{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-77-013","title":"Department of Transportation, Frankfort, KY — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1977-05-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-77-013 response to Department of Transportation, Frankfort, KY concerning 192.111.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-77-013.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-77-013.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-77-013","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1977/PI77013.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nMay 1, 1977\nMr. N. W. Coomes\nAssistant Director\nUtilities Section\nDivision of Design\nDepartment of Transportation\nFrankfort, Kentucky 40601\nDear Mr. Coomes:\nThis is response to your letter of March 25, 1977, in which you describe a proposal to enlarge a\nhighway right-of-way which is located over an existing gas pipeline. Your specific question is\nwhether the Federal gas pipeline safety standards would require upgrading or encasing those\nportions of the existing pipeline which lie within the limits of the proposed new right-of-way.\nSection 192.111 of the Federal standards sets forth design requirements applicable to upgrading\nor encasing a new pipeline which is constructed across a highway right-of-way. However, in\naccordance with Section 192.13, these requirements are not intended to apply conversely to an\nexisting pipeline when a new right-of-way is established over the pipeline unless the pipeline is\nreplaced, relocated, or otherwise changed in conjunction with establishment of the new right-of-\nway. Since your letter indicates that the pipeline in question would not be disturbed as a result of\nthe new right-of-way, it appears that the operator of the pipeline, Midwestern Gas Transmission\nCo., would not be required to take any action under Section 192.111.\nIn addition to Section 192.111, Sections 192.613 and 192.703(b) may also apply to the situation\nof establishing a new highway right-of-way over an existing pipeline. These sections require that\nwhen the operator of a pipeline knows that an unsafe condition exists involving the pipeline, the\noperator must take appropriate remedial action. This action might include encasing or upgrading\nthe pipeline or any other appropriate action. In the absence of information about the intended use\nor construction involving the new right-of-way, we do not have an opinion whether the right-of-\nway may result in an unsafe condition for the pipeline.\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nIf you need additional information on this subject, we suggest that you contact the Kentucky\nPublic Service Commission which acts as our agent in enforcing the Federal standards against\noperators of interstate gas transmission lines in Kentucky.\nI trust this satisfactorily responds to your inquiry.\nSincerely,\nCesar DeLeon\nActing Director\nOffice of Pipeline\nSafety Operations\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nMarch 25, 1977\nMr. Cesar DeLeon, Acting Director\nMaterial Transportation Bureau\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n2100 Second Street SW\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. DeLeon:\nSUBJECT: Minimum Federal Safety\nStandards for Gas Pipelines\nThe Kentucky Department of Transportation and Midwestern Gas Transmission Company have a\ndifference of opinion regarding the minimum federal safety standards for gas pipelines and both\nparties have agreed that I should request a written interpretation of the regulations as they apply\nto the situation which gives rise to our disagreement.\nThe Kentucky Bureau of Highways proposes to improve Ky. 144, a rural two-lane blacktop road,\nwhich is crossed by a 30\" gas line belonging to Midwestern Gas. When the pipeline was installed\nin 1959, .500 wall thickness pipe was installed in a .375 wall thickness casing pipe. Both the\ncasing and the .500 wall thickness pipe extended beyond the Department's right of way which\nexisted in 1959. The Department's proposed highway improvement results in a realignment of the\nhighway so that it will cross perpendicular to the pipeline where the old highway crossed on a\nskew of approximately 30° . The ditch lines on either side of the proposed new road will now\ncoincide approximately with the location of vent pipes on the existing casing.\nThe Department has asked the gas company to extend the vent piping from the present\nencasement so that the vents will come out of the ground at the new right of way fence line. In\nour opinion, nothing else is required of the gas company. Midwestern Gas, however, contends\nthat the pipeline safety regulations will require extending the encasement to the new right of way\nline on either side of the roadway.