{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-23-0008","title":"Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2023-03-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-23-0008 response to Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission concerning 195.452.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-23-0008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-23-0008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-23-0008","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/interpretations/77246/pennsylvania-puc-pi-23-0008-03-24-2023-part195452.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMarch 22, 2023\nMr. Adam D. Young\nAssistant Counsel\nPA Public Utility Commission\nP.O. Box 3265\nHarrisburg, PA 17105\nDear Mr. Young:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), dated\nNovember 09, 2021, you requested, on behalf of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s\n(PA PUC) Law Bureau, an interpretation regarding whether a proposed amendment to the PA\nPUC’s regulations is inconsistent with or preempted by the federal pipeline safety regulations in\n49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 195.\nYou explained that Pennsylvania participates as a certified state in the federal pipeline safety\nprogram administered by PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. § 60105(a) and has incorporated 49 CFR Part\n195 in its regulations for intrastate pipelines, in part, to comport with PHMSA’s requirements for\nstate programs. You acknowledged that participating certified states must adopt the minimum\nfederal pipeline safety standards but are permitted to adopt “additional or more stringent”\nregulations pursuant to § 60104(c), so long as they are “compatible” with the minimum federal\npipeline safety standards.\nYou stated that the PA PUC has existing regulations which require electric, natural gas, and\nwater public utilities to file service life study reports every five years; however, hazardous liquid\ntransportation pipeline utilities are presently exempted from this regulation. See, 52 Pa. Code\n§ 73.5. You explained that the PA PUC, in the interest of public safety, proposed to amend the\nservice life study reporting regulation to remove the exemption, thereby making hazardous liquid\ntransportation pipeline utilities subject to the same reporting requirement. You stated that the PA\nPUC believes that the service life study reports can indicate whether aging infrastructure will\naffect a utility’s ability to continue providing safe, efficient, and adequate service.\nDuring the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this amendment, as you indicated, some\ncommenters asserted that mandating reoccurring service life study reporting requirements for\nhazardous liquid transportation pipeline utilities would be inconsistent with PHMSA’s\nregulations in 49 CFR Part 195, specifically Integrity Management (§§ 195.450 and 195.452)\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\nand Corrosion Control (§§ 195.551 - 195.589).1 You stated that those commenters objected to\nthe service life study reporting requirement because it would require operators to average and\nestimate service life or average remaining life of utility facilities and commenters asserted “the\nconcept that a pipeline has a finite life is wholly inconsistent with the federal statutory and\nregulatory scheme.”2\nIn response to these comments, the PA PUC adopted a motion to seek PHMSA’s guidance\nregarding the concerns of the commenters. To aid in PHMSA’s review of the proposed\nregulation, you also provided the following: a list of the type of information that the PA PUC\nintends to require service life study reports to include; explanation that operators would need to\ninclude a list of the next year’s planned preventative and mitigative actions (such as system\nimprovements) and a list of integrity enhancements that were performed on the pipeline the prior\nyear, as required by and consistent with the applicable 49 CFR Part 195 requirements; and\nstatement that the proposed service life study reports would be confidential but operators would\nalso need to file a public version of the report.\nOn May 5 and May 6, 2022, PHMSA sought clarification from the PA PUC’s Law Bureau\nregarding the meaning of certain terms used in the current PA PUC’s service life study reporting\nregulation, 52 Pa. Code § 73.5, including “gas service,” and “gas and petroleum transportation\npipeline companies.” On August 1, 2022, PHMSA requested additional information concerning\nhow the service life study reports are currently utilized. You explained that they were used\nduring rate proceedings, but moving forward, the intent is to use the hazardous liquid\ntransportation pipeline utilities service life study reports for pipeline safety purposes.\nStatement of the Law\nThe purpose of the Pipeline Safety Act (PSA) is to “provide adequate protection against risks to\nlife and property posed by pipeline transportation and pipeline facilities” by empowering the\nSecretary of Transportation to “prescribe minimum safety standards for pipeline transportation\nand for pipeline facilities.” 