{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-97-0101","title":"Shell Western E&P Inc. — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1997-09-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-97-0101 response to Shell Western E&P Inc. concerning 195.1, 195.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-97-0101.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-97-0101.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-97-0101","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1997/g97_09_16_Redweik_195.1_nlmx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-97-0101\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSeptember 16, 1997\nMr. R. J Redweik\nStaff Environmental Engineer\nShell Western E&P Inc.\nP.O. Box 576\nHouston, TX 77001\nDear Mr. Redweik:\nThis is in response to your letter dated June 16, 1997, requesting further clarification of the Research and Special\nPrograms Administration's (RSPA) regulation of Shell Western E&P Inc. pipeline facilities transporting non-HVLs through\nlow stress lines in Cook Inlet, Alaska. You described these facilities as accepted from 49 CFR Part 195 regulations\nbecause they transport petroleum in onshore gathering lines in rural areas. As this letter explains, the facilities are\nregulated under Part 195.\nThe pipeline facilities are subject to part 195 requirements because, for purposes of the pipeline safety regulations, we\ndo not consider the facilities to be located onshore. Although the pipeline safety regulations do not define onshore,\noffshore is defined in § 195.3 as being \"beyond the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast of the\nUnited States that is in direct contact with the open seas and beyond the line marking the seaward limit of inland\nwaters.\" The facilities are located in the waters of Cook Inlet, which average a depth of 100 feet, 35 foot tides, and 7\nknot currents. Cook Inlet is in direct contact with the open seas, as evidenced by tides and currents. Recent pipeline\nsafety legislation and regulations have focused on the potential hazards to navigation posed by submerged pipeline\nfacilities. Thus, our intent in delineating onshore from offshore waters is to focus on waters where submerged pipeline\nfacilities pose a risk to the public and the environment. The pipeline facilities in Cook Inlet pose a safety hazard to\nnavigational traffic.\nBecause the Coast Guard has the same concern with navigational hazards, we refer to its regulations for establishing\nthe line of demarcation. (33 CFR part 80.) The Coast Guard's regulations do not consider Cook inlet as inland waters.\nAlthough alternative definitions for determining inland waters exist, such as one based on Federal/State boundaries,\nthese definitions have no relevance to the pipeline safety laws.\nFurthermore, the facilities are regulated under Part 195 because they are located in a navigable waterway. Cook Inlet is\na navigable waterway, which is navigable in fact by commercial navigation. RSPA clarified the regulatory 'status of such\nlines in amendment 53 to 49 CFR 195 (59 FR 35465). This amendment addressed the applicability of Part 195\nregulations to pipelines that operate at 20% or less of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) in navigable waterways.\nAlthough rural gathering lines were exempted, pipelines in navigable waterways were not accepted because of the\ngreater risk they pose to the public and the environment.\nIf you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 3664565. I am confident that Shell Western\nE&P Inc. shares in our commitment to the safety and integrity of the nation's hazardous liquid pipeline system. I look\nforward to our continued partnership in furthering our common goals.\nSincerely,\nRichard B. Felder\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nShell Western E&P Inc.\nP.O. Box 576\nHouston, Texas 77001\nCERTIFIED MAIL P 298 304 497\nRETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 16, 1997\nMr. Richard D. Huriaux\nDirector for Technology and Regulations\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDepartment of Transportation 400\nSeventh Street, SW Washington, DC\n20590\nDear Mr. Huriaux:\nSUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF DOT PIPELINE JURISDICTION COOK INLET, ALASKA\nFurther to your letter of May 19, 1997, we respectfully disagree with your explanation regarding the classification of\nthe subject pipelines and request that you reconsider your determination of jurisdiction. It remains our contention\nthat these pipelines are transporting petroleum in onshore gathering lines in rural areas. Therefore, in accordance\nwith 49 CFR 195.1(b)(4) and as explained below, these regulations are clearly not applicable to the subject pipelines.