{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-96-011","title":"Shell Oil Products Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1996-07-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-96-011 response to Shell Oil Products Company concerning 195.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-96-011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-96-011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-96-011","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1996/PI96011.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPage 1\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nMs. J. M. Korpal\nManager, Regulatory Compliance\nShell Oil Products Company\nP. O. Box 2099\nHouston, TX 77252-2099\nDear Ms. Korpal:\nI am responding to your letter of May 29, 1996, concerning hazardous liquid pipeline facilities at marine\nterminals in Port Tampa and Port Everglades, Florida. You asked if we agree with your conclusions\nabout the extent to which these facilities are subject to the federal pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C. Chap.\n601).\nAs defined in 49 U.S.C. §60101(a)(5), a \"hazardous liquid pipeline facility\" includes a pipeline, a right of\nway, a facility, a building, or equipment used or intended to be used in transporting hazardous liquid.\nAnd under 49 U.S.C. §60101(a)(22), \"transporting hazardous liquid\" means the movement of hazardous\nliquid by pipeline, or the storage of hazardous liquid incidental to the movement of hazardous liquid by\npipeline, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; but does not include moving hazardous liquid\nthrough (i) gathering lines in a rural area; (ii) onshore production, refining, or manufacturing facilities; or\n(iii) storage or in-plant piping systems associated with onshore production, refining, or manufacturing\nfacilities.\nApplying these definitions to the facilities described and depicted in your letter, we find that none of the\nfacilities comes under the listed exceptions. At the Port Tampa Terminal, we agree that the pipeline\nsafety law covers pipelines beginning at the barge connection. Thus the barge pumping equipment is not\ncovered, except any device that may be necessary to control the maximum operating pressure of the\npipelines. Similarly, the law covers pipelines beginning at the barge connection at the Port Everglades\nterminal, rather than at the connection to the third party dock as you have depicted the limit of\njurisdiction. At both terminals, we agree that the pipeline safety law covers the storage tanks and the\npipelines of Chevron, BP Oil, and the unnamed third party.\nWe note that you have relied on our July 24, 1995, letter to David A. Renli of the Sioux Falls Fire\nDepartment to conclude that truck loading facilities at the marine terminals are not covered by the\npipeline safety law. However, since we have used the pipeline safety law to regulate similar truck loading\nfacilities at liquefied natural gas plants (see 49 CFR 193.2223-193.2233), we are reexamining the issue of\nwhether the law applies to truck loading facilities at other locations. We understand from talking to\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nPage 1\nShawn Hansson that this question is not of immediate importance to Shell, but, nonetheless, we regret\nhaving to reserve judgment at this time.\nI hope you find this opinion helpful. If you have any questions regarding this matter, Mr. L.M. Furrow,\nat 202/366-4559, will be happy to assist you.\nSincerely,\nRichard B. Felder\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":2974}