\nAs you can see from the enclosed correspondence and drawings, the new roadway will not\nadversely affect the existing pipeline in any way. The problem hinges solely on the location of the\nright of way line. Midwestern's position is such that extension of the encasement or replacement\nof .375 pipe with heavier pipe would be required if the Department were merely acquiring\nadditional right of way with no new road construction contemplated.\nDepartment personnel have reviewed the pertinent regulations and we do not believe that such a\nrequirement is either written in the regulations or intended to be implied. We contend that\nextending the encasement is an unnecessary expense which would not increase the margin of\nsafety. In fact, we believe the line is better protected from corrosion if it is left unencased.\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nIn summary, we need an authoritative answer to the following question:\nIs Midwestern Gas Co. required by Federal Regulation to upgrade or encase that portion\nof its .375 inch wall thickness pipe which lies within the limits of the Department's new\nright of way, for the reason that it is within the right of way? Or conversely, can\nMidwestern just extend the existing vent piping to the new right of way line without being\nin violation of the Federal Regulations pertaining to pipelines?\nYour assistance in this and providing us with an early reply will be very much appreciated.\nVery truly yours,\nN.W. Coomes, Assistant Director\nUtilities Section\nDivision of Design\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nFebruary 10, 1977\nMr. C.A. Cassity, General Supt. (was for Ferguson, originally)\nMid-Western Gas Corporation\n1613 Continental Illinois Bank Building\nP.O. Box 774\nChicago, Illinois 60690\nDear Mr. Ferguson:\nSUBJECT: Daviess County SP 30-37\nOwensboro-Knottsville Road (Ky.144)\nItem No. 2-237.2\nYour Company's plans and estimate for extending the casing pipe on Line #2100-1 have been\nsubmitted to this office for review. The center line of the new highway crosses at the same\nlocation as the existing road and the proposed roadway construction does not appear to cause any\nconflict or potential interference with your pipeline as it now exists.\nUnder these circumstances, we see no reason to do anything to this line except extend the vent\npipes from the existing encasement to the new right of way line on either side of the road. We do\nnot, however, have any objections to your encasement proposal if you feel it is required by\ncompany policy but we would expect your Company to bear the cost of extending the\nencasement.\nWe have had several projects in the past where major pipeline companies have upgraded or\nencased segments of pipeline as a matter of policy even though such work was not required by the\nDepartment. The Department has consistently declined to participate in the cost of such work\nwhere it is done solely as a matter of company policy.\nPlease let us know whether you still desire to provide this encasement extension or if you would\nbe agreeable to merely extending the vent pipes. In either case, we would like to have an estimate\nof the cost involved in just relocating the vent pipes so that we can prepare an agreement for\n100% reimbursement of this item or use the estimated cost as the basis for arriving\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nat a percentage of reimbursement on the total project if you desire to go ahead with the additional\nencasement.\nWe appreciate your consideration in this matter and we will be glad to discuss it further if you\ndesire.\nVery truly yours,\nN. W. Coomes, Assistant Director\nUtilities Section\nDivision of Design\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n6\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nP.O. Box 373\nVincennes, Indiana\nFebruary 17, 1977\nMr. N. W. Coomes, Assistant Director\nDepartment of Transportation\nCommonwealth of Kentucky\nFrankfort, Kentucky 40601\nRE: Daviess County SP 30-37\nOwesnboro-Knottsville Road (Ky. 144)\nItem No. 2-237.n\nDear Mr. Coomes:\nIn reference to your letter dated 2/10/77, to Mr. Fletcher Ferguson, please note that our\nMidwestern Gas Transmission Company's office has moved from Chicago, Illinois, to P.O. Box\n2511, Houston, Texas 77001, and Mr. Fletcher Ferguson has retired from our company and has\nbeen replaced by Mr. C.A. Cassity.\nOur plans for the Split Casing Installation is not based on Company Policy, but rather our\ninterpretation of the Federal Gas Pipeline Safety Regulations. If we do not install Split Casing,\nwe would be required to take the line out of service and install approximately 36 feet of lower\nstress pipe in order to comply with the Federal Code. The gas loss for this operation alone would\namount to more than our estimate for installing Split Casing.