49 U.S.C. § 60102(a)(1)-(2). These minimum federal safety standards\napply to both interstate and intrastate pipeline facilities; however, the Secretary “may not\nprescribe or enforce safety standards and practices for an intrastate pipeline facility or intrastate\npipeline transportation to the extent that the safety standards and practices are regulated by a\n[s]tate authority ... that submits to the Secretary annually a certification for the facilities and\ntransportation.”3 § 60105(a). For intrastate pipelines, the PSA further provides an express\npreemption provision, stating:\n1 On February 23, 2022, PHMSA received Comments of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, American Petroleum\nInstitute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers in Response to Pennsylvania Public\nUtility Commission Request for Written Regulatory Interpretation from PHMSA, which reiterated and elaborated\nupon commenter arguments in opposition to the PA PUC’s proposal to expand the service life study reporting\nrequirement to hazardous liquid transportation pipeline utilities.\n2 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Request for Written Regulatory Interpretation of 49 CFR § 195.452\nRelated to Pipeline Integrity Management Reporting, dated November 9, 2021, page 2 of 4.\n3 The authority of the Secretary has been delegated to PHMSA. 49 CFR § 1.97.\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 3>>>\n\n3\nA State authority that has submitted a current certification under section 60105(a)\nof this title may adopt additional or more stringent safety standards for intrastate\npipeline facilities and intrastate pipeline transportation only if those standards are\ncompatible with the minimum standards prescribed under this chapter. Id. at §\n60104(c).\nTherefore, a state authority may regulate intrastate pipelines and impose safety requirements in\naddition to the minimum federal standards only if: the state authority has a current certification\npursuant to § 60105; and the additional safety standard is compatible with the federal standards.\nPrior Legal Decisions\nIn order to provide a roadmap to answer your question, PHMSA has reviewed applicable\ndecisions by courts analyzing preemption under the Pipeline Safety Act. While courts have not\noften dealt with the application of the PSA’s preemption provision to intrastate pipeline facilities,\nthe following cases provide insight into how to apply the preemption provision to intrastate\npipeline facilities.\nThe first case, Olympic Pipeline Co. v. City of Seattle, 437 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2006), confirmed\nthat only states with a current § 60105(a) certificate are permitted to adopt additional or more\nstringent safety standards for intrastate pipelines. This case involved a hazardous liquid pipeline\noperator seeking a declaration that the city of Seattle was preempted from imposing additional\nsafety requirements on its pipeline. Following a pipeline accident in Bellingham, Washington,\nSeattle declined to renew Olympic’s franchise agreement for the Seattle Lateral Segment until\nOlympic complied with its list of pipeline safety demands. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the\nNinth Circuit held that Seattle’s pipeline safety demands were expressly preempted by the PSA\nbecause the city did not have a certification with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)\nto regulate the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines. Id. at 880. The court found that Washington\nUtilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), which had a § 60105(a) certification with the\nDOT, was the only authority in the state with jurisdiction over intrastate operators subject to the\nPSA. Id. at 879. The court held that even “[a]ssuming arguendo that municipalities can seek\nagreements under § 60105(a) and § 60106(a) as they relate to hazardous liquid pipelines, Seattle\ndid not seek any such agreement. Further, the City has not been delegated authority by DOT to\nconduct inspections of pipeline operators and facilities… Rather, the DOT delegated this\nauthority to the WUTC…”4 Id at 879-880. Therefore, only states with a current § 60105(a)\ncertificate are permitted to adopt additional or more stringent safety standards for intrastate\npipelines.\nThe second case, Washington Gas Light Co. v. Prince George’s County Council, 711 F.3d. 412\n(4th Cir. 2013), discussed safety standards and conflict preemption5, which is helpful for\n4 Because the Ninth Circuit concluded that Seattle's actions were preempted if the pipeline was either an interstate or\nan intrastate pipeline, it did not decide whether the Seattle Lateral segment of the Olympic pipeline system should be\nconsidered an interstate or intrastate pipeline under the PSA.\n5 Conflict preemption exists where a state statute “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the\nfull purposes and objectives of Congress.” Chi. & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 317,\n101 S.Ct. 1124, 67 L.Ed.2d 258 (1981).