{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-96-0101","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-96-0101","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1996-05-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-96-0101 concerning 195.1, 195.2.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-96-0101.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-96-0101.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-96-0101","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1996/g96_05_03_ChiefPort_195.1_wmx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-96-0101\nBilling Code: 4910-60\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nPetroleum Products and Low-stress Pipelines\nAGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration, (RSPA), DOT.\nACTION: Notice of interpretation and partial stay of enforcement.\nSUMMARY: This notice interprets the definition of \"petroleum product\" under RSPA's safety regulations for hazardous\nliquids pipelines. The definition has been applied to petrochemical products that the regulations were not intended to\ncover. The interpretation should reduce confusion in deciding which low- stress pipelines2 are subject to the regulations.\nIn addition, this notice stays enforcement of the regulations against low-stress pipelines regulated by the U.S. Coast\nGuard, and against certain short low-stress pipelines that serve plants and transportation terminals. Application of the\nregulations to these lines would cause undue burdens for industry and government. The stay should ease difficulties in\napplying the regulations to low-stress pipelines.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow, (202) 366-4559.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nBackground In response to a Congressional directive3, RSPA extended its hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations (49\nCFR Part 195) to cover certain low-stress pipelines other than rural gathering lines and gravity-powered lines (59 FR\n35465; July 12, 1994). That rulemaking action affected low-stress pipelines that transport highly volatile liquids, low-\nstress pipelines that are located onshore in non-rural areas, and low-stress pipelines that are located offshore or in\nwaterways that are navigable in fact and currently used for commercial navigation (§ 195.1(b)(3)).\nTransfer lines comprised the largest proportion of low-stress pipelines brought under Part 195 (about two-thirds of the\npipelines and one-third of the mileage). The remainder included trunk lines and non-rural gathering lines. Transfer lines\nare used to transport hazardous liquid locally between facilities such as transportation terminals, manufacturing plants,\npetrochemical plants, and oil refineries, or to connect these facilities to associated storage or long-distance pipeline\ntransportation. Because the rulemaking action affected the current operating practices of many companies unfamiliar\nwith Part 195, we allowed operators to delay compliance of existing low-stress pipelines until July 12, 1996 (§ 195.1(c)).\n1 \"Hazardous liquid\" means petroleum, petroleum products, or anhydrous ammonia. (§ 195.2)\n2 Low-stress pipelines mean a hazardous liquid pipeline that is operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or\nless of the specified minimum yield strength of the line pipe.\n(§ 195.2)\n3 The Secretary of Transportation may not provide an exception from regulation for a hazardous liquid pipeline facility\nonly because the facility operates at low internal stress. (49 U.S.C. § 60102(k))\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nMeaning of Petroleum Product The impact of the rulemaking action intensified last fall, particularly for petrochemical\ncompanies, when RSPA interpreted the definition of \"petroleum product.\"\nPart 195 defines \"petroleum product\" as \"flammable, toxic, or corrosive products obtained from distilling and processing\nof crude oil, unfinished oils, natural gas liquids, blend stocks and other miscellaneous hydrocarbon compounds4\" (§\n195.2). The Hoechst Celanese Corporation had asked us whether two of its products come under this definition.\nFocusing on the \"miscellaneous hydrocarbon compounds\" aspect of the definition, we said the products, ethylene glycol\nand formic acid, were petroleum products because they are, respectively, flammable and toxic, and are produced by\nprocessing hydrocarbon compounds. Upon further consideration, however, we now believe that interpretation was too\nbroad in light of the historical context of Part 195.\nSince its inception, Part 195 has applied to petroleum products transported in liquid form by pipeline (34 FR 15473; Oct.\n4, 1969). Only recently, while trying to clarify Part 195 requirements and reduce the burden of government regulation,\ndid we adopt the present definition of petroleum product (59 FR 33395; June 28, 1994). Previously, both RSPA and the\nhazardous liquid pipeline transportation industry identified petroleum products as hydrocarbon compounds derived\nfrom processing natural gas or petroleum. This processing typically occurs at oil refineries, gas processing plants, and\ngasoline plants.5\nPetroleum products include such products as butane, propane, gasoline, heating oil, aviation fuel, kerosene, and diesel\nfuel. Also included are hydrocarbon feedstocks, such as ethylene and propylene, that are the basis of hundreds of\npetrochemical products, including paints, plastics, synthetic fibers, and fertilizers. Prior to the definition, we did not\nconsider the intermediate and finished products manufactured at petrochemical plants by further processing\nhydrocarbon feedstocks to be petroleum products. These petrochemical products are characterized by the addition of\nchemicals, such as chlorine, nitrogen, or oxygen, to the hydrocarbon feedstocks.