dot/osha demarcation

[dcasto]

I've reviewed all the DOT papers and guidance and interpertations on the demarcation where a DOT pipeline starts and where the OSHA/EPA regulated plant ends.

Heres what I get. We have a seperate overpressure protection system with a pilot operated valve that isolates the pipeline just upstream from the pig launcher. This is what we call the demarcation point, downstream of the valve built B31.8 maintained operated under DOT 195. Upstream build, inspected and maintained under B31.3 and OSHA/PSM & EPA/RMP

The local state DOT people say no, the pumps way back inside the plant create the pressure and therefore are covered under DOT 195 and all piping, maintenance and operations including OQ and DOT certified pump manufactures (OQ qualified) must be in place.

What say you?

 

[GregLamberson]

dcasto

My take on it is the local DOT folks are in error; in my experience, from the flange of the downstream valve (I assume it's a side valve on the pig trap) - that's 31.8. Everything upstream, as you mention, is 31.3. I assume your drawings show the spec break there.

Unfortunatley don't have any code, data or references, only an opinion.

Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com

 

[dcasto]

I took great care in marking all drawings with spec changes including codes. I also know that in a bordering state one pipeline company has agreed to let DOT take over jurisdiction of the pumps in thier fractionators, someone in operations of the frac plant said no because the DOT was going to take responsibility for the combination reflux pipeline pumps. I beleive this why the local people got themselves empowered to take over jurisdiction.

The local guys backed off the pump as being jurisdictional, but the line from the pump to the pig trap is in their jurisdiction. They picked the point, but its still not right because that makes all the PSV's on the pumps jurisdictional, which means inspecting them every 6 months, what a waste.

 

[BigInch]

DOT doesn't care about B31.1,3,4,or 8, except as how the CFRs include them as referenced documents. For determining jurisdiction, they go only by CFR 49 Part 192 & 194, is it "a part of interstate transportation or not?". If it is obviously interstate transportation, they basically use the logic, "If it goes to the pipeline, its part of the pipeline., so if they see it goes to the pipeline and they want to call it pipeline, they can, they will and they do.

The definition of pipeline gives them wide scope,

195.2
"Pipeline or pipeline system means all parts of a pipeline facility through which a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide moves in transportation, including, but not limited to, line pipe, valves, and other appurtenances connected to line pipe, pumping units, fabricated assemblies associated with pumping units, metering and delivery stations and fabricated assemblies therein, and breakout tanks."

That has been used since mid 70's, examples:

http://ops.dot.gov/regs/interp/195_holding/1/77-05-26.pdf

If you want to contest, get a letter off to DOT/OPS/Washington as soon as you can. Arguing about it here won't do you any good at all.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not moving fast enough."
- Mario Andretti- When asked about transient hydraulics

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

 

[dcasto]

big inch,

FROM 195.11 In-plant piping system means piping that is located on the grounds of a plant and used to transfer hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide between plant facilities or between plant facilities and a pipeline or other mode of transportation, not including any device and associated piping that are necessary to control pressure in the pipeline under §195.406(b).

How far back can they go, 1 inspector wanted to make the deethanizer reflux pumps part of their jurisdiction, whats next, the deethanizer itself?

We gave the state level that has jurisdiction over the INTRASTATE line an interpertation letter that says the feds stop inside a plant at the OVERPRESSURE protection device. They laughed and said they do not care about the feds.

SO, I'm polling the industry to see whats up. Does it mean a lawsuit to resolve the question or not. DO you want clients coming in haveing to redisgn plants to be in compliance with some state regulator?

I guess this site isn't about engineering arguments and spreading the word that there is trouble in our state regulators taking jurisdiction over things that are already in the hands of OSHA.

Get the BIGGER picture?

 

[BigInch]

The big picture was "Gone With the Wind" (1939).

See red text above; they can go back to any pump that imparts pressure to the pipeline, and even farther, since the definition includes the text, "but not limited to". The link gives examples of how far back they have been trying to go since 1976 and some examples where they have determined some questionable components were indeed not actually part of the pipeline as well.

Over-regulation? All the refinery design in the States for the last 30 years has been for one of two things, adding capacity to process heavies and installing equipment to meet compliance issues for new regulations of one sort or another. Regulatory compliance generates billions in design contracts. Not my fault and I don't really care what the particular motivation of my clients might or might not be in any case. Pipelines have been adding the capacity to handle smart pigs and monitor leakage, programs for training pipeline control personal and implementing drug testing, and security measures for the last 7 years all because of new regulations, or interpretations of same. I've done some projects just because of an OSHA ruling.

I'm not trying to argue about jurisdiction, as up to now you were apparently asking for opinions on their limits of jurisdiction, which I have attempted to give and answer with examples. Above, I have only tried to point out that you can ask for clarificatios to your specific case, if you wish to do so. Exemptions are not lawsuits and if you get a ruling you think you should appeal, do it. Not saying that lawsuits about excessive regulation have not been uncommon too. At least the company lawyers can busy themselves actually doing something useful for the corp. and the engineering dept. And this is the first time in either [double] post that you have mentioned you are trying to spread the word that there is over-regulation troubles, which has been a real big problem for most industies for at least 50 years now, so it has been difficult to understand exactly what it was you were been looking for. Was it nothing else then?

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."-Edison “If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved 90% of his work.- Tesla