\nWe take the position that our original crossing met all Federal Code requirements, and not until\nthe Kentucky Department of Transportation took additional right of way, did our pipeline\ncrossing fail to meet the Federal requirements. I am attaching a copy of a part of the Federal Gas\nPipeline Safety Regulations.\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n7\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nThe only way relocating the vents would be feasible, the Kentucky Department of Transportation\nwould have to reduce their proposed new right of way to approximately 40 feet each side of the\nproposed center line.\nIf that could be accomplished, the cost for extending the existing vents would probably be about\n$200.00 to $300.00, and our pipeline crossing would meet the Federal minimum standards.\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n8\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nIf you think we need to discuss this matter further, I will be glad to meet with you in Frankfort, or\nany place that is convenient with you.\nYours truly,\nMIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY\nJ. F. Chapman\nArea Civil Engineer\nEnclosure\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n9\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nMarch 1, 1977\nMr. J. F. Chapman, Area Civil Engineer\nMidwestern Gas Transmission Co.\nA Tenneco Company\nP.O. Box 373\nVincennes, Indiana\nDear Mr. Chapman:\nSUBJECT: Daviess County SP 30-37\nOwensboro-Knottsville Road (Ky. 144)\nItem No. 2-237.2\nI have prepared a draft agreement along the line suggested by you in our telephone conversation\nMonday. If this agreement is acceptable to your Company, your easement rights would be\nsubordinate in favor of the Department only within the limits of the one-half inch carrier pipe but\nwe would still ask that vent piping be extended to the Department's proposed new right of way\nline.\nThe $500.00 estimated cost figure used in the agreement is based on your estimate of\napproximately $300.00 to extend the vent pipe plus $200.00 for preliminary engineering. You\nmay wish to provide a further breakdown to support this estimate or if you do not feel that this\nfigure is adequate, please feel free to increase it and attach a similar breakdown to show how the\nestimate is arrived at. We would also like to have a revised drawing from your office indicating\nthe proposed vent pipe relocation so that we can reproduce it and attach it to each copy of the\nagreement.\nIf this agreement is acceptable, please have all four copies signed and return to this office for\nexecution by the Department. We will furnish you with an original and as many conformed copies\nas you desire.\nShould there be any questions regarding this agreement, I would appreciate your getting in touch\nwith me as soon as possible.\nVery truly yours,\nN. W. Coomes, Assistant Director\nUtilities Section\nDivision of Design\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n10\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nEnclosures\nP.O. Box 373\nVincennes, Indiana\nMarch 9, 1977\nMr. N. W. Coomes, Assistant Director\nDepartment of Transportation\nCommonwealth of Kentucky\nFrankfort, Kentucky 40601\nRE: Daviess County SP 30-37\nOwensboro-Knottsville Road (Ky. 144)\nItem No. 2-237.2\nDear Mr. Coomes:\nRegarding your letter dated March 1, 1977, evidently there was a misunderstanding on my part. I\ndidn't mean that we would extend the casing vents past the 30\" O.D. x .500\" w.t. pipe. We still\ninsist that for this to be accomplished, we will need to install split casing over the 30\" O.D. x\n.375\" w.t. pipe.\nThe draft agreement that you prepared has been sent to Mr. L.L. Howard, Right of Way\nManager, for Midwestern Gas Transmission Company. He will be contacting you in the next few\ndays.\nYours truly,\nMIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION\nCOMPANY\nJ. F. Chapman\nArea Civil Engineer\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n11\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nReply to: P.O. Box 197\nChannahon, Illinois 60410\nMarch 16, 1977\nMr. N. W. Coomes, Assistant Director\nDepartment of Transportation\nCommonwealth of Kentucky\nFrankfort, Kentucky 40601\nRe: Daviess County SP 30-37\nOwensboro-Knottsville Road (Ky. 144)\nItem No. 2-237.2\nDear Mr. Coomes:\nYour letter, together with the agreements, dated March 1, 1977 addressed to J.F. Chapman of\nMidwestern Gas Transmission Company at Vincennes, Indiana, has been referred to my office for\nfurther handling.