{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-85-011","title":"Streich, Lang, Weeks & Cardon — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1985-02-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-85-011 response to Streich, Lang, Weeks & Cardon concerning 192.379.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-85-011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-85-011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-85-011","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1984/PI84008.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\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\nasks several questions about 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\nwere installed to supply natural gas to houses but the services were never used. These services\nwere pressurized by the natural gas mains to which they were connected. You then ask five\nquestions to which we respond as follows:\nQuestion 1: At the time they were installed in the early 1970's, were the service lines \"new\nservice lines\" within the meaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\nNew services are not addressed in §192.727. Section 192.379, New\nservice lines not in use, would be one of the applicable requirements if the\nservice lines were readied for service after March 12, 1971 (see\n§192.13(a)).\nAt the time they were installed in the early 1970's, were the service lines\n\"deactivated\" lines within the meaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section\n192.727?\nIn the natural gas distribution business an active service is one that is\nsupplying gas to a customer. To be \"deactivated\" a line must first have\nbeen activated. Since these service lines never supplied natural gas to a\ncustomer and, thus had not been activated, they could not be considered\n\"deactivated\" within the meaning and intent of §192.727.\nAt the time they were installed in the early 1970's were the service lines\n\"abandoned\" lines within the meaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section\n192.727?\nResponse: Question 2: Response: Question 3: dal\\192\\379\\85-02-12\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nResponse: Question 4: Within 49 CFR Part 192 we rely upon the dictionary definitions of words\nunless they are defined within the part. Webster Third New international\nDictionary defines the word \"abandoned\" as \"to cease to assert or exercise\nan interest, right or title to, especially with intent to never again resume or\nreasserting it.\" Since the service lines remained pressurized by natural gas\nfrom the distribution main, it appears that the operator continued to assert\nor exercise an interest in these service lines. Thus, they were not\nabandoned with the meaning and intent of §192.727.\nAs of September 26, 1984, was the leaking service line an \"abandoned\" line within\nthe meaning and intent 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\nprovisions of 49 C.F.R. Section 192? If so, please identify those provisions\nand the nature of the violation.\nThere is inadequate information provided in your letter to determine any\nviolation. The operator would be required to meet all applicable\nrequirements of Part 192 with regard to maintenance, operations,\nsurveillance, pressure control, leak surveys, odorization, etc. Possible\nviolations of these standards would be determined by the Office of\nOperations and Enforcement, Materials Transportation Bureau, or the\nState agency with safety jurisdiction over an intrastate line.\n\"Situation Two\" describes a gas service line that had discontinued supplying natural gas to a\ncustomer. Such a service would be required to meet the requirements of §192.727(d). You\nasked two questions concerning this example to which we respond as follows:\nQuestion 1: As of September 15, 1981, was the leaking service line an \"abandoned\" line within\nthe meaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.717?\nThis service line would not be \"abandoned\" within the meaning and intent\nof §192.727 since it is still pressurized by natural gas and intended for\nResponse: Response: 3\nfuture use, although service to the customer had been discontinued,\naccording to your letter.\ndal\\192\\379\\85-02-12\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nQuestion 2: On the facts provided above, was the Gas Company in violation of any of the\nprovisions of 49 C.F.R. Section 192 as of September 15, 1981? If so,\nplease identify those provisions and the nature of the violation.\nResponse: There is inadequate information given to determine if there is a violation.\nPossible violations of these standards would be determined by the Office of\nOperations ad Enforcement, Materials Transportation Bureau, or the State\nagency 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\ndal\\192\\379\\85-02-12\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\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\nquestions we have regarding certain provisions of the gas pipeline safety regulations set forth at\n49 C.F.R. Section 192. At his recommendation, we are formally requesting your assistance in\ninterpreting and clarifying those provisions insofar as they apply to the two fact situations\ndescribed below.\nI. SITUATION ONE\nIn the early 1970's, during construction and development of an \"all electric\" residential\nsubdivision, the Gas Company installed natural gas mains and service lines throughout the\nsubdivision. The Gas Company believed that gas service might eventually be requested for one or\nmore residences in the subdivision, and concluded that it would be easier to install its gas\ndistribution system while the subdivision was under construction rather than at a later date. There\nare no valves to shut off the service lines at the point those lines connect to the gas mains. Once\nthe system was installed, the Gas Company caused natural gas to flow through the mains and\nservices, even though there was no immediate prospect that gas service would be requested.\nOn September 26, 1984, residents of one block in the subdivision reported the odor of\ngas, and the Gas Company discovered a leaking service line leading to one of the homes. For the\napproximately ten-year period that the gas system had been in place before the leak was\ndiscovered, none of the residents of the block had ever requested or received gas service from the\nGas Company. Moreover, none of the residents of the block was even aware, until September 26,\n1984, 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\nservice lines\" within the meaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\ndal\\192\\379\\85-02-12\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nPage Two\n2. 3. 4. 5. _\nAt the time they were installed in the early 1970's, were the service lines\n\"deactivated\" line within the meaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\nAt the time they were installed in the early 1970's, were the service lines\n\"deactivated\" line within the meaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\nAs of September 26, 1984, was the leaking service line an \"abandoned\" line within\nthe meaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\nOn the facts provided above, was the Gas Company in violation of any of the\nprovisions of 49 C.F.R. Section 192? If so, please identify those provisions and\nthe nature of the violation.\nII. SITUATION TWO\nIn 1973, the Gas Company installed a natural gas service line through an \"all electric\"\napartment complex for the sole purpose of supplying gas for a heating unit used to heat the\nswimming pool at the complex. In December 1977, the complex ceased using natural gas to heat\nits pool and subsequently removed the heating unit. The Gas Company cut off the flow of natural\ngas 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\ncomplex since December 1977, natural gas flowed through the service to the meter until\nSeptember 15, 1981, when a leak in the service resulted in an explosion at the complex.\nQUESTIONS\n1. As of September 15, 1981, was the leaking service line an \"abandoned\" line within\nthe meaning and intent of 49 C.F.R. Section 192.727?\nOn the facts provided above, was the Gas Company in violation of any of the\nprovisions of 49 C.F.R. Section 192 as of September 15, 1981? If so, please\nidentify those provisions and the nature of the violation.\nIf you determine that the facts provided herein are not sufficient to enable you to\ndetermine the applicability of a particular subpart of 49 C.F.R. Section 192, please inform us of\nan additional factors that might be necessary or helpful to your\n2. Page Three\ndal\\192\\379\\85-02-12\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n_\ndetermination. As the questions raised herein involve matters of some urgency, we will be most\nappreciative of your prompt response. If you have any questions concerning the foregoing, please\ntelephone the undersigned at (602) 257-0999.\nVery truly yours,\nJames A. Ryan\ndal\\192\\379\\85-02-12\n6","truncated":false,"body_characters":9131}