{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-05-0101","title":"Nieder, Bodeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox and Pashos, L.L.P — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2005-07-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-05-0101 response to Nieder, Bodeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox and Pashos, L.L.P concerning 192.327.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-05-0101.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-05-0101.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-05-0101","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2005/g05-07-22_Nieder_192.327-nlmx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-05-0101\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJuly 22, 2005\nMr. Charles W. Nieder\nAttorney at Law\nNieder, Bodeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox and Pashos, L.L.P\n131 Jefferson Street\nSt. Charles, MO 63301-2885\nDear Mr. Nieder:\nThank you for your letters of September 28, 2004, and October 13, 2004, requesting an interpretation of Part 49\nCFR 192.307.\nOn March 3, 2005, you modified your requests, asking that the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) answer whether\nor not concrete falls within the definition of consolidated rock at\n§ 192.327. Section 192.327 reads (in part):\n§ 192.327 Cover.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c), (e), (1), and (g) of this section, each buried transmission line\nmust be installed with a minimum cover as follows:\nNormal Consolidated\nLocation soil rock\nInches (Millimeters)\nClass 1 locations 30 (762) 18 (457)\nClass 2, 3, and 4 locations 36 (914) 24(610)\nDrainage ditches of public roads and railroad crossing 36 (914) 24 (610)\n(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each buried main must be installed with\nat least 24 inches (610 millimeters) of cover.\nThe terms concrete and consolidated rock are defined using the ordinary dictionary definition. Concrete is a\nsynthetically formed coalition of particles into one solid mass, and consolidated rock is a natural geological formation.\nBecause concrete is not a natural geological formation, it does not fall within § 192.327.\nIf you have further questions regarding this interpretation, please contact me at (202) 366-4595.\nSincerely,\nFlorence L. Hamn\nDirector for Regulations\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nNiedner, Boudeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox and Pashos, L.L. P\n131 Jefferson Street\nSt. Charles, Missouri 63301-2885\nMay 16, 2005\nU.S. Department Of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nAttention: Ms. Shauna Turnbull, Regulatory Analyst\n400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 2103\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nAnd Via Facsimile No. 1-202-493-2311 Dear Ms. Turnbull:\nMy patience with the United States Department of Transportation is at an end. As indicated in my\nenclosed letter of September 28, 2004, I have been, since that date, asking your Department for a very simple\nthing. That is your Department's definition of \"consolidated rock\" as contained in 49 CFR Chapter 1 Section\n192.327, copy enclosed. It is ridiculous that your Department cannot give me an answer to this question and\nthat you have told me that you need extensive time to research what that phrase means. Please answer my\nquestions within the next fifteen (15) days or I will send written complaints to my client's Congressman and\nSenator.\nVery truly yours,\nCHARLES W. NIEDNER\nAttorney at Law\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nNiedner, Boudeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox and Pashos, L.L. P\n131 Jefferson Street\nSt. Charles, Missouri 63301-2885\nOctober 13, 2004\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nAttention: Ms. Stacey Gerard 400 Seventh Street\nS.W. Washington, D.C. 20590\nAnd Via Facsimile No. 1-202-493-2311\nRE: Gaines Family Limited Partnership Pipeline Crossing\nDear Ms. Gerard:\nI represent Gaines Family Limited Partnership. I'm writing to ask your office's interpretation of the\ncover requirement specified in 49 CFR Chapter 1, Section 192.327, and copy enclosed. I have also enclosed two\nletters and a diagram explaining the overall situation. The bottom line is that the Planning Director Of St.\nCharles County, Missouri, sent a letter to my client dated September 20, 2004, directing that my client obtain\nthis interpretation from Karen Butler at your Kansas City Office by October 4, 2004. I mailed and faxed my\nenclosed letter to Karen Butler asking for that interpretation. Today Karen Butler called me and informed me\nthat the Kansas City Office of U.S. DOT was not capable of interpreting that regulation and that only you could\ninterpret the regulation.\nI would very much appreciate it if you could respond with your interpretation of whether my\nhypothetical situation would comply with the cover regulation. I understand that you do not personally know\nhow this construction occurred because you were not present when that happened. I'm not asking you to make\nany kind of determination about what in fact happened on the property. I'm only asking you to tell me if my\nclient would be in compliance with the cover regulation if in fact the construction occurred as described in my\nletter of September 28, 2004.\nI also realize that you are probably very busy and have a lot of people asking you for information as\nsoon as possible. All I can say is that my client is in serious need of a response from your office as soon as\npossible because St. Charles County may take legal action against my client if we cannot give them your opinion\nin the very near future. Neither I nor my client's engineer, Paul Lorton, can understand how the construction\ndescribed in my letter could not be in compliance with the cover regulation. However, the St. Charles County\nPlanning Director wants to hear that from U.S. DOT and not from me or my client's engineer. Thank you very\nmuch for your help in this matter.