{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-91-039","title":"Peoples Natural Gas — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1991-12-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-91-039 response to Peoples Natural Gas concerning 199.7.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-91-039.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-91-039.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-91-039","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1991/PI91039.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nDecember 30, 1991\nMs. Kathryn M. Ringblom\nLegal Assistant\nPeoples Natural Gas\n1815 Capitol Avenue\nOmaha, NE 68102\nDear Ms. Ringblom:\nThis is in response to your letter of September 17, 1991, regarding\nyour anti-drug plan which was forwarded to me for review and\ncomments.\nOn June 20, 1991, I responded to correspondence from you which\nasked the following question:\nQuestion 1. Must references to alcohol abuse and alcohol testing\nbe separated into another policy and plan if it is clear that it is\nnot required by the Department of transportation and if employees\nare informed in writing prior to testing that a test for alcohol is\nnot under the authority of the DOT?\nAnswer 1. It is allowable for a company to have one overall drug\ntesting plan which includes testing in addition to, but separate\nfrom, the requirements of Parts 199 and 40. Parts 199 and 40 do\nnot specify the format for operators' drug plans, however,\noperators, when combing other drug testing and alcohol testing into\ntheir plan required by 199.7, must clearly identify those matters\nrelating to Parts 199 and 40 by keeping these requirements in\nseparate sections, set apart in bold face types, underlined, or\nother equivalent means. Additionally, 199.7 requires an operator\nto provide procedures for notifying employees of the coverage and\nprovisions of their anti-drug plan. It must be stressed that where\na test (including the drugs tested for) varies from the\nrequirements of Parts 199 and 40, violation of the DOT drug rules\ncannot be used as a basis for any action regarding the employee\ntested. During recent conversations regarding a copy of\ncorrespondence which you provided to the Kansas Corporation\nCommission, I expressed some concerns that you did not clearly\nunderstand that an anti-drug plan cannot mix DOT and non-DOT\nrequirements in the same documentation. There has to be a clear\nand distinct break so that an employee clearly understands what is\nmandated by pipeline regulations and what procedures are mandated\nby your company policy. Your company's policy does not separate\nthe DOT and Non-DOT issues using either bold face print or\nunderline. Indexing is not an equivalent means of separating, even\nin one manual, as it could be misleading to the employees.\nYou provided me with a copy of your plan entitled \"Peoples Natural\nGas Company's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Policy and Drug-Free Awareness\nPlan.\" You indicated that the section entitled \"Peoples Natural\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nGas Company's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Policy\" is provided to each of\nyour covered employees.\nIt is my understanding that your anti-drug plan reviewed by the\nKansas Corporation Commission (KCC) earlier this year. You are\nadvised that the plan was inadequate concerning the intermixing of\npipeline drug testing requirements with procedures which are\nmandated by your company policy and agreed that they must be\nseparated. In conversations with Glenn Smith and Lester Wurm of\nthe KCC they advised me that your office was provided with guidance\nmaterials to assist you in revising your anti-drug plan. In\ngeneral, I concur with their comments.\nSincerely,\nRichard L. Rippert\nDrug Compliance Coordinator\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnforcement","truncated":false,"body_characters":3213}