\nRationale for Reconsideration of Determination of Jurisdiction\nFirst and foremost, the subject pipelines are located in onshore waters -- not offshore as put forth in your letter. The\ndefinition for offshore as provided in 49 CFR 195.2 means beyond the line of ordinary low water along that portion of\nthe coast of the United States that is in direct contact with the open seas and beyond the line marking the seaward limit\nof inland waters. Based on this definition, Cook Inlet is clearly considered onshore waters.\nYour letter states that:\nCook Inlet waters are considered offshore as they are in direct contact with the open sea and not categorized as\n\"inland waters\". Inland waters are specifically established by the U.S. Coast Guard under 33 CFR 80.01. Under\nthis Coast Guard regulation, none of the sounds, bays, harbors, or inlets of Alaska are considered to be inland\nwaters.\nUnfortunately, the regulation which you cite above and on which your determination of jurisdiction is solely based is not\napplicable to the regulations under 49 CFR 195. Only those definitions listed or referenced in 49 CFR 195 are applicable\nto the 49 CFR 195 regulations. The 33 CFR 80.01 regulatory definition is not cited under 49 CFR 195 and is therefore not\napplicable to the regulations under 49 CFR 195. Furthermore, 33 CFR 80.01 clearly states that \"the regulations in this\npart establish the lines of demarcation delineating those waters upon mariners shall comply with the International\nRegulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS) and those water[s] upon which mariners shall comply\nwith the Inland Navigation Rules. Since 49 CFR 195 does not deal with international regulations for preventing collisions\nat sea nor with inland navigation rules, your citing of the 33 CFR 80.01 definition for offshore is not applicable in our\ndetermination of jurisdiction.\nThe Minerals Management Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Alaska, and other agencies\nwhich regulate our operations and facilities consider the Cook Inlet area where these subject pipelines are located to\nbe coastal waters of the State of Alaska. Clearly, Cook Inlet is not considered offshore.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nLastly, since 49 CFR 195.1(b)(4) states that the \"transportation of petroleum in onshore gathering lines in rural areas\nexcept gathering lines in the inlets of the Gulf of Mexico\" is not subject to these regulations, it is clear that the\nregulators intended to include onshore rural areas as being areas which may be covered with water and may be located\nin territorial state and coastal waters. If this were not the case, why would the exception for gathering lines in the inlets\nof the Gulf of Mexico be included in this subparagraph? Clearly, for the purpose of these regulations, Cook Inlet was not\nconsidered offshore. In addition, onshore rural areas could include areas covered by water (e.g., territorial seas, coastal\nwaters, and other state waters).\nConclusion\nIn conclusion, as defined by 49 CFR 195.2, the subject pipelines in Cook Inlet are not located offshore. These pipelines\nare onshore gathering lines which transport petroleum and are located in rural areas. In accordance with 49 CFR\n195.1(b)(4), these regulations do not apply to these subject pipelines. Therefore, we request that you reconsider your\ndetermination of jurisdiction.\nIf you have any questions, please contact me at (281) 544-3016.\nVery truly yours,\nR. J. Redweik\nStaff Environmental Engineer\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nShell Western E&P Inc.\nP.O. Box 576\nHouston, Texas 77001\nCERTIFIED MAIL P 298 304 520 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 17, 1997\nMr. Rich Felder\nAssociate Administrator of Office of Pipeline Safety\nDepartment of Transportation\n400 7th Street, SW\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Felder:\nSUBJECT: REGULATION OF GATHERING LINES IN COASTAL WATERS COOK INLET, ALASKA\nFurther to our meetings and discussions with Mr. Chris Hoidal of your office in Anchorage, Alaska, Shell Western E&P\nInc. (SWEPT) requests your concurrence with our interpretation that the subject gathering lines in Coastal Waters, Cook\nInlet, Alaska are not subject to DOT regulation.