{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-85-0101","title":"Stretch, Lang, Weeks & Cardon — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1985-03-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-85-0101 response to Stretch, Lang, Weeks & Cardon concerning 192.13, 192.727.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-85-0101.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-85-0101.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-85-0101","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1985/g85-03-06_Ryan_192.13-lmX.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-85-0101\nMarch 6, 1985\nMr. James A. Ryan\nStretch, Lang, Weeks & Cardon\n2100 First Interstate Bank Plaza\nPost Office Box 471\nPhoenix, Arizona 85001\nDear Mr. Ryan:\nYour letter of February 20, 1985, asks further questions relating to your letter of January 31, 1985, and\nour response of February 12, 1985, concerning §192.727.\nIn response to your first point regarding use of the word “new,\" which appears in the heading of\n§192.379, we would point out that the word \"new\" is not used in the text of the regulation. The content\nof the text rather than the heading states the safety standard. Section 192.379 has continuing effect\naccording to its text and §192.13, without regard to whether a service line is still new long after\ninstallation. There is no time limit in §192.379 concerning when the customer is to be supplied with gas\nafter completion of installation.\nConcerning your second point about the meaning of the word \"abandoned,\" the presence of gas pressure\nis only one element to consider in determining whether a line has been abandoned. For example,\ncontinuing maintenance of a pipeline segment would also indicate that the operator intends to use the\npipeline in the future and has not abandoned it. In the absence of any countervailing information, we\nconsidered the fact that an operator keeps its property, natural gas, in a pipeline which it owns or\noperates to be presumptive evidence that there is no intent to abandon the line. Of course, this evidence\nmight be overcome by information showing abandonment, but we do not think that a long delay in\nputting a line into service would have that effect.\nWe hope that this satisfactorily answers your further concerns.\nSincerely,\nOriginal singed by\nRichard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nStreich, Lang, Weeks & Cardon\n2100 First Interstate Bank Plaza\nPost Office Box 471\nPhoenix, Arizona 85001\nFebruary, 20, 1985\nMr. Richard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for Pipeline Safety Regulations\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Beam:\nThank you for your prompt response to my letter of January 31, 1985, posing several\nquestions about the application of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 to the two situations described therein. Your answers\nwere most informative and helpful. I would be grateful if you would respond to a few lingering questions I still\nhave.\nAs you may recall, my \"Situation One\" involved a portion of a gas distribution system where\nmains and services had been installed to supply natural gas to houses but the services were never used. In\nresponse to my Question No. 1, you replied that Section 192.379, New Service Lines Not In Use, would be one\nof the applicable requirements if the service lines were ready for service after March 21, 1971. Since those\nservices were installed in the early 1970's, would the requirements of Section 192.379 still be applicable to\nthose service lines as of September, 1984? Such a result would seem to stretch the dictionary definition of\n\"new,\" which is not a term defined in Part 192. By your answers to the remaining questions under Situation\nOne, those service lines would be neither \"deactivated\" nor \"abandoned\" as of September, 1984, under Section\n192.727. Thus, we must either use a strained definition of the word \"new,\" or we must conclude that a gas\ncompany, which is required to meet the standards of 192.379 for New Service Lines Not In Use, would be\npermitted to cease compliance with the requirements of that Section once the service lines are no longer\ndeemed to be \"new,\" even though the service lines remain pressurized and unused, and are neither\ndeactivated nor abandoned.\nI remain somewhat confused by your conclusion that the service lines in Situation One and\nSituation Two were not \"abandoned\" lines because they remained pressurized by natural gas from the\ndistribution main. If pressurization constitutes evidence that a service line has not been \"abandoned,\" then it is\ndifficult to see how a gas utility could ever be in violation of Section 192.727(b) for failing to disconnect or\npurge an \"abandoned\" line, because failure to do so would be taken as evidence that the line was not\n\"abandoned.\" Unless I am mistaken, this sort of logic would render 192.727(b) a virtual nullity.\nYour clarification of these few remaining items will be most appreciated.\nVery truly yours,\nJames A. Ryan\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFebruary 12, 1985\nMr. James A. Ryan\nStreich, Lang, Weeks & Cardon\n2100 First Interstate Bank Plaza\nPost Office Box 471\nPhoenix, Arizona 85001\nDear Mr. Ryan:\nYour letter of January 31, 1985, describes two situations concerning natural gas service lines and asks several questions\nabout the application of 49 CFR Part 192 to those situations.\nYour \"Situation One\" involves a portion of a gas distribution system where mains and services were installed to supply\nnatural gas to houses but the services were never used. These services were pressurized by the natural gas mains to\nwhich they were connected. You then ask five questions to which we respond as follows:\nQuestion 1: At the time they were installed in the early 1970's, were the service lines \"new service lines\" within the\nmeaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\nResponse: New services are not addressed in §192.727. Section 192.379, New service lines not in use,\nwould be one of the applicable requirements if the service lines were readied for service after\nMarch 12, 1971 (see §192.13(a)).\nQuestion 2: At the time they were installed in the early 1970's, were the service lines \"deactivated\" lines within the\nmeaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\nResponse: In the natural gas distribution business an active service is one that is supplying gas to a\ncustomer. To be \"deactivated\" a line must first have been activated. Since these service lines\nnever supplied natural gas to a customer and, thus had not been activated, they could not be\nconsidered \"deactivated\" within the meaning and intent of §192.727.\nQuestion 3: At the time they were installed in the early 1970's were the service lines \"abandoned\" lines within the\nmeaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\nResponse: Within 49 CFR Part 192 we rely upon the dictionary definitions of words unless they are defined\nwithin the part. Webster Third New international Dictionary defines the word \"abandoned\" as\n\"to cease to assert or exercise an interest, right or title to, especially with intent to never again\nresume or reasserting it.