{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-74-0105","title":"Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Inc — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1974-04-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-74-0105 response to Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Inc concerning 195.50.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0105.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0105.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0105","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1974/g74-04-02_COCHRANE_195.50-wmX.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-74-0105\nAPRIL 02, 1974\nMr. W. C. Cochrane\nLakehead Pipe Line Company, Inc.\n3025 Tower Avenue\nSuperior, WI 54880\nDear Mr. Cochrane:\nThis responds to your letters dated February 26 and 27, 1974, giving reasons why certain pipeline accidents were not\ntelephonically reported under 49 CFR 195.52, although property damage exceeded $5,000 in both incidents. With\nregard to estimating damage to property of the carrier or others for purpose of reporting under section 195.52(a)(3),\nyou ask whether damage is \"the value of the pipe or other items which failed or if it is the cost of making the necessary\nrepair.\"\nAt the earliest practicable moment following discovery of a failure described in 49 CFR 195.50, a carrier must estimate\nthe total amount of property damage involved. this amount include the cost of material, labor, and equipment to\nrepair or replace the damaged property but does not include the value of any commodity lost or fittings used during\nrepair which become permanently attached to the system.\nWe trust this information is helpful to your understanding the telephonic reporting requirement.\nSincerely,\n/signed/\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nMr. Edward F. Cygan\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Cygan:\nThis is in response to your letter of February 20, 1974 inquiring why telephonic notice pursuant to 49 CFR\nSec.195.52 was not made with respect to a pipeline leak caused by contractor equipment on September 5, 1973 in\nKittson County, Minnesota. Presumably the reason for your inquiry is that the report of the incident on DOT Form\n7000-1 shows estimated damage to property of the carrier and others in excess of $5,000, none of the other factors set\nforth in Sec.195.52(a) requiring a telephonic reporting having occurred.\nThe major element of damage reported was to carrier property and the amount shown is the cost of repair\nwhich includes an extensive amount of premium time due to the practice of calling out several maintenance crews in\nthe event the leak is large. The actual pipe section damaged had a valve of less than $500. At the time immediately\nfollowing the leak it did not appear that the costs or repair would go to the level shown in the written report, hence no\ntelephonic report. The oil was all contained in a small area and the estimated damage shown on the written report to\nproperty of others was in fact somewhat excessive.\nFrom our experience in the past few months, it appears that in almost every leak situation, the costs of repair, if\nthe premium time for all emergency crews which are called out is included, will be such as to come within the\nparameter of Sec. 195.62(a) and we have instructed our field people to make the required telephonic report in all such\ncases in the future. We are still somewhat vague as to whether it is intended that the damage to carrier property is the\nvalue of the pipe or other items which failed or if it is cost of making the necessary repair. If the latter, the damage\namount is in almost every case considerably larger.\nVery truly yours,\nW. C. Cochrane\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFebruary 27, 1974\nMr. Edward F. Cygan\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, D. C. 20590\nDear Mr. Cygan:\nThis is in response to your letter of February 20, 1974 inquiring why telephonic notice pursuant to 49 CFR Sec.\n195.52 was not made with respect to a pipeline leak which occurred in Polk County, Minnesota on September 11, 1973.\nAs shown on the Pipeline Carrier Accident Report (DOT Form 7000-1) filed with respect thereto, the item which would\nappear to require a telephonic report is the fact that it was estimated that the total of damage to carrier property and\nproperty of others would be $6,000.\nThe property of the carrier which was damaged had a value of less than $500; however the costs charged to\nrepair, which we have been using in estimating damage to carrier property, is significantly increased by the fact that\nmore than one maintenance crew is called when a leak is reported and the fact that significant premium time is\ninvolved. Immediately following this particular incident, it did not seem that the costs of repair would reach the level\nshown on the accident report, therefore it was not reported by telephone.\nFrom our experience in the past few months, it appears that in almost every leak situation, the costs of repair, if\nthe premium time for all emergency crews which are called out is included, will be such as to come within the\nparameter of Sec. 195.52(a) and we have instructed our field people to make the required telephonic report in all such\ncases in the future. We are still somewhat vague as to whether it is intended that the damage to carrier property is the\nvalue of the pipe or other items which failed or if it is the cost of making the necessary repair. If the latter, the damage\namount is in almost every case considerably larger.\nVery truly yours,\nW. C. Cochrane","truncated":false,"body_characters":5003}