{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-89-010","title":"Colorado Public Utilities Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1989-06-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-89-010 response to Colorado Public Utilities Commission concerning 192.625.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-89-010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-89-010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-89-010","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1989/PI89010.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJune 19, 1989\nMr. Arnold H. Cook\nChairman\nColorado Public Utilities Commission\n1580 Logan Street\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nDear Mr. Cook:\nWe have reviewed the Commission's order dated May 31, 1989, (Docket No. 89A-2239) which\ngranted the Public Service Company of Colorado a waiver from compliance with the odorization\nrequirements of 49 CFR 192.625, subject to certain compensatory safety conditions. The waiver\napplies to a proposed 800-foot distribution line to be constructed in a Class 3 location in Pueblo,\nColorado, between a Colorado Interstate Gas Company transmission line and a B. F. Goodrich\nfacility.\nThe order states that the Company has proposed to leak survey the 800-foot pipeline twice a year,\nbut we note that a leak survey requirement was not adopted as a condition of the waiver. Under\n49 CFR 192.706(b)(1), transmission lines that are allowed to transport odorless or unodorized\ngas in Class 3 locations must be leak surveyed with leak detector equipment twice a year at\nintervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months. Although the waiver applies to a distribution line, we\nbelieve the Company should be obligated to meet this transmission line requirement with respect\nto the proposed 800-foot pipeline. Therefore, we object to the waiver unless the Commission's\norder is amended to make compliance with the twice-a-year leak survey requirement of 49 CFR\n192.706(b)(1) a further condition of the waiver.\nIf our objection is removed by amendment of the order as indicated above, the waiver may take\neffect as planned. Otherwise, pursuant to 49 App. U.S.C. 1672(d), the Commission's order is\nstayed, and the Commission may appeal this matter and request a hearing within 90 days.\nSincerely,\nRichard L. Beams\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ndal\\192\\625\\89-06-19\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nJuly 6, 1989\nTo: Buck Furrow\nSubject:\nClass 3 Determination based on Motel within 220 yards of a transmission line.\nThe situation in Fergus Falls where Great Plains Gas Company has a transmission line near a\nHoliday Inn was discussed with Furrow. The motel is not within 100 yards of the pipeline, but it\nmay be within 220 years.\nThe question is: Should the motel rooms be counted as dwelling units, similar to apartments, or\nas a single building?\nIn Furrow's opinion (emphasis) there is probably a distinction between a dwelling unit, which\nserves as a more permanent place of residence, and a motel room, which is generally occupied for\na short term. He does not feel that the motel room would be classified as a dwelling unit for the\npurposes of the regulations.\nA motel alone would have to be within 100 years of a pipeline and meet the occupancy\nrequirements of 192.5(d)(2) to establish a class 3 location.\nNOTE THIS IS AN OPINION, NOT AN INTERPRETATION. IT COULD BE REVERSED.\ndal\\192\\625\\89-06-19\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":2807}