to know the maximum pressure rating of each recipient’s equipment and piping.\nYou stated that since the September 2018 Merrimack Valley Massachusetts over-pressurization\nincident, the Nevada PSP has been looking closely at where potential risks for over-\npressurization events could occur. You identified regulating equipment that provide elevated\ndelivery pressure to a specific recipient that is served by equipment that functions as a city gate\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\nregulating station as one such area of concern. Based on the issues and concerns detailed in your\nletter, and outlined above, you requested an interpretation of §§ 192.197 and 192.201.\nSpecifically, your letter seeks an interpretation of these regulatory sections as it relates to\ninformation that a regulated pipeline operator must have regarding the equipment and piping of\nrecipients that are provided with elevated gas pipeline pressure services.\nIn your letter and subsequent discussions with our staff, you focused on distribution operators\n(not transmission operators) providing gas from high-pressure distribution pipeline systems to\nrecipients, with delivery pressure exceeding 5 psig.\nIn PHMSA’s reply to your request, we are answering your questions based upon the design,\noperations, and maintenance of a natural gas high-pressure distribution pipeline system’s over-\npressure protection system to meet the pipeline maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP)\nrequirements in 49 CFR Part 192. The MAOP of a high-pressure distribution pipeline system\nconnected to a customer’s1 service line2 is set forth in § 192.621 and is based, in part, on the\ndesign requirements in §§ 192.195, 192.197, 192.199, and 192.201.\nSpecifically, § 192.197 requires operators to have one or more regulators or pressure limiting\ndevices “to regulate and limit, to the maximum safe value, the pressure of gas delivered to the\ncustomer.” This in turn requires that high-pressure distribution operators to know the maximum\nsafe pressure that can be delivered to each customer.\nSection 192.605 requires operators to prepare and follow a manual of written procedures for\nconducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. Appropriate parts\nof the manual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are\nconducted. The manual must include, among other things, procedures for operating the pipeline\nin accordance with each of the requirements of subpart L, including the MAOP requirements in\n§ 192.621. Operators must keep records necessary to administer these procedures under\n§ 192.603(b), and such records must include information necessary to ensure compliance with\nthe MAOP specifications and controlling pressure as specified by § 192.197. Accordingly,\noperators must have in their records the maximum safe delivery pressure for each customer's\nconnected piping and utilization equipment.\nSection 192.201 provides that each pressure relief station or pressure limiting station installed to\nprotect a pipeline must have the listed capacity (pressure) depending on the MAOP of the high\npressure distribution system. Please note, the capacity (pressure) limits in § 192.201 are based\non the MAOP of the high pressure distribution system, not the maximum safe pressure that can\nbe delivered to a customer as specified in § 192.197. There is no explicit allowance in § 192.197\nfor exceeding the maximum safe pressure when delivering gas to a customer. For pressure relief\nor pressure limiting stations where § 192.201 is applicable any overpressure situations must be\nlimited based upon maximum allowable operating pressure of the gas pipeline system.\n1 For purposes of this interpretation, “customer” as used in reference to § 192.197 has the same meaning as\n“recipient” as used in this letter.\n2 A service line is defined in § 192.3.The 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 3>>>\n\n3\nPHMSA also notes that §§ 192.605(b)(10)(iii) and 192.739 require periodic inspection and\ntesting of pressure limiting equipment (overpressure protection equipment) to determine that it is\nin a safe operating condition and has adequate capacity. The overpressure protection equipment\nmust have capacity to limit MAOP exceedance to the requirements of § 192.621. The procedural\nmanual must include procedures for disseminating information essential (such as equipment and\npiping pressure limits) for its technicians to have when they perform work that requires the need\nfor the information. Also, § 192.605(b)(8) requires the work of operating personal to be\nperiodically reviewed by the operator to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the\nprocedure used in normal O&M, and to modify the procedures when deficiencies are found.\nThe below MAOP operations and maintenance activities are examples where documentation is\nrequired by the operator to meet § 192.603(b):\n• Section 192.621 has MAOP requirements for the ongoing operations of high-pressure\ndistribution pipelines, which includes how to determine the MAOP based upon the\nmaximum safe pressure for the pipeline operating conditions.\n• Section 192.739 has requirements for the inspection and testing of pressure limiting and\nregulating stations, which includes being “adequate from the standpoint of capacity and\nreliability of operation for the service in which it is employed” and “set to control or\nrelieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a).”\n• A high-pressure distribution pipeline operator that delivers gas directly to a customer at\nits low-pressure gas burning equipment must meet the requirements of § 192.197 to\nprevent an operating pressure that would cause the unsafe operation of any connected and\nproperly adjusted gas utilization equipment. To meet § 192.621 and referenced\n§ 192.195 MAOP requirements, an operator would need to maintain documentation as\nrequired in § 192.603(b).