\nIn adopting the definition of petroleum product, we did not seek to expand this prior understanding of the term, only to\nclarify it.6 For this reason, the definition of petroleum product must be applied consistent with its regulatory\nbackground. Thus, petrochemical products that are made by chemical means using petroleum products as a raw\nmaterial do not come under the definition. Ethylene glycol, which is used in car antifreeze and other finished products, is\nan example of a petrochemical product that does not come under the Part 195 regulations.\n4 Hydrocarbon compounds are chemical compounds composed solely of hydrogen and carbon.\n5 Part 195 was based largely on voluntary standards contained in the 1966 edition of \"Code for Pressure Piping, Liquid\nPetroleum Transportation Piping Systems,\" (designated USAS B31.4-1966) prepared and published by the American\nSociety of Mechanical Engineers. A diagram on page 2 of the code shows that the code applies to pipelines that run\nbetween production facilities, refineries, gasoline plants, gas processing plants, terminals, and bulk plants.\n6 In the Federal Register notice concerning petroleum product and other terms that RSPA proposed to define, RSPA said\n\"[t]he proposed new definitions and definition change would not compromise pipeline safety because they would not\nalter the intended application of the existing part regulations.\" (57 FR 56306; Nov. 27, 1992)\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nStay of Enforcement of 49 CFR Part 195 Against Certain Low-stress Pipelines As mentioned above, Part 195 applies to\ncertain low- stress pipelines used to transfer hazardous liquids locally. These transfer lines link long-distance pipelines\nand truck, rail, and vessel transportation terminals with various industrial plants, including manufacturing plants,\npetrochemical plants, and oil refineries. Many of the lines interconnect the plants themselves. These local transfer lines\nare generally short, averaging about a mile in length. They are usually operated in association with transfer piping on the\ngrounds of the plants and terminals. Some transfer lines that serve industrial plants or terminals may be operated by\nlong-distance pipeline operators.\nTransfer lines or segments of lines on the grounds of industrial plants and transportation terminals generally are\nexcepted from Part 195 (§ 195.1(b)(6)and (7)).7 However, this excepted piping is subject to Occupational Safety and\nHealth Administration\n(OSHA) safety standards, including, when 10,000 pounds or more of flammable liquid are involved, the Process Safety\nManagement regulations (29 CFR 1910.119) issued under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. These regulations are\ndesigned to reduce the risk of fires and explosions caused by the escape of hazardous chemicals from facility processes.\nIn addition, transfer lines between vessels and marine transportation-related facilities are subject to safety\nrequirements of the U.S. Coast Guard (33 CFR Parts 154 and 156). These requirements apply to transfer lines from the\ndock loading arm or manifold up to the first valve after the line enters the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure\n(SPCC) containment or secondary containment if the facilities are not protected by SPCC plans.\nRSPA is concerned that the impending imposition of the Part 195 regime on a multitude of short hazardous liquid\ntransfer lines throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico may create difficulties for both industry and government that are not\ncounterbalanced by a reduction in risk. A significant difficulty for many operators of transfer lines is that the lines may\nbe designed and operated according to standards and specifications that differ from Part 195 requirements. Some time\nand expense would be necessary for operating personnel to become familiar with Part 195 and the companion drug and\nalcohol rules in 49 CFR Part 199.\nAnother difficulty for industry is the separate federal regulatory regimes over transfer piping. Part 195 generally does\nnot displace OSHA regulations over on-grounds transfer piping. So, most plants and terminals would have to comply\nwith OSHA's Process Safety Management regulations for some transfers and Part 195 for others.8 For transfers between\nvessels and marine transportation-related facilities, the Coast Guard safety regulations would apply as well. Application\nof Part 195 to these marine terminal transfer lines duplicates agency efforts within DOT and creates uncertainty in the\nindustry as to which DOT regulations apply to particular facilities. The upshot of these separate regulatory regimes of\nRSPA, OSHA, and the Coast Guard is that differing safety rules and enforcement policies could confuse operating\npersonnel and increase administrative costs through separate operating plans and recordkeeping.