{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-80-0100","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-80-0100","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1980-03-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-80-0100 concerning 195.248.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-80-0100.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-80-0100.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-80-0100","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1980/g80-03-27_Sneed_195.248-DBX.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-80-0100\nMarch 27, 1980\nMr. M. L. Sneed\nSun Pipe Line Company\nSouthwest Area Office\nP.O. Box 3187\nLongview, Texas 75601\nDear Mr. Sneed:\nThis responds to your letter of March 14, 1980, regarding your application number 14015 to the U.S. Corps of\nEngineers to construct a 16-inch crude oil line across Nueces Bay in Texas. According to your letter, following\nthe publication of your permit application by the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took\nexception to your application stating that “The applicant should install pipeline by jetting, disking, or plowing\nacross Nueces Bay to a depth not exceeding 2 feet below the bay bottom.” You indicate that you informed\nthe Corps of Engineers that 49 CFR 195.248 requires that the pipeline be installed with a minimum of 4-feet of\ncover.\nYour letter further indicated that by letter of February 29, 1980, the Corps of Engineers replied that within 45\ndays of that date, you must either: (1) Resolve the objections and/or conform to the recommendations; or (2)\nRebut the objections or recommendations and explain why you cannot or will not conform to the\nrecommendations and request a decision from the Corps of Engineers.\nOur review of the December 27, 1979, letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enclosed in your letter\nindicates that it believes that “burial to a depth of four feet below the bed of the bay seems excessive since\nmost pipelines have been buried to a depth averaging 2 feet below the bay bottom.” In addition, we reviewed\nthe January 28, 1980, letter from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in which it recommends that the\npipeline be buried 2 feet below the surface to reduce the amount of spoil and thereby reduce the likelihood of\nunwanted slightly elevated mounds remaining after backfilling.\nNeither of the above arguments is convincing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not provide reasons why\na burial of 4 feet “seems excessive.” While we do not have information to comment on the statement that\nmost pipelines have been buried to a depth averaging 2 feet below the bay bottom, the Federal pipeline safety\nstandards for interstate pipelines, 49 CFR 195.248, which require 4 feet of cover in inland bodies of water\nmore than 100 feet wide, have been in effect since 1968. Although the recent enactment of the Hazardous\nLiquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979(Pub. L. 96-129; November 30, 1979) extends the regulatory authority of the\nDepartment to intrastate pipelines, perhaps those pipelines crossing the bay were only buried to a depth\naveraging 2 feet because they were intrastate pipeline not subject to 49 CFR Part 195.\nWhile we recognize that a trench for a 2-foot pipeline burial would reduce the amount of spoil when\ncompared to a 4-foot pipeline burial, we have no information that the environmental effect of the spoil would\ndiffer substantially between the two burial depths.\nEven though the burial suggested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife\nDepartment might minimize the impact on the fish and waterfront of the bay during construction, such a\nshallow depth would make the pipeline significantly more susceptible to damage by currents or vessels, with\nthe ensuing consequences of a spill. In this regard, we do not believe, based on the information you have\nprovided, that the planned design and construction of the pipeline would qualify it for less than 4 feet of cover\nunder the provisions of 49 CFR 195.248(b).\nTherefore, based on the information in the letter of December 27, 1979, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife\nService and the letter of January 28, 1980, from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, we do not find\nsufficient basis for deviating from 49 CFR 195.248. if these agencies would like to provide additional\ninformation or if you care to discuss this further, please contact me at 202-426-2392.\nSincerely,\nSIGNED\nCesar De Leon\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nSun Pipe Line Company\nP.O. Box 3187\nLongview, Texas 75601\nMarch 14, 1980\nMr. Cesar De Leon\nAssociate Director\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n400 7th Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. De Leon:\nSun Pipe Line Company plans to construct approximately 10 miles of pipeline in the vicinity of Corpus Christi,\nTexas within the next several months. This line will transport foreign crude oil from a tanker unloading\nterminal located near Ingleside, Texas to several refineries located in Corpus Christi, Texas.\nThe route of the proposed line will cross the Nueces Bay near Corpus and on September 28, 1979, we\nsubmitted an application for a Department of the Army permit to install a 16 inch crude oil line across the bay\nand adjacent wetlands. The application called for the line to be buried with a minimum of four feet of cover\nacross the bay.\nOn January 17, 1980, following the publication of our permit application by the Department of the Army, we\nreceived a letter from them stating that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had taken exception to our\napplication and that it was being returned for revision. One of the exceptions was that \"The applicant should\ninstall pipeline by jetting, disking, or plowing across Nueces Bay to a depth not exceeding 2 feet below the bay\nbottom.\" On February 4, 1980, we wrote the Department of the Army that according to Section 195.428 of the\nCode of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, that we were required to install the pipeline with a\nminimum of 4 feet of cover since we did not anticipate encountering any rock or anything other than normal\nexcavation in the crossing.