\nVery truly yours,\nCHARLES W. NIEDNER\nAttorney at Law\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nNiedner, Boudeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox and Pashos, L.L. P\n131 Jefferson Street\nSt. Charles, Missouri 63301-2885\nSeptember 28, 2004\nUnited States Department of Transportation\nRegional Office of Pipeline Safety\nAttention: Ms. Karen Butler\n910 Locust Street, Suite 462\nKansas City, Mo. 64106-2641\nAnd via fax # 1-816-329-3831\nRe: Gaines Family Limited Partnership Pipeline Crossing\nDear Ms. Butler:\nI represent the Gaines Family Limited Partnership. I am writing to you at the suggestion of the Director of\nPlanning of St. Charles County, Steven G. Lauer. As suggested in the enclosed copy of his letter to my client, we are\nseeking your Department's advice on whether the amount of cover that my client placed over Missouri Pipeline\nCompany's natural gas pipeline for a parking lot meets USDOT standards. My client's engineer, Paul Lorton, believes\nthat this is a Class 1 location as referenced in 49 CFR Chapter 1, Section 192.327. I believe that regulation requires\nthat such a pipeline be covered by either 30 inches of soil or 18 inches of consolidated rock. I do not know the\ndefinition of \"consolidated rock\" and I ask that you clarify that for me.\nThere is a rather involved and contentious history between my client and Missouri Pipeline Company which I\nwill be happy to share with you if you want to know it. However, the purpose of this letter is to explain the cover that\nwas put over the pipeline by my client and to ask you if that cover meets USDOT standards.\nBefore any concrete was poured by my client, my client graded the soil over the pipeline easement to\nprepare it for the parking lot construction over the pipeline. My client contacted Missouri Pipeline Company to\nexamine the grading before any concrete was poured. Matt Smith, a Missouri Pipeline Company employee, came to\nthe site and took measurements using a probe to determine the amount of soil covering the pipeline in those graded\nareas over the pipeline. Matt Smith placed flags in the graded areas with numbers on the flags indicating the depth of\nthe soil cover at 5 locations where my client wanted to pour a concrete parking lot over the pipeline. My client\nprepared a depiction of Matt Smith's depth findings titled \"MPC Probe 02-20-04\", copy enclosed. I have added an\narrow indicating north on the depiction. The rectangle on the left side of that depiction represents a building next to\nthe parking lot. There are numbers representing the distance from the building to the edge of the pipeline easement,\nthe distance from the building to the center of the pipeline where the depth was probed, and the depth of cover\nreadings determined by Matt Smith. For instance, at the top (east end) of the depiction, the easement boundary is 11\nfeet from the building, the center of the pipeline is 38 feet from the building, and the depth of the graded soil cover\nover the center of the pipeline is 42 inches. I don't know why the bottom (southern) two measurements do not\ninclude the distance from the building to the center of the pipeline, but that could be easily calculated if anyone\ncares about that. The important numbers are of course the depth of soil cover readings taken by Matt Smith over the\ncenter of the pipeline. My client subsequently poured 12 inches of concrete over those depths of graded soil in the\npipeline easement Therefore, there is now an additional 12 inches of concrete cover over the depth of soil readings\ntaken by Missouri Pipeline Company's employee, Matt Smith. That means that there is more than 30 inches of cover\nover the pipeline at all locations, 12 inches of which is concrete.\nI would appreciate it if you could send a letter to me confirming that such described construction would be in\ncompliance with USDOT standards for cover of a natural gas pipeline. As mentioned above, I would also be interested\nto know the meaning of \"consolidated rock\" in the regulation.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nFor your file, I have also enclosed a letter from my client's engineer expressing the opinion that my client's\nuse of 12 inches of concrete on top of the graded soil for the parking lot is safer than a previous plan approved by St.\nCharles County that only required an aggregate parking lot surface meaning gravel or asphalt.\nThanks for your help.\nYours very truly,\nCHARLES W. NIEDNER\nAttorney At Law\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nSt. Charles County Government\n201 North Second Street\nSuite 420\nSt. Charles, MO 63301-2874\nSeptember 20, 2004\nGaines Family Limited Partnership\nWilliam R. Gaines, Jr.\n55 North Pointe Circle\nLake St. Louis, Missouri 63367\nDear Mr. Gaines:\nPlease be advised that the Planning & Zoning Division of the Community Development Department has reviewed the\nrevised site plan that Mactec Engineering and Consulting had submitted on September 10, 2004. The following items\nstill need to be addressed relative to the site plan for Gaines Construction, Inc.:\n1. The trash enclosure area needs to be sight-proof both in the front with a solid gate, and in the rear with a\nsix (6) foot tall fence.\n2. Please relocate the loading zone to the most western overhead door of the former Total Marine Business\nstructure so that it does not encroach upon parking spaces.\n3. When all related site work is completed, inspected and approved by the Planning and Zoning Division,\noccupancy permits will need to be obtained for each of the three (3) buildings constructed on the site.\n4. In reference to the site improvements over the natural gas pipeline easement please be advised that I do\nnot have authority to override the federal interest in pipeline safety and will require either a letter of\nconsent from the pipeline company or a letter from the USDOT Regional Office of Pipeline Safety in Kansas\nCity, Mo. For the USDOT Office you should send a copy of the MPC Probe 02-20-04 which is enclosed to\neither of the following staff members Karen Butler at 816-329-3835 or Harold Winnie at 816-3293836. Both\nof their addresses would be the same at USDOT Regional Office of Pipeline Safety, Regional Project\nManager, Community Assistance and Technical Services, 910 Locust, Suite 462, Kansas City, Missouri 64106-\n2641. The USDOT staff would need to advise if the current situation meets the minimum requirement for\nsoil cover and improvement that they enforce.\nPlease have the above information submitted to the Planning & Zoning Division by no later than Monday October 4,\n2004. If you have any further questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me at your earliest\nconvenience.\nSincerely,\nSteven G. Lauer\nPlanning & Zoning Division Director","truncated":false,"body_characters":11922}