December 31, 2014
SENT VIA EMAIL AND US POST
Utilities and Transportation Commission
Attn. Mr. David Lykken
Pipeline Safety Director
1300 S. Evergreen Park Dr. SW
PO Box 47250
Olympia, WA 98504-7250
dlykken@utc.wa.gov
RE:

Point Ruston LLC – Reply to Notice of Probable Violations

Mr. Lykken,
This letter is sent in response to your correspondence regarding a notice of probable violations
dated November 26, 2014, addressed to the attention of Point Ruston, LLC1. Please be advised
that at this time we are formally notifying the UTC that Point Ruston no longer plans to install a
‘system-wide’ propane utility system upon the Point Ruston development. As to the presently
installed pipe within the joint utility trench please be advised that Point Ruston does not intend to
utilize this conduit for any such gas use and such plans to use the currently installed pipe for a
site wide propane distribution system are hereby permanently abandoned. As a result, Point
Ruston will be covering the conduit and backfilling the trench. Therefore, we hereby request
that the UTC withdraw and rescind its notice of probable violations.
Should the UTC still request a specific reply to each of the issues raised in your letter please
advise and we will promptly provide the written response. Nevertheless, please accept the
following as a response to your letter of November 26th.
Should the UTC have any further deliberations as to any further findings on this matter please
consider the following facts, which we deem material to the UTC’s evaluation of this issue:
1. Point Ruston is a 100 acre mixed-use master planned development community which
is being constructed in ‘phases.’ In the present phase, Point Ruston is installing
utilities within a joint utility trench to allow for the construction of two private streets
(Main Street and Grand Avenue). The utilities installed include the installation of 6”

1

By way of clarification, please understand that Point Ruston Phase II, LLC, is the party responsible for the
installation of HDPE Pipe in the joint utility trench. Point Ruston, LLC is an affiliate company but not responsible for
installation. Thus, all references herein to “Point Ruston” are intended only to refer to Point Ruston Phase II, LLC.
This fact was made clear in our letter and project submittal to the UTC on October 3, 2014.

 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

DPE pipe for what was originally intended for the future supply of propane gas to
certain buildings within the development.
No propane gas has been supplied through the HDPE pipe. Point Ruston did not
intend to supply any gas through the HDPE pipe until Point Ruston received the
requisite approval that the pipe and system meets any applicable requirements of 49
CFR 192. The current phase does not contemplate the connection of the pipe to a gas
source. This point is now moot, as Point Ruston does not intend to install the system.
Point Ruston has kept the joint utility trench open and the pipe accessible to UTC
inspection since September 30, 2014. UTC inspectors have been on-site inspecting
the pipe on at least two separate occasions.
Point Ruston is not, nor does it intend to be the ‘operator’ of the contemplated
‘system.’ However, Point Ruston has taken responsibility for ensuring that the pipe is
installed in accordance with 49 CFR 192. Since September 2014, Point Ruston has
been working with UTC inspector Lex Vinsel on a weekly basis to work towards
establishing compliance of the pipe installation with 49 CFR 192.
Point Ruston had been in the midst of negotiations with Amerigas Propane, L.P.
(“Amerigas”) to establish Amerigas as the official ‘operator’ of the system. Amerigas
has experience operating propane systems in compliance with applicable state and
federal requirements. This point is now moot, as Point Ruston does not intend to
install the system.
While the UTC may have many outstanding questions regarding the entire proposed
system and operation thereof, Point Ruston is not seeking UTC concurrence to
operate the ‘system’.
At this time, Point Ruston would simply like to complete the installation of the pipe
and back-fill the joint utility trench in order to allow for construction of the private
roads referenced above.
Point Ruston has provided the UTC with documentation to establish qualification
under 49 CFR 192 of Point Ruston’s (1) construction procedures; and (2) personnel
utilized for installation of the HDPE pipe. This documentation includes, but is not
limited to its (a) plans and specifications; (b) fusion procedures; (c) testing
procedures; (d) certificates of qualification for personnel installing and joining the
pipe; (e) daily observation reports of the pipe installation (performed by a thirdparty); and (f) an operating and maintenance manual.
Mr. Vinsel of the UTC has personally observed both the pressure testing of the HDPE
pipe and destruct-testing of the pipe-welds. Mr. Vinsel has personally inspected the
pipe installed on two occasions and has unfettered access to the site. Over the course
of the last several months, Point Ruston has endeavored to promptly provide Mr.
Vinsel with additional documentation and information requested by the UTC.

As we work to resolve any outstanding issues, we hope that the UTC will continue to work with
us in the spirit of cooperation to ensure that the pipe installed meets 49 CFR 192. In addition, we
Page 2

 hope that the UTC will keep in mind that we have not, nor do we plan to supply gas through the
pipe at the present time.
In conclusion, we hope that this letter and the attached documentation sufficiently responds to
those ‘probable violations’ and ‘areas of concern’ set forth in your letter of November 26, 2014.
To the extent that you deem our responses to be deficient in any manner, please provide
clarification as to what further documentation or information we can provide to you at this phase
in the project. As stated at the outset of this letter, please be advised that Point Ruston has
abandoned its plans to install a ‘system-wide’ propane utility system, and as a result no further
action is necessary.
Your letter does indicate that, based on this response, the Washington Utilities Transportation
Commission may issue penalties or institute other relief against Point Ruston. We respectfully
disagree that we would be susceptible to penalties or other action under WAC 480-93, as we do
to meet the definition of ‘gas pipeline company’ nor have we violated any pipeline safety
provision. We have simply installed HDPE pipe in a joint utility trench on private property we
own. We have not ‘moved’ any gas through the pipe, nor do we intend to. Thus, we respectfully
request that the UTC withdraw and rescind its notice of probable violations dated November 26,
2014 and acknowledge in writing that no further pending or potential violations exist as to the
permanently abandoned site wide distribution system at Point Ruston.
Sincerely,

Loren M. Cohen
Manager of Legal Affairs

Page 3