{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-73-0104","title":"Williams Brothers Pipeline Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1973-01-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-73-0104 response to Williams Brothers Pipeline Company concerning 195.410.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-0104.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-0104.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-0104","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1973/g73-03-10_Elliot_195.410-olox.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-73-0104\nJanuary 10, 1973\nM. W. A. Elliott\nSenior Vice President\nWilliams Brothers Pipeline Company\nP.O. Drawer 3448\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74101\nDear Mk. Elliott:\nThis refers to your correspondence dated December 4, 1972, concerning pipeline markers at the residence of Stephen P.\nand Evelyn V. Stimac.\nWith exceptions not here pertinent, Section 195.410(a) specifically provides that a marker shall be placed \". . . over each\nburied line. . .\" Therefore, you are correct in your interpretation. When we stated in our previous letter that the Federal\nregulations on line markers afford necessary flexibility to the carrier in his method of compliance, we had reference to\nsuch things as vertical positioning, overall size, or height of markers which are not wavered by the regulations. We were\nnot suggesting that you develop a marking policy that did not comply with Section 195.410. The safety objective will not\nbe met if you are allowed to mark multiple lines with only one line marker. Therefore, we do not agree that using a\nsingle marker over multiple lines in residential areas such as the Stimacs' is an acceptable solution.\nIn our previous letter we referenced the API publication for marking liquid pipelines. In this publication API recognized\nthat different type markers could be used and suggested some alternatives for the operators' consideration.\nPlease review your policy for marking pipelines in residential areas. We suggest that you consider developing a marking\npolicy that would be more satisfactory to the property owners and still comply with Section 195.410.\nIf we may be of any further assistance to you in this matter, please advise.\nSincerely,\nSIGNED\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nWilliams Brothers Pipeline Company\nP.O. Drawer 3448\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74101\nDecember 4, 1972\nMr. Joseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nOffice of the Secretary of Transportation\nWashington, D. C. 20590\nDear Mr. Caldwell:\nWe refer to your letter to me of October 17, 1972 concerning inquiries you had received from Senator\nRobert Dole and Representative Larry Winn, Jr. concerning pipe line markers at the Stephen P. and Evelyn V.\nStimac's residence. The Stimac's live at 2736 North 45th Street, Kansas City, Kansas.\nYou suggested that we consider developing a marking policy that would be more satisfactory to the\nproperty owners and still provide an equivalent degree of safety. We have multiple pipe lines at this location\nwhich are patrolled twice a week by helicopter. Adjacent to our pipe lines, the Phillips Petroleum Company\nhas multiple pipe lines. We attempted to mark this line so that the helicopter could exactly determine the\nlocation of each line. We admit that we made a mistake in using our Company identification panels, which are\n6 inches by 18 inches, and believe that our purpose will be served, by using only the round API recommended\nsign.\nOur interpretation of both DOT and API recommendations indicate that a marker should be over each\npipe line. The exceptions literally would not apply since marking is practical and the local Government does\nnot maintain accurate, current substructure records. However, we admit that the multiple marking, at least in\nthis case, is objectionable to the home owner, and as an alternative, believe the only concession that may be\nacceptable is, to use a single warning sign with a rectangular panel attached below giving the number of pipe\nlines. At a location where the lines cross streets in an acute angle, the single sign is not as safe as the multiple\nsigns, but will furnish some protection.\nAttached are three pictures and a Xerox of a picture showing the pipe line crossings at this location.\nPictures 1 and 2 are across the street from the Stimac's property. Pictures 3 and 4 show the Stimac property.\nIn this residential location, we have placed these round warning signs on 2-foot steel stakes. Since the\nvegetation is kept down, we believe this is adequate. Picture 4 shows the four markers as initially installed at\nthe Stimac's. Someone has pulled up all four of the markers and replaced one of them in the shrub that is just\nin front of the car.\nWhen this problem initially developed and we discussed it with your office, we understood that there\nwas some hesitancy about granting an exception to a marker over each pipe line. If you are agreeable to our\nattempting to solve this problem with a single marker and a plate showing the number of pipe lines, we will be\nagreeable to such a marking, even though some protection is sacrificed.\nIncidentally, the neighbors across the street, as indicated in picture 2, have permitted the multiple\nmarking to remain. On Thanksgiving Day, the water main underneath one of our 8-inch pipe lines broke and,\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nbecause the line was marked, our people were called before the water main break was excavated. Had this\nbeen on the other side of the street, it is questionable that we would have been called because the single\nwarning sign remaining is hidden in the shrub and the lines cross at such an angle that the water line repair\ncrew may not have been aware of them.\nOur signs in this residential development are all on city-owned land. However, this strip of grass on\neach side of the street is maintained by the landowner, and we agree that we must take his wishes into\nconsideration.\nI would appreciate being advised if you are agreeable to our using a single marker over multiple lines in\ncongested areas such as this.\nYours very truly,\nWILLIAMS BROTHERS PIPE LINE COMPANY\nW.A. Elliot\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nOctober 17, 1972\nMr. W. A. Elliott\nSenior Vice President\nWilliams Brothers Pipeline Company\nP.O. Drawer 3448\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74101\nDear Mr. Elliott\nThis office recently received inquiries from Senator Robert Dole and Representative Larry Winn, Jr. concerning\npipeline markers on the front lawn of Stephen P. and Evelyn V. Stimac's residence.\nThe Stimac's live at 2736 N. 45th Street, Kansas City, Kansas. They have expressed their grave dissatisfaction\nwith the method that was used to mark the location of the pipeline that crosses 45th street. They have\nrequested a modification as to size and number of these markers in a purely residential area.\nThe markers you installed do comply with the Federal minimum safety regulations for the Transportation of\nLiquids by Pipeline, 49 CFR, Part 195, Section 195.410. However, the Federal regulation on line markers is a\nregulation which affords necessary flexibility to the carrier in his method or compliance. Accordingly, the\nregulation does not set forth any requirement with regard to vertical positioning, overall size, or height of\nmarkers all of which may reasonably vary to meet a local situation. The carrier could utilize one style marker\nfor open county and a completely different style for a residential area and still comply with the minimum\nFederal safety standard with respect to location, letter size, and color.\nThe American Petroleum Institute, Division of Transportation, published a recommended Practice for marking\nLiquid Petroleum Pipeline Facilities, dated October, 1971. In this recommended practice API gives detailed\nspecifications for the type of marker you have apparently utilized on marking the pipelines that cross 45th\nstreet. However, in that document API also recognizes that there are certain situations where the\nconventional marker may not be appropriate. In paragraph 2.8 some alternatives in the type and method of\nmarking a pipeline are suggested.\nIn the present situation, since Williams Brothers is in compliance with the Federal standards, and therefore\nmeets the safety objective, we believe the matter is one to be resolved between the property owner and the\ncarrier. However, in view of the flexibility afforded by the regulations, the complaint, and the Congressional\ninterest, it is suggested that Williams Brothers review their policy for marking of pipelines in residential areas.\nWe suggest that you consider developing a marking policy that would be more satisfactory to the property\nowners and still provide an equivalent degree of safety.\nIf you desire any additional information or wish to further discuss our comments, please contact this office. I\nwould appreciate being advised of any action taken and the final resolution of this problem.\nSincerely,\nSIGNED\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8417}