\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\n4\nunderstanding what it means for a state regulation to be compatible or incompatible with federal\nstandards. The case involved an operator challenging a county’s denial of zoning approval for\nnatural gas substation expansion. Washington Gas sought to expand its natural gas substation by\nadding a liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage tank, but its request was denied by the county based\non its zoning plans. Washington Gas argued that the county’s zoning plan, which prohibited the\nsiting of an LNG facility and other industrial uses at its preferred location, was preempted by the\nPSA expressly, impliedly, and by conflict. The Fourth Circuit disagreed on all accounts. The\ncourt held that the zoning plans were land use regulations designed to foster transit-oriented\ndevelopment; they were not safety regulations. Id. at 420-21. In addition, the court found that the\nzoning plan was not in conflict with or an obstacle to the PSA because the operator could comply\nwith the PSA and the County Zoning Plans simultaneously, by selecting another, albeit more\ncostly, location than its preferred location. Id. at 422. Therefore, the zoning plan was not\npreempted.6\nAnalysis\nBased on PHMSA’s review of the law and relevant decisions concerning the statutory\npreemption provision, PHMSA advises that the PA PUC should employ the following analysis to\ndetermine whether or not its proposed state regulations would be preempted as incompatible with\nfederal pipeline safety standards. With regard to the proposed standard, PA PUC should\nevaluate:\n1) Does the PA PUC service life study reporting requirement apply to interstate pipelines\nor intrastate pipelines?\nYour letter indicated that the PA PUC intends the service life study reporting requirement to\napply to hazardous liquid transportation pipeline utilities, which are intrastate pipelines. As noted\nabove, a state authority may regulate intrastate pipelines and impose safety standards in addition\nto the minimum federal standards only if the state authority has a current certification pursuant to\n§ 60105 and the additional safety standard is compatible with the federal standards. Since the\nservice life study reporting requirement only applies to intrastate pipelines, the PA PUC should\nproceed to the next steps.\n2) Does PA PUC have a current § 60105(a) certification?\nYes, PA PUC has a current § 60105(a) certification. As noted above, only a state with a current\n§ 60105(a) certification is permitted to adopt additional or more stringent safety standards. See,\n§ 60104(c). See also, Olympic Pipeline Co. v. City of Seattle. If the PA PUC did not have a\n6 See also, Texas Midstream Gas Servs., LLC v. Grand Prairie, 608 F.3d 200, 211 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding, in part,\nthat a municipal setback requirement that applied to an intrastate compressor station was not a “safety standard”\nunder the PSA because the city's primary motivation in adopting the regulation was to preserve neighborhood visual\ncohesion, it was not impossible to comply with city setback requirement and federal regulations, and the incidental\neffect on safety was not “direct and substantial”) and Portland Pipeline Corp. v. S. Portland, 288 F.Supp.3d 321,\n430 (D. Maine 2017) (finding a local ordinance was not preempted, in part, because it was not impossible for the\ninterstate pipeline operator to comply with both the ordinance and the PSA and because the local ordinance was not\nan obstacle to the goals of the PSA).\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 5>>>\n\n5\ncurrent § 60105(a) certification, it would not be permitted to adopt or enforce pipeline safety\nstandards. The PA PUC should proceed to step three of the analysis.\n3) Is the PA PUC service life study reporting requirement a safety standard?\nIf the PA PUC service life study reporting requirement is not a safety standard, it is not\npreempted by § 60104(c). See, Washington Gas Light Co. v. Prince George’s County Council.\nThe PSA preempts safety standards that meet certain conditions. The PSA does not preempt\nrules or regulations that are not related to pipeline safety (for example, zoning regulations\ndesigned to promote transit-oriented development). If the PA PUC service life study reporting\nrequirement is a safety standard, the PA PUC should proceed to the next step.\n4) If the service life study reporting requirement is a safety standard, is it an additional\nsafety standard or a more stringent safety standard than the minimum federal pipeline\nsafety regulations?\nIf the service life study reporting requirement is a safety standard, then it would be considered an\nadditional safety standard or more stringent safety standard, because the minimum federal\npipeline safety standards do not require service life study reporting. States with a § 60105(a)\ncertification may adopt additional safety standards or safety standards that are more stringent\nthat the minimum federal pipeline safety standards. See § 60104(c). In this case PA PUC would\nproceed to the final step.\n5) Is the service life study reporting requirement compatible with the federal pipeline\nsafety standards?\nA state with a § 60105(a) certification may only adopt additional or more stringent safety\nstandards if those standards are “compatible” with the minimum Federal standards. PHMSA\ninterprets “compatible” consistent with the explanation in Washington Gas Light Co. v. Prince\nGeorge’s County Council, discussed above. In other words, if an operator can comply with both\nthe state regulation and the federal pipeline safety standards, then the state regulation is likely\ncompatible. But if an operator cannot comply with both, or if the state regulation is an obstacle\nto compliance with the federal safety standard, the state regulation is likely not compatible and\nwould be preempted.7\n7 See, e.g., Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293, 299 (1988) (“even where Congress has not entirely\ndisplaced state regulation in a particular field, state law is pre-empted when it actually conflicts with federal law.