{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-75-0116","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-75-0116","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1975-12-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-75-0116 concerning 192.103.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-75-0116.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-75-0116.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-75-0116","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1975/g75-12-02_Williams_192.103-lmxs.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-75-0116\nDecember 2, 1975\nMr. J.L. Williams\nWilliams Brothers Engineering Company\n6600 South Yale Avenue\nTulsa, OK 74136\nDear Mr. Williams:\nThis is with regard to the telephonic conversation between you and Mr. George L. Mocharko of this Office concerning\ninstalling gas pipelines uncased under a hard surface road.\nYour interpretation of 49 CPR §192.103, §192.105, and §192.111(b)(2) is correct per your letter and attachments dated\nAugust 4, 1975.\nWe trust this adequately responds to your inquiry.\nSincerely,\nSIGNED\nCesar DeLeon\nActing Director\nOffice of Pipeline\nSafety Operations\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nWilliams Brothers Engineering Company\n6600 South Yale Avenue\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74136\nJuly 31, 1975\nU. S. Department of Transportation\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nWashington, D. C. 20590\nAttention: Mr. Ceasar De Leon\nSubject: Interpretation of Sub-Sections 192.103, 192.105, and 192.111(b)(2)\nGentlemen:\nAttached is a print of our Figure 1-12.\nSub-sections 192.103, 192.105(a) and 192. 111(b)(2) deal with external loads, design formula for steel pipe, and design\nfactor (F) for steel pipe.\nThe attached Figure 1-12 is an example that illustrates our interpretation of these sub-sections of the code. Basically our\ninterpretation is that for any given pipe size and wall thickness; and for a given design factor (F) the design pressure\n(internal pressure allowed) will be a lesser pressure when installed uncased under a hard surface road than when\ninstallation results in parallel encroachment on roads right-of-way.\nOur interpretation is based upon:\nA. 192. 103\nPipe must be designed with sufficient wall thickness, or must be installed with adequate protection to withstand\nanticipated external pressures and loads that will be imposed on the pipe after installation.\nB. 192.105 (a)\nt = Nominal wall thickness of the pipe in inches. ... additional wall thickness required for concurrent external\nloads in accordance with 192.103 may not be included in computing design pressure.\nC. API RP 1102 Fourth Edition, September 1968 - Recommended Practice for Liquid Petroleum Pipelines Crossing\nRailroads and Highways\nParagraphs 3.1 a, b, and c.\nUsing this information Figure 1-12 has been constructed and indicates that for 12.75\" 0.D. x .255\" W. T., X-60 pipe the\ndesign pressure would be limited to 1350 psig for an uncased road crossing of a hard surfaced road in a Class 1.location,\nwhile the design pressure for the same pipe would be 1440 psig for parallel encroachment on highways or public streets\nin a Class I location.\nPlease advise if you concur with our interpretation of the regulations.\nYour prompt consideration of this matter will be appreciated.\nYours very truly,\nWILLIAMS BROTHERS ENGINEERING COMPANY\nJ. L. Williams Attachment","truncated":false,"body_characters":2752}