\nBackground\nUnder 49 CFR Part 195.1, the regulations state that this part is not applicable to the transportation of non-HVL through\nlow stress pipelines, except for any pipeline or pipeline segment that is located in an onshore area other than a rural\narea, offshore, or in a waterway that is navigable in fact and currently used for commercial navigation (Reference\n195.1(a)(3)) and is not applicable to the transportation of petroleum in onshore gathering lines in rural areas except\ngathering lines in the inlets of the Gulf of Mexico subject to Section 195.413 (Reference 195.1(a)(4)). Although not all of\nthe requirements are met under 195.1(a)(3), all of the requirements are met under 195.1(a)(4) and therefore the\ngathering lines are not subject to DOT regulation.\nUnder 195.1(a)(3), our lines located in Cook Inlet are transporting non-HVL through low stress lines. However, certain\npipelines and pipeline segments are excepted and are subject to DOT regulation. These include lines located in the\nonshore area other than a rural area, lines located in the offshore, or lines located in a waterway that is navigable in fact\nand currently used for commercial navigation.\nOur lines are located in rural areas (i.e., Cook Inlet) and are not located in the offshore, therefore, the exception does\nnot apply for these two items. However, since our lines are located in a waterway that is navigable (i.e., Cook Inlet), we\nare unable to meet all the requirements under this subsection exception and our lines would still be considered DOT\nregulated under 195.1(a)(3).\nHowever, our lines clearly meet the requirements under 195.1(a)(4) and are therefore not subject to DOT regulation.\nUnder paragraph (a)(4), lines which transport petroleum in onshore gathering lines in rural areas except gathering lines\nin the inlets of the Gulf of Mexico subject to 195.413. Our lines are onshore gathering lines located in rural areas and\nthey transport petroleum crude oil. First of all, gathering lines are defined as a pipeline 8 5/8 inches or less nominal\noutside diameter that transport petroleum from a production facility. Our lines are 8 inches nominal outside diameter\nand transport petroleum from production facilities as defined under 195.2. Furthermore, our lines are also located in a\nrural area (i.e., located outside the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, village, or any other\ndesignated residential or commercial area such as a subdivision, a business or shopping center, or community\ndevelopment). The definition of rural area is not limited to onshore areas and in fact, rural areas located in Coastal\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nWaters (e.g., Cook Inlet) are specifically included under 195.1(a)(4) as lines which are excluded from DOT regulation.\nUnder paragraph (a)(4), rural area gathering lines in the inlets of the Gulf of Mexico subject to 195.413 are specifically\nexcepted and are subject to DOT regulation. However, other rural area gathering lines including those in Coastal Waters\n(e.g., Cook Inlet) and those in inlets of the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., other than those subject to 195.413) are specifically\nexcluded from regulation. A diagram is attached showing the subject pipelines.\nIn conclusion, our lines in Cook Inlet, although located in navigable waters, are transporting non-HVL (i.e., petroleum\ncrude oil) through low-stress gathering lines in rural areas from production facilities and are therefore not subject to\nDOT regulation under 49 CFR Part 195.\nSimilar rationale can also be used for excluding our gas gathering lines from DOT regulation under 49 CFR Part 192. The\nregulations clearly state under 192.1(b)(2) that onshore gathering of gas outside of an area within the limits of any\nincorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village or any designated residential or commercial area such as a\nsubdivision, business or shopping center, or community development are not subject to DOT regulation. Since our gas\ngathering lines are located outside of the above areas (i.e., in Cook Inlet), our lines are not subject to DOT regulation\nunder 49 CFR Part 192. A diagram is attached showing the subject pipelines.\nIn conclusion, our lines in Cook Inlet are gas gathering lines located outside of the areas described under 192.1(b)(2)(i)\nand (ii) and are therefore not subject to DOT regulation under 49 CFR Part 192.\nSummary\nAs demonstrated above, we conclude that the Shell Western E&P Inc. petroleum and gas gathering lines from our\nproduction platforms located in the Cook Inlet, Alaska are not subject to DOT regulation under 49 CFR Parts 192 or 195.\nIf you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (281) 544-3016.\nVery truly yours,\nR. J. Redweik\nStaff Environmental Engineer","truncated":false,"body_characters":13049}