\n• Also, low-pressure distribution pipeline systems must have documentation of how\noperating pressures are maintained at pressures that are safe “for the operation of any\nconnected and properly adjusted low-pressure gas burning equipment” to meet § 192.623\nand the recordkeeping requirements of § 192.603(b).\nIf we can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe at 202-366-5523.\nSincerely,\nJohn A. Gale\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 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 4>>>\n\nSTATE OF NEV ADA\nPUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION\nHAYLEY WILLIAMSON\nChair\nC.J.MANTHE\nCommissioner\nSTEVE SISOLAK\nGovernor\nSTEPHANIE MULLEN\nExecutive Director\nFEDERAL EXPRESS\nTR#: 77741142 0505\nJanuary 7, 2020\nJohn A. Gale, Director\nOffice of Standards and Rulemaking (PHP-30)\nPHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nRE: Jurisdictional Interpretation Request\n49 CFR 191.197-Control of the pressure of gas delivered from high-pressure distribution systems\n49 CFR 192.201-Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations\nDear Mr. Gale:\nThe Public Utilities Commission of Nevada's (\"PUCN\") Pipeline Safety Program (\"PSP\") requests an\ninterpretation from the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (\"PHMSA\") as to whether a\njurisdictional operator must have in its records, and provide upon request, the maximum safe delivery\npressure for each customer's connected piping and utilization equipment where the delivery pressure from a\njurisdictional natural gas system exceeds 5 pounds per square inch gauge (\"PSIG\") where the requirements\nof 49 CPR 192.197(a) are not satisfied by the service regulator.\nThe Nevada PSP requested that its two largest jurisdictional operators provide the maximum safe delivery\npressure for each customer where the delivery pressure being provided to those customers exceeds 5 PSIG.1\nNevada PSP Staff was instead provided with only the minimum calculated/required delivery pressure for\neach of these customers-no maximum information was provided. Staff is aware that each of its two largest\njurisdictional operators set the over-pressure/relief devices at these customer sites at a pressure above this\nminimum delivery pressure to maintain service to each customer.\nIn total, Nevada's two largest jurisdictional operators provide elevated pressure service ranging from 6 PSIG\nto 690 PSIG to approximately 200 customers. These customers include power generation plants, large resort\nproperties, and manufacturing/industrial facilities.\nBased upon the Nevada PSP's review of 49 CPR 192.195, 49 CPR 192.197 and 49 CPR 192.201, Nevada\nPSP Staff believe that each operator that delivers gas from a jurisdictional system at an elevated pressure, as\noutlined above, must be able to demonstrate that the downstream customer utilization equipment and piping\nis rated to handle the maximum safe delivery pressure provided by the operator and its regulating equipment.\nNevada PSP Staff also believe that the MAOP allowances (6 PSIG or 10 percent MAOP exceedance)\n1 Meaning there is a worker/monitor regulator setup or regulator and pressure relief device providing service to the\ncustomer.\nNORTHERN NEV ADA OFFICE\n1150 East William Street\nCarson City, Nevada 89701-3109\n(775) 684-6101 • Fax (775) 684-6110 http://puc.nv.gov\nSOUTHERN NEV ADA OFFICE\n9075 W. Diablo Drive, Suite 250\nLas Vegas, Nevada 89148\n(702) 486-7210 • Fax (702) 486-7206\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nJurisdictional Interpretation Request / 49 CFR 192.197 and 49 CFR 192.201 Page2\nprovided by 49 CFR 192.201 do not necessarily apply to non-jurisdictional customer equipment and piping,\nespecially if this equipment/piping is not designed to handle the additional pressure.\nTherefore, the Nevada PSP believes that each operator should request the maximum safe delivery pressure\nfrom each of these elevated delivery customers, and that each operator should include the maximum safe\ndelivery pressures in its records and make that information available to operating personnel when over-\npressure protection equipment at the elevated customer's sites is being worked upon and maintained.\nNevada PSP is concerned about the potential for a jurisdictional operator over-pressurizing a customer's\npiping or equipment. One operator in Nevada has stated that they do not believe it is their responsibility to\nknow the maximum pressure rating of each customer's equipment and piping; instead, they believe it is the\nresponsibility of the local building code enforcement agency such as the county or city. However, this\nposition does not appear to be valid, because it is going to be the jurisdictional operator (not the local\nbuilding code enforcement agency) who is going to setup and configure the delivery pressure to that\ncustomer, including how much allowable build-up to include in the worker/monitor or regulator/pressure\nrelief device configuration.\nSince the September 2018 Merrimack Valley, Massachusetts over-pressurization incident, the Nevada PSP\nhas been looking closely at where potential risks for over-pressurization events could occur. One of these\nareas is on regulating equipment that provide elevated delivery pressure to specific customers who are served\nby equipment that, for all intents and purposes, looks like and acts like a city gate regulating station.\nThe Nevada PSP, therefore, seeks an interpretation of 49 CFR 192.197 and 49 CFR 192.201 in regard to\nwhat information the jurisdictional operator must have regarding the equipment and piping of a customer\nprovided with elevated pressure service in order to guide the Nevada PSP's future evaluation efforts\nregarding the safe delivery of natural gas at elevated pressure to customers in Nevada.\nShould you have any questions please feel free me at (702) 305-9519.\n~7J y\nNeil Pascual .,,\nSenior Pipeline Engineer, and Nevada Pipeline Safety Program Manager\ncc: Anne-Marie Cuneo, Director of Regulatory Operations\nPaul Maguire, Engineering Manager\nDavid Noble, Assistant Staff Counsel\nPipeline Safety Personnel\nZach Barrett, PHMSA (Zach.Barrett.dot.gov)","truncated":false,"body_characters":15857}