\nI believe we were authorized to start preliminary survey work on this project in 1975. In 1976,\nwe presented two estimates to your office, one with a contractor performing the work, the\nestimate amounted to approximately $23,000. We also proposed to your department, after a field\ninspection was made with your personnel on July 14, 1976, a figure of approximately $6,500., if\nwe did the work with our own forces. Both of these proposals were in accordance with the\nFederal Gas Pipeline Safety Regulations, which call for installing split casing to your right-of-way\nlimits, and relocating vent pipes at those limits or fence limit.\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n12\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nTo maintain our standards within the Federal Gas Pipeline Safety Regulations we proposed an\nalternative to the above; that we would extend our vent pipes from the present road right-of-way\nto the end of our heavy wall pipe, if you would pull in your own right-of-way limits to the same\nstation. If this could be agreed upon, the company stated that they could do this work from\nsomewhere between $500. to $800.\nMidwestern Gas Transmission Co., and its parent company Tennessee Gas Transmission Co., has\nadhered to the Federal Gas Pipeline Safety Regulations, and its codes, regarding high pressure\npiping. In 1959 this line was built at this location to meet the design factor for Class One\nLocation. According to the code, if there is any change in design factor, such as going from a\n.500 wall thickness to a .375 wall thickness, this will not meet the design factor of Class One but\nwill fall into Class Two, which will put our facilities out of code. Thus our company will not\nconcur to do.\nWe have dealt with the Department of Transportation in Kentucky before on limited access\nhighways, and also on state highways. For an example, in 1967 we changed out our facilities to\nmeet federal regulations, doing a change in highway location, of which Midwestern Gas\nTransmission Company and the State of Kentucky agreed. There was a Reimbursement\nAgreement signed in the amount of $64,700. More recently, we have dealt with Daviess County\nHighway Department, whereby, to maintain the code for high pressure piping, we installed split\ncasing to accommodate a new highway crossing, and agreed on a figure of $6,100, with the\ncounty, doing the work with our own forces.\nWe have no fault with the Federal Gas Pipeline Safety Code, and have not been cited by them\nregarding our facilities. Therefore, it is suggested that if you desire (reassurance) further\ninterpretation of the code, you contact the Office of Pipeline Safety in Washington, D.C. Should\nthey give us relief in this regard, we will then have settled our differences.\nI would like to inquire regarding the new highway limits of Highway 144 in this area. In 1959,\naccording to our permit secured from the State of Kentucky, the highway width was 49 feet.\nAccording to the new proposal, you have extended your highway limits to the total distance of\n136 feet, and stated you had purchased this additional land in fee. I would like to call to your\nattention that our company had never been contacted, as we certainly have legal rights in new\nlands acquired, and no contact has been made by your office to compensate our company for\nsubordination of said rights.\nAt any rate, as in previous occasions, we will try to cooperate with your department and your\npersonnel in every regard.\nYours truly,\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n13\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nL. L. Howard\nRight of Way Manager\nReply to: P.O. Box 197\nChannahon, Illinois 60410\nMarch 18, 1977\nMr. N. W. Coomes, Assistant Director\nDepartment of Transportation\nCommonwealth of Kentucky\nFrankfort, Kentucky 40601\nRe: Daviess County SP 30-37\nOwensboro-Knottsville Road (KY 144)\nItem No. 2-237.2\nDear Mr. Coomes:\nThis is a follow up letter of the one addressed to you dated March 16, covering the above subject,\nwhich is to correct a misstatement in paragraph 4 on page 1.\nIn 1959, this line was built at this location designed to meet all existing State and Federal Safety\nCodes. Even with the implementation of more stringent Federal Codes in the late 1960's and early\n1970's, this location still met all pipeline safety requirements. If there is a change in the design at\nthis location, such as going from pipe with a .500\" wall thickness to pipe with .375\" thickness,\nwithout encasement, it would not meet the design factor of a Class One Location.\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n14\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nYours truly,\nL. L. Howard\nRight of Way Manager\ndal\\192\\111\\77-05-01\n15","truncated":false,"body_characters":17406}