{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-73-033","title":"Buckeye Pipe Line Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1973-11-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-73-033 response to Buckeye Pipe Line Company concerning 195.248.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-033.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-033.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-033","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1973/PI73033.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nNov 5 1973\nMr. G. A. Chilcote\nManager, Engineering & Construction\nBuckeye Pipe Line Company\nP.O. Box 368\nEmmaus, PA 18049\nDear Mr. Chilcote:\nThis refers to your letter of September 18, 1973, requesting an\ninterpretation of Section 195.248. Specifically, Buckeye is\nrequesting an interpretation of \"impracticable\" as used in\nSection 195.248(b)(1) and an interpretation of \"equivalent\" as\nused in Section 195.248(b)(2). The interpretation in these two\nsections are requested to determine whether 48 inches of cover is\nrequired pursuant to Sections 195.210(b) and 195.248(a) for\napproximately half of the 17 miles of a 20-inch products pipeline\nthat Buckeye is preparing to lay across Middlesex County, New\nJersey.\nThe Office of Pipeline Safety considers that the term\n\"impracticable\" means the carrier is incapable of complying with\nthe required pipeline cover. You itemized four factors which in\nyour opinion tend to make a 48-inch cover impracticable. The\nfirst two items appear to be based on the high cost of\nconstructing this proposed pipeline, without any supporting\ninformation on this cost. These two factors are not sufficient\nreason to support your contention that the 48-inch cover is\nimpracticable. The last two items are based on possible future\noccurrences and similarly cannot be used to substantiate that the\nconstruction of this proposed pipeline is impracticable.\nSince the regulations provided for additional protection\nequivalent to the minimum cover required only when it is\nimpracticable to comply with the minimum cover requirements, the\nadditional protection Buckeye proposes is not applicable in this\ncase.\nWe trust that this has answered your particular inquiry. can be of further assistance, please let us know.\nIf we\nSincerely,\n\\signed\\\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ndal\\195\\248\\73-11-05\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":1853}