\" Since the service lines remained pressurized by natural gas from the\ndistribution main, it appears that the operator continued to assert or exercise an interest in\nthese service lines. Thus, they were not abandoned with the meaning and intent of §192.727.\nQuestion 4: As of September 26, 1984, was the leaking service line an \"abandoned\" line within the meaning and\nintent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\nResponse: No. See #3 above.\nQuestions 5: On the facts provided above, was the Gas Company in violation of any of the provisions of 49 C.F.R.\nSection 192? If so, please identify those provisions and the nature of the violation.\nResponse: There is inadequate information provided in your letter to determine any violation. The\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\noperator would be required to meet all applicable requirements of Part 192 with regard to\nmaintenance, operations, surveillance, pressure control, leak surveys, odorization, etc. Possible\nviolations of these standards would be determined by the Office of Operations and\nEnforcement, Materials Transportation Bureau, or the State agency with safety jurisdiction over\nan intrastate line.\n\"Situation Two\" describes a gas service line that had discontinued supplying natural gas to a customer. Such a service\nwould be required to meet the requirements of §192.727(d). You asked two questions concerning this example to\nwhich we respond as follows:\nQuestion 1: As of September 15, 1981, was the leaking service line an \"abandoned\" line within the meaning and\nintent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.717?\nResponse: This service line would not be \"abandoned\" within the meaning and intent of §192.727 since it is\nstill pressurized by natural gas and intended for future use, although service to the customer\nhad been discontinued, according to your letter.\nQuestion 2: On the facts provided above, was the Gas Company in violation of any of the provisions of 49 C.F.R.\nSection 192 as of September 15, 1981? If so, please identify those provisions and the nature of\nthe violation.\nResponse: There is inadequate information given to determine if there is a violation. Possible violations of\nthese standards would be determined by the Office of Operations ad Enforcement, Materials\nTransportation Bureau, or the State agency with safety jurisdiction over an intrastate line.\nWe hope that this has satisfactorily answered your concerns.\nSincerely,\nRichard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nJanuary 31, 1985\nMr. Richard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for Pipeline\nSafety Regulations\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Beam:\nOn January 28, 1985, I contacted Mr. Lucien Furrow of your office regarding several questions we have regarding\ncertain provisions of the gas pipeline safety regulations set forth at 49 C.F.R. Section 192. At his recommendation, we\nare formally requesting your assistance in interpreting and clarifying those provisions insofar as they apply to the two\nfact situations described below.\nI. SITUATION ONE\nIn the early 1970's, during construction and development of an \"all electric\" residential subdivision, the Gas\nCompany installed natural gas mains and service lines throughout the subdivision. The Gas Company believed that gas\nservice might eventually be requested for one or more residences in the subdivision, and concluded that it would be\neasier to install its gas distribution system while the subdivision was under construction rather than at a later date.\nThere are no valves to shut off the service lines at the point those lines connect to the gas mains. Once the system was\ninstalled, the Gas Company caused natural gas to flow through the mains and services, even though there was no\nimmediate prospect that gas service would be requested.\nOn September 26, 1984, residents of one block in the subdivision reported the odor of gas, and the Gas\nCompany discovered a leaking service line leading to one of the homes. For the approximately ten-year period that the\ngas system had been in place before the leak was discovered, none of the residents of the block had ever requested or\nreceived gas service from the Gas Company. Moreover, none of the residents of the block was even aware, until\nSeptember 26, 1984, that the Gas Company had installed its system in this subdivision.\nQUESTIONS\n1. At the time they were installed in the early 1970's, were the service lines \"new service lines\" within the\nmeaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\n2. At the time they were installed in the early 1970's, were the service lines \"deactivated\" line within the\nmeaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\n3. At the time they were installed in the early 1970's, were the service lines \"deactivated\" line within the\nmeaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\n4. As of September 26, 1984, was the leaking service line an \"abandoned\" line within the meaning and\nintent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\n5. On the facts provided above, was the Gas Company in violation of any of the provisions of 49 C.F.R.\nSection 192? If so, please identify those provisions and the nature of the violation.\nII. SITUATION TWO\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nIn 1973, the Gas Company installed a natural gas service line through an \"all electric\" apartment complex for the\nsole purpose of supplying gas for a heating unit used to heat the swimming pool at the complex. In December 1977, the\ncomplex ceased using natural gas to heat its pool and subsequently removed the heating unit. The Gas Company cut off\nthe flow of natural gas from the meter to the swimming pool, but continued to allow natural gas to flow along the\nservice from the main to the meter. Although there had been no use of natural gas at the complex since December\n1977, natural gas flowed through the service to the meter until September 15, 1981, when a leak in the service resulted\nin an explosion at the complex.\nQUESTIONS\n1. As of September 15, 1981, was the leaking service line an \"abandoned\" line within the meaning and\nintent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\n2. On the facts provided above, was the Gas Company in violation of any of the provisions of 49 C.F.R.\nSection 192 as of September 15, 1981? If so, please identify those provisions and the nature of the\nviolation.\nIf you determine that the facts provided herein are not sufficient to enable you to determine the applicability of\na particular subpart of 49 C.F.R. Section 192, please inform us of\nan additional factors that might be necessary or helpful to your determination. As the questions raised herein involve\nmatters of some urgency, we will be most appreciative of your prompt response. If you have any questions concerning\nthe foregoing, please telephone the undersigned at (602) 257-0999.\nVery truly yours,\nJames A. Ryan","truncated":false,"body_characters":13424}