{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-78-0103","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-78-0103","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1978-05-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-78-0103 concerning 195.116.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-78-0103.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-78-0103.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-78-0103","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1978/g78-05-12_Fulton_195.116-DBx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-78-0103\nMAY 12, 1978\nInterpretation of §195.410\nChief, Technical Division\nActing Director, Office of Pipeline Safety Operations\nSection 195.410 requires line markers in . . . sufficient number . . . that its (pipeline) location is accurately\nknown. From the remaining requirements of §195.410, the standard practices of the industry, and other\nactions of this office, it is apparent that the intent of §195.410 is to require line markers at crossings of\nnavigable waterways.\nI have attached copies of two previous interpretations of §195.410 that appear to be in conflict. I agree with\nthe 1974 interpretation to Mr. Collins. I do not agree with the 1976 interpretation to Mr. Merriman even\nthough it had Technical Division concurrence.\nOriginal signed by\nFrank E. Fulton\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nApril 2, 1974\nMr. Fred J. Collins\nManager, Right of Way Department\nColonial Pipeline Company\n3390 Peachtree Road, N.E.\nLenox Towers\nAtlanta, GA 30326\nDear Mr. Collins:\nThis refers to your letter of March 6, 1974, concerning Section 195.410, placement of line markers. Specifically you\nrequested our review and advice concerning five water crossings, and possible consideration for waiver.\nSection 195.410 requires each carrier to place and maintain line markers over each buried line in sufficient number so\nthat its location is accurately known. Also, line markers placed on each side of a navigable waterway crossing must have\nthe additional words, \"Do Not Anchor or Dredge.\" If the water crossing is not a navigable waterway crossing, then a\nnormal line marker placed on each side of the crossing will satisfy Section 195.410.\nThe Office of Pipeline Safety does not give preliminary opinions as to whether particular circumstances present sufficient\ngrounds for a waiver. Therefore, we are returning your plats covering the Elizabeth and Raritan River, Rancocas and\nRaccoon Creeks, all in New Jersey, and the Nansemond River located in Virginia.\nTo determine if a waiver should be granted in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 5, the carrier should show why Section\n195.410 is not appropriate, why the public interest would be served, and a discussion of the basis upon which the\nproposal would not be inconsistent with liquid pipeline safety.\nThe requirement to mark the location of pipelines is considered an essential part of our program to reduce the number\nof accidents on pipeline systems and thus improve public safety.\nIf we may be of any further assistance to you in this matter, please advise.\nSincerely,\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nOCT 5 1976\nMr. Donald R. Merriman\nBuckeye Pipe Line Company\nP.O. Box 368\nEmmaus, Pennsylvania 18049\nDear Mr. Merriman:\nThis refers to your letter of September 15, 1976, requesting an exemption from the line marking requirements\nof 49 CFR 195.410(a)(2) with regard to two 10-inch pipelines installed within a 24-inch concrete coated steel\ncasing beneath The Narrows crossing between Staten Island and Brooklyn, New York.\nSection 195.410(a)(2) requires that line markers which are installed at navigable waterway crossings must bear\na prescribed legend written in letters of a certain size on a background of sharply contrasting color. It is not\nclear from your exemption request whether Buckeye would prefer to nest some alternative marking\nrequirements at The Narrows crossing or not to install any markers at the crossing. If the former is the case,\nyou have not proposed what alternative marking requirements would be appropriate. If the latter is the case,\nsince Section 195.410 does not require that carriers install line markers at navigable waterway crossings, an\nexemption is unnecessary. Therefore, we have not accepted your letter as a petition for exemption.\nShould Buckeye wish to install markers at The Narrows crossing in a manner contrary to that required by\nSection 195.410(a) we would, of course, consider the matter upon a showing of what alternative requirements\nare proposed to be met.\nSincerely,\nCesar DeLeon\nActing Director Office of Pipeline Safety Operations\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n10/27/77\nPossible Violations of 49 CFR Part 195 on TAPS\nBuck Furrow\nCesar DeLeon\nThis memorandum states my views on Lloyd's recommendations regarding the TAPS.\nRecommendation #1:\nSections 195.254(a)(5) and 195.410(d) are not inconsistent inasmuch as other provisions of Section 195.254\npermit aboveground installations in areas which may be \"accessible\" to the public (such as \"spans over\nditches\"). In addition, as a maintenance requirement, Section 195.410(d) applies to all lines not just new ones\nsubject to section 195.254(a)(5).\nThe phrase \"inaccessible to the public\" should be interpreted in light of the purpose of the rule — to permit\naboveground installations in areas where the opportunity for interference by the public (other than sabotage)\nis minimal. This description fits areas where access is controlled by the carrier (§195.254(a)(4), areas that are\nnot generally open for use by the public (e.g., private noncommercial property, farm land), and areas which,\nalthough open to the public, are remotely located and very difficult to reach (e.g., portions of a national\nforest).\nThe proximity of a pipeline to existing public roads is a factor to consider in determining \"accessibility.\" The\nsame would not be true for haul roads used solely by the carrier for construction and maintenance. A more\nrelevant consideration is whether the immediate area of the pipeline is legally open or closed to the public,\nand if open, how easy would it be for someone to get to the pipeline. A decision on whether Section\n192.254(a) (5) is violated should be made on the basis of all circumstances pertaining to the location of the\nline and the opportunity for public access. Lloyd's memo does not provide sufficient information upon which\nto base a sound decision on whether the pipeline is \"accessible to the public.\"\nRecommendation #2:\nSection 195.116(e) does not specifically require that a valve's position be indicated at the valve. Thus, an\nelectrical means for remote indication would satisfy the requirement, particularly since it is written in\nperformance language.\nThe NPRM was more specific. It proposed that a valve be \"equipped with a device that clearly indicates... valve\nposition.\" If the language of this proposal had been adopted as final, the rule would require that valve position\nbe shown at the valve. While there is no discussion of the language change in the final rule, we can presume it\nwas to relax the proposed requirement to permit valve readings at remote locations as well as at the valve.\nL M. Furrow","truncated":false,"body_characters":6617}