\nSuch a conflict will be found ‘when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law’” (citing, Florida\nLime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142–143 (1963)). See also Kinley Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd.,\n999 F.2d 354, 358 (8th Cir. 1993) (discussing that “a conflict arises when ‘compliance with both federal and state\nregulation is a physical impossibility,’ or when state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution\nof the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’”) (citing Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories,\nInc., 471 U.S. 707, 713 (1985)), and Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Madison County Drainage Bd., 898\nF.Supp. 1302, 1314 (S.D. Ind. 1995) (discussing that because Panhandle could comply with both federal and state\nlaw, there was no federal preemption).\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 6>>>\n\n6\nPHMSA advises the PA PUC to employ the above roadmap to determine if its proposed\nhazardous liquid transportation pipeline utilities service life study reporting requirement would\nlikely be preempted by the PSA, taking into consideration, as appropriate, any comments from\nrelevant stakeholders. Please note, this interpretation is applicable only to facilities determined\nto be intrastate pipelines in accordance with Appendix A to 49 CFR Part 195.\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 7>>>\n\nCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA\nPENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION\nCOMMONWEALTH KEYSTONE BUILDING\n400 NORTH STREET\nHARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120\nNovember 09, 2021\nVia Electronic Mail\nMr. John A. Gale\nDirector, Office of Standards and Rulemaking\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nJohn.Gale@dot.gov\nRe: Request for Written Regulatory Interpretation of 49 CFR § 195.452\nRelated to Pipeline Integrity Management Reporting\nDear Mr. Gale:\nThis letter represents a request from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s\n(Commission) Law Bureau, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.11(b), for a written regulatory\ninterpretation of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nregulations at 49 CFR Part 195, Subpart F (specifically §§195.450 and 452) (related to\npipeline integrity management reporting requirements in high consequence areas) and\nSubpart H (Corrosion Control), and their applicability to a proposed Commission\nregulation regarding service life study reporting.\nThe Commission participates as a certified state in the federal pipeline safety\nprogram administered by PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. § 60105(a). The Commission has\nincorporated 49 CFR Part 195 in its regulations, in part, to comport with the requirements\nof PHMSA’s pipeline safety program. Participating certified states must adopt the\nminimum federal pipeline safety standards and are permitted to adopt additional, more\nstringent regulations, so long as they are compatible with the minimum federal pipeline\nsafety standards. We recognize that the Commission does not have the authority to\npromulgate regulations for hazardous liquid pipelines that are inconsistent, or\nincompatible, with federal law or regulations. State or local pipeline safety laws that are\ninconsistent with the Pipeline Safety Act or regulations are uniformly held to be\npreempted. See e.g., Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. City of Seattle, 437 F.3d 872 (9th Cir.\n2006).\nThe Commission’s existing regulations require electric, natural gas and water\npublic utilities to file service life study reports every five years. See 52 Pa. Code § 73.5.\nGas and petroleum transportation pipeline companies are exempted under this regulation.\nThe Commission had originally proposed to amend its regulations at Chapter 73 to\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nMr. John A. Gale\nNovember 09, 2021\nPage 2\ninclude service life study reporting for gas and petroleum transportation pipeline\ncompanies. In response to the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR),\nhowever, several stakeholders have asserted that mandating reoccurring service life study\nreporting requirements for all pipelines would be inconsistent with PHMSA’s regulations\nat 49 CFR Part 195, Subparts F and H, and would, therefore, be preempted.\nCommenters suggested that the proposed service life study report requirement as\napplied to the hazardous liquid transportation pipeline utilities goes beyond mere\n\"reporting\" and instead would require such utilities to analyze their infrastructure in a\nway that is wholly inconsistent with federal pipeline safety law and regulations. More\nspecifically, commenters state that requiring hazardous liquid transportation pipeline\nutilities to create and file service life study reports as specified in 52 Pa. Code § 73.5, is\ninconsistent with the federally mandated requirements for the safe operation,\nmaintenance, inspection, replacement, testing, monitoring and repair that hazardous\nliquid transportation pipeline utilities apply to their facilities. Specifically, commenters\nsuggested that because the proposed service life study report would require the utility to\naverage and estimate service life or average remaining life of utility facilities, the concept\nthat a pipeline has a finite life is wholly inconsistent with the federal statutory and\nregulatory scheme. Instead, commenters suggest that federal law and regulations require\nthat pipelines operate, inspect, maintain and repair their pipelines, including through\nintegrity management programs. This entails ongoing monitoring, inspection, and\nevaluation of facilities to determine what repairs are necessary on what timeline and\nwhich to prioritize to keep facilities safe and fit for service, potentially infinitely.