PI-94-032
PI-94-032
Page 1October 17, 1994 Mr. L. S. Abraham Health & Compliance Officer BP Oil Pipeline Company 812 E. National Road Vandalia, OH 45377-3016 Dear Mr. Abraham: I have reconsidered my initial response to your letter of December 16, 1993, concerning procedures required by 49 CFR 195.402(c)(4). Under this regulation, operators must have procedures for “ determining which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require an immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities failed or malfunctioned.” Initially I supported the view that BP’ s policy of responding immediately to every failure or malfunction, regardless of location, would not meet § 195.402(c)(4). According to your letter, some of our inspectors had asked BP to identify environmentally sensitive, highly populated, industrial, and agricultural areas along its pipelines; to state how it would respond to each area; and to establish response priorities. Based on the regulatory history cited in my earlier letter, it’ s apparent that operators only have to identify their high risk facilities to comply with § 195.402(c)(4). So, by identifying all its facilities, as BP apparently has done, an operator would not only meet but exceed the requirements of § 195.402(c)(4). In addition, § 195.402(c)(4) does not require operators to have plans and priorities to respond to failures or malfunctions at facilities under that section. However, response plans are a [sic] essential part of the emergency procedures required by § 195.402(e) and of the abnormal operation procedures required by § 195.402(d). Also, under § 195.402(c)(6), operators must take steps to minimize the potential for hazards to occur at the facilities identified under § 195.402(c)(4). I hope you were not too inconvenienced by my initial response. But please don’ t hesitate to write if you need any additional information regarding our regulations. Sincerely, Cesar De Leon Director for Pipeline Safety Regulatory Programs dal/195.402 94-10-17#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.