{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-83-0104","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-83-0104","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1983-04-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-83-0104 concerning 195.300.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-0104.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-0104.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-0104","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1983/g83-04-13_Lasley_195.300-nlmx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-83-0104\nApril 13, 1983\nMr. William J. Lasley\nFlanigan & McCanse\n400 Grant\nCarthage, Missouri 64836\nDear Mr. Lasley:\nThis refers to your letter of March 18, 1983, in which you ask several question about a 1978 accident involving\nan oil pipeline owned by the Shell Pipeline Corporation. Your letter was referred to us by the Federal Railroad\nAdministration.\nFirst, you asked whether the pipeline company has a duty to test the pipe. The applicable regulations for\ninterstate oil pipelines in effect at the time of the accident (49 CFR Part 195) require that after March 31,\n1970, new, relocated, or replaced pipe be hydrostatically tested (§§195.300 and 195.401(c)). However, this\nrequirement may not apply to the pipe involved in the accident because the accident report indicates the\npipeline was constructed circa 1920.\nIn 1978, electrical tests for purposes of corrosion control were mandatory under §§195.414 and 195.416. The\naccident report states that the pipeline was cathodically protected, in which case annual testing was required\nby §195.416(a) and a record of the testing must be kept under §195.404(b)(2).\nIn regard to observations for leaks, under §195.412 pipeline operators were required to inspect rights-of-way\nevery 2 weeks and under §195.404(b)(2) a record must be kept of the inspections.\nThere has never been a specific requirement in Part 195 that operators notify land owner in the event of an\naccident. However, since July 1980, §195.440 requires that operators have a continuing public educational\nprogram to facilitate prompt response to pipeline emergencies and under §195.402(e) (7) operators must\nnotify public officials of emergencies on their systems. These rules and related requirements expanded more\ngeneral rules relating to operating procedures in normal, abnormal, and emergency situations that were in\neffect in 1978 under §195.402(a) (See Amendment 195-15; 44 FR 41197, July 16, 1979). You should review the\noperator’s procedures established in conformance with §195.402(a) in 1978 for specifics about the steps to be\ntaken in response to an accident.\nThe report you have sent to us is the only report that was required by this agency for the Shell pipeline\naccident. We do not know of any other laws that would have required submission of information about the\naccident.\nI trust this response is helpful to you.\nSincerely,\nOriginal Sign By\nRichard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nMarch 29, 1983\nMr. William J. Lasley\nLaw Offices, Flanigan & McCanse\n400 Grant\nCarthage, Missouri 64836\nDear Mr. Lasley:\nThank you for your recent letter with attachments concerning a pipeline oil leak near Sarcoxie, Missouri on\nOctober 12, 1978.\nThe Department of Transportation's responsibility for regulation of pipeline safety has been transferred from\nthe Federal Railroad Administration to the Research and Special Programs Administration. We have forwarded\nyour correspondence to them and asked that you receive a prompt reply.\nSincerely,\nJ. W. Walsh\nAssociate Administrator for Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFlanigan & McCanse\n400 Grant\nCarthage, Missouri 64836\nMarch 18, 1983\nAdministrator\nFederal Railroad Administration\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20591\nRe: Sanders v. Shell Pipeline Corporation\nDear Sir or Madam:\nI represent a farmer in Southwest Missouri who has a claim against Shell Pipeline Corporation on\naccount of an oil spill resulting from a leak in a pipeline running through the farmer's property. I have a copy of\na two page document which Shell evidently sent you on October 26, 1978. I am enclosing herein a copy of that\nPipeline Carrier Accident Report as well as a copy of Damage and Oil Loss Report Long Form prepared by Shell\nPipeline Corporation.\nI am not very well versed in the administrative procedures involved when there is a leak in an oil\npipeline and am writing you to inquire about the pipeline company's duties in such a situation, i.e. duties to\ntest the pipe or take reasonable precautions to observe leaks and duties to the land owner when an accident\noccurs--as well as the pipeline's responsibility to report the information to various governmental agencies. I\nwas also wondering if you had any other reports which were filed in connection with this particular accident or\nif you know of any laws or regulations which would require the pipeline company to submit information on\nthis pipeline or this leak to other governmental agencies.\nI would appreciate it if you could call me collect to discuss this matter.\nSincerely,\nFLANIGAN, MCCANSE & LASLEY\nWilliam J. Lasley","truncated":false,"body_characters":4632}