Interpretation Response #PI-77-0102
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name:
Individual Name:
Location State: VA Country: US
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
January 19, 1977
Mr. Fred K. Kramer
Director
Department of Consumer Affairs
County of Fairfax
4031 University Drive
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Dear Mr. Kramer:
This refers to your letter of October 27, 1976, concerning a master meter gas pipeline system at
the Southgate Condominium Apartments in Reston, Virginia. It is stated that the system consists of
mill-wrapped steel pipe and was installed underground without cathodic protection sometime between
January and May 1972 by Gulf-Reston, Inc., the developer of the project. In August
1972, the first residential use permit was issued by Fairfax County. Then about two years ago,
Gulf-Reston transferred ownership of the project to the Southgate Condominium Association, who has,
through a contractor, begun to install anodes on the system. You have asked whether Gulf-Reston or
the Association is responsible for correct installation and monitoring of the system under the
Federal gas pipeline safety standards (49 CFR Part 192).
The Federal standards are issued under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968. Sec. 8 of
the Act (49 USC 1677) provides that he standards are binding and enforceable against any person who
owns or operates pipeline facilities. Since the Southgate system constitutes a gas
distribution system that is subject to the Act and to the regulations, as an owner of the system,
Gulf-Reston had, and the Association now has, responsibility for compliance of the system with
49 CFR Part 192. This responsibility includes compliance with all applicable safety requirements
in effect during the period of ownership. Moreover, an owner remains liable to a civil penalty for
any infraction of the safety standards occurring during its period of ownership.
With respect to requirements for cathodic protection, Section 192.455(a)(2) provides (with certain
exceptions that do not appear relevant to the Southgate system) that a buried metal pipeline which
is installed after July 31, 1971, must have
"a cathodic protection system designed to protect the pipeline in its entirety in accordance wit
this subpart, installed and placed in operation one year after completion of construction."
This regulation applies to the Southgate system which, according to you letter, was installed
between January and May 1972 and began operation in August 1972. Under the regulation, cathodic
protection should have been placed in operation on the system not later than May 1973,
one year after construction of the system. If Gulf-Reston did not transfer ownership of the
system to the Association until the fall of 1974, then as owner of the system in May 1973, it was
responsible for installation of cathodic protection in compliance with Section 192.455(a)(2).
However, because Section 192.455(a)(2) is a requirement of continuing legal effect, Gulf- Reston's
failure to comply in 1973 does not relieve the Association, as the present owner of the system, of
its obligation to comply with Section 192.455(a)(2). The Association is also responsible under
Part 192. This Office enforces compliance with the Federal standards against persons who presently
own or operate gas systems, although our enforcement activities are for the most part directed
toward public utilities.
We trust that this satisfactorily answers your inquiry regarding the responsibility for compliance
with the Federal gas pipeline safety standards. The Federal standards do not govern the rights of
the purchaser of a gas system to compensation from the seller for any costs required to bring the
system into compliance with the standards.
Sincerely, Cesar DeLeon Acting Director Office of Pipeline Safety Operations
COUNTY OF FAIRFAX October 27, 1976
Mr. Lucian Furrow Regulations Attorney Office of Pipeline Safety
2100 Second Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Furrow:
We are requesting the assistance of the Office of Pipeline Safety in an interpretation of 49 Code
of Federal Regulations as it relates to a master meter gas pipe problem at the Southgate
Condominium Apartments, 2004G Colts Neck Road in Reston, Virginia. Based on our understanding of
the situation, as described below, our questions become those of jurisdictional responsibility and
liability: Under the Code of Federal Regulations, what party has jurisdictional responsibility to
monitor the gas pipe beyond the master meter, and what party has the responsibility to insure that
pipes are correctly installed according to federal regulations?
The problem, which appears to be a growing one in Reston and which has led us to request an
interpretation from you, is as follows: The Southgate Condominium Apartments consist of 300
dwelling units which use gas for heating, hot water, cooking and clothes drying. The apartments
are located in nine buildings and are served by four master meters. Gas pipes leading from the
master meters enter the buildings at 16 different places. Millwrapped steel pipe was used for the
underground gas pipes. The builder-developer of the apartments was Gulf-Reston, Inc. Building
plans for the development were submitted to the County in November, 1971, and a building permit was
issued to Gulf-Reston on December 3, 1971. On May 31, 1972, Fairfax County Inspectors conducted
their "closed-in" inspection of the underground mill-wrapped steel gas
pipes to insure that they conformed to the County's Code requirements. (Cathodic protection is not
required by the County's ordinance). It can be assumed, then, that the pipes were installed
sometime between January and May, 1972. The first residential use permit was issued in August,
1972. About two years ago, the apartment complex converted to condominium ownership.
Apparently, the widely publicized corrosion problem experienced in other areas of Reston during
prior months prompted the Board of Directors of the Southgate Condominium Association to
investigate the possibility of gas leaks at the Southgate condominium complex. Because the County
and the Washington Gas Light Company confirmed that the underground pipes, located down stream from
the master meters were not cathodically protected and that corrosion probably had occurred and
would continue to occur, the Association contracted with an engineering firm, the R.A. Ransom
Company, to determine the severity of the corrosion problem. In addition, another company (George
F. Warner Company) was hired to pressure test the pipes to ascertain if there were any leaks, since
the gas company would not perform the job, as well as to install the necessary anodes and
insulation couplings, all at a cost of nearly $12,000. The engineering study confirmed that
galvanic cell corrosion was occurring although no leaks were discovered at the
time. However, the engineering firm felt that underground pipe leaks would have developed within
the year, especially since the inside gas pipes (bare steel) were noticeably corroding. It is our
understanding that nearly one-third of the anode installation work is now completed.
Unfortunately, Gulf-Reston has offered to pay only their proportionate ownership share of the cost
of the anode installation based on their current percentage ownership in the condominium
development. It is the Association's position that Gulf-Reston's responsibility extends beyond
payment of their proportionate share since the homeowners purchased their condominiums in good
faith that no problems such as this potential safety hazard existed. Moreover, the technicalities
associated with this problem are such that a homeowner cannot be expected to be knowledgeable in
this area and it is an area into which a homeowner should not be expected to check prior to
purchase.
Additionally, our cursory examination of the Code of Federal Regulations would indicate that due to
the timing of the effective date of the OPS regulations (July 31, 1972), the builder- developer, as
the initial distributor of the gas, should have been aware or been made aware of this requirement
before construction, and as such, should be responsible for correction of the
problem.
We would appreciate guidance from the Office of Pipeline Safety on this matter as the answers to
the questions of liability and responsibility will impact not only on these residents in Reston,
but others in Reston, as well.
Should you be in need of additional information, please contact me or Ms. Lin Quitmeyer of my staff
at 691-3488.
Sincerely,
Fred K. Kramer Director Attachment
SOUTHGATE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
2004G Colts Neck Road
Reston, Virginia 22091
October 12, 1976
Messrs. B. C. Burch and S. R. Clineburg
Gulf Reston, Inc.
11440 Isaac Newton Square
Reston, Virginia 22090
Gentlemen:
The Board of Directors does not agree with Gulf Reston, Inc.'s position that the lack of cathodic
protection on our gas transmission lines is not the developer's responsibility since Gulf Reston,
Inc. has installed this protection at other complexes in Reston.
Consequently, the Board has referred the matter to the Fairfax County Consumer Protection
Agency.
Very truly yours, W. F. Noah
President