\nAt its Public Meeting on October 7, 2021, the Commission adopted a Motion by\nVice Chairman John F. Coleman, Jr. that essentially closed the NOPR, sought guidance\nfrom PHMSA regarding the concerns of the commenters expressed above, and, if not\npreempted by federal law, incorporates a service life study reporting requirement\nproposal into an ongoing Commission rulemaking at Docket No. L-2019-3010267. Thus,\nin the interest of public safety, the Commission seeks to expand the service life study\nreporting requirement to include gas and petroleum transportation pipeline companies but\nintends to do so by adding a more robust service life study reporting requirement to its\ngas and pipeline safety regulations at 52 Pa. Code, Chapter 59.1 Such reporting can\nindicate whether aging infrastructure will affect a utility’s ability to continue providing\nsafe, efficient, and adequate service. Before proceeding with a service life study\nreporting proposal, however, the Commission seeks the guidance of PHMSA to ensure\nthat such a requirement is not inconsistent with or preempted by federal regulations.\n1 Rulemaking Regarding Hazardous Liquid Public Utility Safety Standards at 52 Pa. Code Chapter 59,\nPUC Docket No. L-2019-3010267.\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nMr. John A. Gale\nNovember 09, 2021\nPage 3\nWhile not an exhaustive list, the Commission intends for the Service Life Study\nproposal to include the following:\n• Corrosion growth rate based on the most recent In-Line-Inspection run,\nsectionalized as appropriate;\n• Supporting documentation to demonstrate the corrosion growth rate. This\nmay include a graph estimating corrosion growth from installation of the\npipeline to the present time;\n• Retirement thickness calculations that consider: (1) pressure design\nthickness; and (2) minimum structural thickness;\n• Remaining life calculations by: (1) segment; (2) age; (3) coating type; and\n(4) soil conditions;\n• A schedule identifying portions of the pipeline to be replaced or remediated\nover the next five (5) years;\n• A summary of the portions of the pipeline that were previously retired with\nan explanation of the characteristics of the pipeline sections that led to the\nreplacements;\n• A listing and description of threats specific to the pipeline, with a summary\nof how each threat and the associated risks are mitigated;\n• A summary of the top ten (10) highest risks identified on the pipeline with\nan explanation as to how the risks are mitigated;\n• An explanation of how anomalies, dents and ovalities are formed on the\npipeline and addressed by mitigative measures;\n• A summary of the leak history on each pipeline including a description of\nthe size of each leak;\n• A discussion of the history of the pipeline, including when cathodic\nprotection was installed, when coating was applied, and the various\nmeasures performed by the pipeline operator, including the implementation\nof new procedures; and\n• A discussion to illustrate how managing integrity lengthens pipeline life.\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nMr. John A. Gale\nNovember 09, 2021\nPage 4\nThe proposed report would also include a list of the next year’s planned\npreventative and mitigative actions (such as system improvements) and a list of integrity\nenhancements that were performed on the pipeline the prior year, as required by and\nconsistent with the applicable 49 C.F.R. Part 195 requirements. The Commission intends\nfor the proposed service life study reports to be confidential but will also require a public\nversion of the report, which will not contain information that is proprietary or contain\ninformation subject to The Public Utility Confidential Security Information Disclosure\nProtection Act, 35 P.S. §§ 2141.1 to 2141.6, and the PUC’s regulations implementing\nsuch Act at 52 Pa. Code §§ 102.1 -102.4.\nPHMSA regulations at 49 CFR §195.452 outline the framework for integrity\nmanagement reporting, including guidance (49 CFR § 195.452(e)) and elements (49 CFR\n§ 195.452(f)) of an integrity management program. PHMSA regulations at 49 CFR Part\n195, Subpart H outlines corrosion control requirements. Through expansion of its current\nregulation, the Commission seeks to gain insight into whether aging infrastructure\ncarrying hazardous liquids will affect a utility’s ability to continue providing safe,\nefficient, and adequate service.\nTherefore, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.11(b), the Commission seeks a written\ninterpretation from PHMSA regarding whether the proposed amendment to the\nCommission’s regulations is inconsistent with or preempted by PHMSA’s integrity\nmanagement and corrosion control regulations at 49 CFR Part 195, Subparts F and H.\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,\nAdam D. Young\nAdam D. Young\nAssistant Counsel\nPA Attorney ID No. 91822\nPA Public Utility Commission\nP.O. Box 3265\nHarrisburg, PA 17105\nPhone :717-783-4700\nEmail: adyoung@pa.gov\ncc: Robert D. Horensky, Manager\nI&E Pipeline Safety Division (via e-mail only)","truncated":false,"body_characters":29603}