Laserfiche WebLink
DOCKETS UNIT <br />PAGE ELEVEN <br />MARCH 24, 1997 <br />damaged not because of the level of separation but because <br />of the ability of the responding fire departments to <br />extinguish the flames before damage occurred and the general <br />topography of the area. <br />Questions: <br />(a) How would the proposed 300 foot zone affect the <br />occurence or results of accidents? <br />Response: <br />A 300 foot "buffer zone" would not have an impact upon <br />the occurrence of accidents but would have a definite <br />affect upon the possible results. A distance of 150 <br />feet from an inhabited building, would, depending upon <br />inhabited 'building, would, depending upon the topography <br />of the area, significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the <br />risks to building occupants assuming no non -liquid <br />hazards such as vapor clouds would develop and spread <br />beyond the limits of the buffer zone. <br />(b) What compliance or operational difficulties are <br />foreseen? <br />Response: <br />Compliance with this proposal requires flexibility in <br />the location of pipelines and cooperation between <br />operators and local government jurisdictions. No <br />operational difficulties can be seen to result from this <br />requirement. <br />(c) Should exemptions be permitted for pipelines on <br />existing, or enlargements of existing, rights -of -ways; <br />for replacements or relocations or existing pipelines? <br />Response: <br />Exemptions should be granted only for the replacement of <br />pipelines within the same trench in which the old <br />pipeline was located. Any relocation or expansion of <br />existing pipelines and use or expansion of existing <br />right-of-way should be in compliance with the proposed <br />requirement. <br />(d) Is land use for pipelines an appropriate Federal <br />function, or are State and local governments better <br />suited to plan such use? <br />