Interpretation Response #PI-14-0007 ([Duke Energy Florida] [Mr. Reginald Anderson])
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name: Duke Energy Florida
Individual Name: Mr. Reginald Anderson
Location State: FL Country: US
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
Mr. Reginald Anderson
Bartow Combined Cycle Station Manager
Duke Energy Florida
1601 Weedon Island Drive NE
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Dear Mr. Anderson:
In a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated February 5, 2013, you described the plans for Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (Duke Energy) to discontinue operating the Bartow Anclote Pipeline (BAP) - OPID 5320 and requested an interpretation on whether these plans would satisfy applicable Federal pipeline safety regulations and asked five specific questions.
You stated that as a result of ongoing fuel conversions, Duke Energy no longer has a need to operate the BAP. In July 2011, the #6 Fuel Oil was purged from the BAP by pushing two foam pigs with nitrogen. Duke Energy has removed the BAP from #6 Fuel Oil service by physically separating the BAP from the sources of oil and it is currently in an idle status (drawing of separation from other pipelines provided). In addition, the BAP does not cross over, under or through a commercially navigable waterway.
You stated that Duke Energy plans to continue activities to preserve the BAP while options for long term disposition and possible sale of the BAP are evaluated and therefore, Duke Energy will continue to maintain the BAP in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195 requirements. You then provided a list of Part 195 activities that you believe would no longer be applicable.
In general, PHMSA does not recognize an “idle” status of a hazardous liquid pipeline. Either it has an in service status and is subject to Part 195 (even if operation is suspended for a period of time), or it can be permanently abandoned in accordance with an operator’s written abandonment procedures established pursuant to § 195.402(c)(10) and reported pursuant to § 195.59. With regard to a pipeline that has not been permanently abandoned and may resume operation but is in an extended period of disuse, we recognize that some operators may view performing certain types of regulatory activities as an unwise use of resources. I would recommend that you contact the Director, Office of Pipeline Safety, Southern Region, if you desire the agency’s views on whether your list of Part 195 activities that you believe would no longer be applicable is appropriate.
With regard to the five specific questions in your letter:
Question 1: If the 49 CFR Part 195 compliance is continued without interruption, could the BAP be returned to hazardous liquid service by a new owner without a 49 CFR § 195.5 conversion to service if the other requirements of 49 CFR Part 195 are satisfied (and all other Federal, State and local requirements are also satisfied)?
Response: Yes, provided that Duke Energy complies will all the applicable sections of Part 195. Once a pipeline has been qualified for operation under Part 195, it remains qualified for operation.
Question 2: If the 49 CFR Part 195 compliance is continued without interruption, could the BAP be qualified for natural gas service by a new owner following a 49 CFR § 192.14 conversion to service if the other requirements of 49 CFR Part 192 are satisfied (and all other Federal, State and local requirements are also satisfied)? Does 49 CFR § 192.14 recognize 49 CFR Part 195 in this situation?
Response: Yes, the BAP can be qualified for natural gas service by a new owner following a § 192.14 conversion to service if the other requirements of Part 192 are satisfied. As to your follow up question, yes, § 192.14(a) states that a steel pipeline previously used in service not subject to Part 192 qualifies for use under Part 192 if the operator prepares and follows a written procedure to carry out the § 192.14(a) requirements.
Question 3: If the BAP is abandoned now, could it later be returned to hazardous liquid service per 49 CFR Part 195 or natural gas service per 49 CFR Part 192 by a new owner? If so, what would be required at that time?
Response: As used in the regulations, PHMSA considers the term abandonment to mean permanent abandonment. If disuse is not permanent and if the BAP meets the § 195.5 conversion to service requirements for Part 195 or the § 192.14 conversion to service requirements for Part 192, the BAP potentially could be returned to service. Any operator returning a pipeline to service that has been in an extended period of disuse is obligated to verify the integrity of the pipeline prior to resuming the transportation of hazardous liquids. If it will be used in gas service, the conversion of service requirements must also be conducted prior to bringing the pipeline back into service.
Question 4: Depending on the ultimate disposition of the BAP, additional cleaning could be required and could involve using heated nitrogen, pushing cleaning pigs with nitrogen, pushing water and detergent volumes between pigs with nitrogen, rinsing with water between pigs, drying with foam pigs and heated nitrogen (or some other combination of these steps). Updating existing BAP 49 CFR Part 195 programs to cover this cleaning process makes the best use of established infrastructure, training and experience while still protecting high consequence areas.
Would 49 CFR Part 195 cover this cleaning process (if all other Federal, State and local requirements are also satisfied) or are there other pipeline regulations that are intended for this cleaning process?
Response: The regulations in Part 195 do not specify how or when a pipeline needs to be cleaned. This maintenance activity would be required to be addressed in Duke Energy’s pipeline operation and maintenance procedures (Part 195, Subpart F - Operation and Maintenance).
Question 5: Does the above plan satisfy applicable 49 CFR Part 195 Federal pipeline safety regulations for abandonment or sale of the Bartow Anclote Pipeline (if all other Federal, State and local requirements are also satisfied)?
Response: As noted above, PHMSA considers the term abandonment to mean permanent abandonment. If Duke Energy decides to abandon the BAP, it must do so in accordance with its § 195.402(c)(10) procedures and § 195.59. If Duke Energy plans to maintain the pipeline in accordance with Part 195, it can be potentially returned to service. The question of whether the list of activities Duke Energy considers applicable would satisfy Part 195 is a compliance matter that is beyond the scope of this regulatory interpretation.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe of my staff at 202-366-5523.
Sincerely,
John A. Gale
Director, Office of Standards and Rulemaking