\nCarrying out adequate government inspections presents a further difficulty. The task of finding and educating the many\nnew operators coming under Part 195 because of low-stress pipelines is likely to be a major, protracted effort that could\nswamp current inspection resources.\nAt the same time, the risk to the public from short low-stress transfer lines off plant or terminal grounds is generally low.\nA low operating stress is itself a safety factor against several accident causes. And the short length means the potential\nspill volume would be limited should an accident occur. Also, typically there is limited public exposure in the industrial\nareas where low-stress transfer lines are located. The risk of marine transfer lines is reduced even more by the U.S.\nCoast Guard regulations and inspection force.\n7Part 195 applies to transfer piping on facility grounds if the piping is necessary to control the operating pressure of off-\ngrounds lines covered by Part 195, or if the on-grounds piping serves a breakout storage tank.\n8 However, where Part 195 applies to facility transfer piping, OSHA regulations may be preempted, because OSHA is\nprecluded from enforcing its regulations against employee working conditions over which another federal agency\nprescribes or enforces safety regulations. (29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(1))\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nTherefore, we are considering amending Part 195 to except short, low-stress transfer lines that traverse areas outside\nplant and terminal grounds. We are also considering excepting low-stress transfer lines of any length that are regulated\nby the U.S. Coast Guard. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register to seek\npublic comment on these proposals.\nMeanwhile, effective immediately, I am staying enforcement of Part 195 against two categories of low-stress pipelines:\n(1) low- stress pipelines regulated by the U.S Coast Guard; and (2) low- stress pipelines that are less than 1 mile in length\n(measured outside plant or terminal grounds), except if the pipeline crosses offshore or any waterway currently used for\ncommercial navigation. This stay will remain in effect until modified through another Federal Register notice or until Part\n195 is amended as a result of the NPRM, whichever happens first. RSPA will continue to enforce Part 195 over short lines\nthat cross offshore or commercially navigable waterways but do not come under U.S. Coast Guard regulations because\nof the need to reduce the threat of environmental damage.\n(49 U.S.C. § 60102 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.53)\nIssued in Washington DC on\nRichard B. Felder\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nUnited States Coast Guard\nMEMORANDUM\nSubject: LOW-STRESS TRANSFER PIPELINE\nJURISDICTION 16451\nFrom: Chief Port and Facilities Compliance\nBranch, G-MCO-3\nTo: Cesar De Leon, Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, DPS-2\nRef: (a) Draft Federal Register Notice of Interpretation and Partial Stay of Enforcement\n1. A review of reference (a) has been completed by this branch. In general, I concur with the content of\nthe draft notice, subject to the recommendations attached as enclosure (1).\n2. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the draft notice and look forward to further\ncooperation between our offices. If you have any questions, you may contact Lieutenant (junior grade)\nDavid Deaver at x7-0502.\nT.M. Keegan\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nRECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY'S (OPS) FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF INTERPRETATION\nAND PARTIAL STAY OF ENFORCEMENT\nPage 7, Lines 12-15\ncurrently reads: \"In addition, at ports, transfer lines between marine vessels and inland storage facilities are\nsubject to safety requirements of the U. S. Coast Guard (33 CFR Parts 154 and 156).\"\nrecommend: In addition, at marine transportation related facilities, transfer lines from the dock loading arm\nor manifold up to the first valve encountered after the pipeline enters the Spill Prevention\nControl and Countermeasure (SPCC) containment or the secondary containment, for facilities\nnot protected by SPCC plans, are subject to the safety requirements of the U. S. Coast Guard,\nReason for change: Ensure that the extent of Coast Guard jurisdiction is clear by using the same terminology as the\nMOU between the EPA and DOT and the Pipeline testing policy put out by Commandant on 03\nAugust 1994 and avoid having part of the pipeline not covered.\nPage 8, line 14-16\nCurrently reads: \"For transfers between marine vessels and inland storage tanks, the Coast Guard safety\nregulations would apply as well.\"\nRecommend: For transfers between vessels and marine transportation related facilities, the Coast Guard\nsafety regulations would apply as well.\nReason for change: Current wording could be interpreted to limit Coast Guard jurisdiction only to transfers to or\nfrom inland storage tanks and exclude transfers to or from other facilities such as mobile\nfacilities (tank trucks, tank cars, etc.).","truncated":false,"body_characters":14965}