{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-74-0107","title":"The Texas Pipe Line Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1974-04-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-74-0107 response to The Texas Pipe Line Company concerning 195.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0107.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0107.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0107","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1974/g74-04-04_Evans_195.1-wmX.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-74-0107\nApril 4, 1974\nMr. Robert J. Evans, President\nThe Texas Pipe Line Company\nP.O. Box 52332\nHouston, TX 77052\nDear Mr. Evans:\nThis responds to your letter of March 12, 1974, asking whether all facilities of interstate or intrastate\npetroleum pipeline systems are \"transportation-related\" under a Memorandum of Understanding between\nthe Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and thus\nnot subject to 40 CFR Part 112.\nWe concur in the opinion of Thomas J. Charlton, P.E., Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials, EPA, stated in a\nletter to you dated March 21, 1974, that certain onshore and offshore facilities are described in the\nMemorandum of Understanding as \"non-transportation-related\" although they may be associated with a\npetroleum pipeline system. To the extent that those facilities are also \"pipeline facilities\" covered by 49 CFR\nPart 195, they are subject to both the safety regulations of Part 195 and the pollution prevention regulations\nadministered by EPA in 40 CFR\nPart 112,\nLikewise, \"transportation-related facilities\" may be subject to both the safety regulations of Part 195 and the\npollution prevention regulations administered by the U.S. Coast Guard in 33 CFR Part 154.\nThe fact that certain facilities fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation (DOT) for safety\npurposes does not mean that jurisdiction over those facilities by EPA for purposes of pollution prevention is\nunwarranted. Notwithstanding safety jurisdiction, by Executive order both EPA and DOT were delegated\nregulatory responsibilities to prevent pollution under section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,\nas amended. Each agency's responsibility respecting facilities described in the Memorandum of Understanding\nwas administratively determined according to each facility’s relationship to transportation. DOT safety\njurisdiction over a facility was certainly considered in determining whether the facility is “transportation-\nrelated” but was not the controlling factor in the case of terminal storage facilities.\nWe realize that performance of certain requirements necessary for safety may also result in pollution\nprevention. Yet, it is doubtful that a shingle set of regulations such as 49 CFR Part 195 established with safety\nas the primary objective, would be sufficient to also protect against pollution in a comprehensive way.\nWe trust that our views on this matter are helpful to you.\nSincerely,\nSIGNED\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":2570}