\nOn February 29, 1980, the Department of the Army replied that within 45 days of that date we must either:\n(1) Resolve the objections and/or conform to the recommendations; or\n(2) Rebut the objections or recommendations, explain why we cannot or will not conform to the\nrecommendations and request a decision from the District Engineer. They advised that the decision may\ninclude issuance, modification, or denial of our application. They stated that our request for a decision should\ninclude a summary of our attempts to resolve the objections and/or reasons for not doing so. A copy of their\nletter of February 29, 1980, with attachments is enclosed for your information.\nThe proposed 16\" pipeline will be constructed of 0.500\" wall thickness, Grade API-5LX-42, ERW line pipe and\nwill have a 1-1/2\" concrete weight coating over the entire section across the bay and wetlands. The normal\noperating pressure of the line will be 1000 psig. The bay is relatively shallow, approximately 4 - 8 feet in most\nof it, and is predominately used for fishing or shrimping.\nOur question is will the pipeline comply with the Department of Transportation regulations if it is installed in\naccordance with the objections/recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.\nConsidering the time period imposed on us by the Department of the Army for our response we will sincerely\nappreciate your prompt attention and consideration of this matter. If you have any questions or desire any\nadditional information, please call me at A/C 214-753-5531.\nYours very truly,\nMr. M.L. Sneed\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDepartment of the Army\nGalveston District, Corps of Engineers\nP.O. Box 1229\nGalveston, Texas 77553\nFebruary 29, 1980\nSun Pipe Line Company\nP.O. Box 3187\nLongview, Texas 75601\nDear Mr. Sneed:\nReference your permit application number 14015. During the early phases of administrative processing of your\npermit application, a public notice was distributed on 30 November 1979 The public notice solicited comments\non your permit application from interested citizens, public groups, and local, State and Federal agencies.\nCorrespondence is inclosed with objections or recommended changes to features of your application.\nThe next step in the processing of your permit requires you to either:\na. Resolve the objections and/or conform to the recommendations; or\nb. Rebut the objections or recommendations, explain why you cannot or will not conform to the\nrecommendations and request a decision from the District Engineer. The decision may include issuance,\nmodification, or denial of your application.\nProof that an objection/recommendation has been resolved is evidenced by a letter from the objector stating\nthat he withdraws his objections based on a specific agreement or compromise between the parties involved.\nIf resolution of the objection requires a change to your permit application drawings or description of work,\nyou should submit the revised and updated forms.\nShould you elect to rebut the objections/recommendations or are unable to resolve the issues and desire a\ndecision, you should request a decision from the District Engineer by letter. Your request for a decision should\ninclude a summary of your attempts to resolve the objections and/or reasons for not doing so. The summary\nand reasons will be considered in the decision making process.\nIf you fail to respond within 45 days of this letter, your application will be withdrawn. Should you desire\nclarification or consultation on the contents of this letter, you may contact Mr. Alan Sisselman at telephone\nnumber 713-763-1211, extension 382 or 383, or visit the office at 400 Barracuda, Galveston, Texas.\nSincerely,\nMarcos De La Rosa\nChief, Permit Branch\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nTexas Parks and Wildlife Department\n4200 Smith School Road\nAustin, Texas 78744\nJanuary 28, 1980\nColonel James M. Sigler\nDistrict Engineer, Galveston District\nCorps of Engineers\nPost Office Box 1229\nGalveston, Texas 77553\nRe: Public Notice No. 14015 Sun Pipe Line Company\nDear Colonel Sigler:\nThe referenced public notice, dated November 30, 1979, concerns proposed placement of a 16-inch pipeline\nacross Nueces Bay and adjacent wetlands, approximately eight miles northwest of Corpus Christi, Texas.\nThis portion of Nueces Bay and surrounding wetlands is of prime importance in estuarine productivity. It\nprovides habitat for important finfish such as red drum, black drum, spotted seatrout, sheepshead, southern\nflounder, striped mullet, and other forage species, as well as serving as a nursery for all of the same. White\nshrimp, brown shrimp, blue crabs, and oysters also utilize these water areas. In addition, it provides excellent\nhabitat for numerous species of migratory waterfowl and shore and wading birds.\nMost of the water areas included in this project are three feet or less in depth with mostly mud and silty-sand\nbottom. There are some scattered oyster reefs in this area as well as a few small islands. The shallow waters at\nthe shoreline have only small amounts of submerged vegetation (Ruppia maritima and green algae). Abundant\nstands of Spartina alterniflora are round in the inter-tidal and wetland zones, as are numerous other detritus\nproducing flora.\nThe Texas Parks and Wildlife Department believes that this project could be accomplished with less damage to\nfish and wildlife resources if the permit stipulates:\n(1) Return all excavated material to the pipeline trench as backfill to prevent the development of tidal\npools or traps.\n(2) Avoid all oyster reefs of 100 square feet or larger to minimize the destruction of productive oyster\nhabitat. Transplant oysters from reefs smaller than 100 square feet to suitable substrate away from the\npath of the pipeline.\n(3) Employ smooth wheeled \"roll-a-gon\" or \"swamp buggy\" vehicles in the wetland areas to preclude the\nexcessive damage to vegetation which could occur if tracked or lugged vehicles were used.\n(4) Bury the pipeline two feet (instead-of four feet) below the surface to reduce the amount of spoil and\nthereby reduce the likelihood of unwanted slightly elevated mounds remaining after backfilling.\nThe Texas Parks and Wildlife Department appreciates the opportunity to assess the impact of this proposed\nwork on fish and wildlife resources.\nSincerely,\nCHARLES P. TRAVIS\nExecutive Director\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nUnited States Department of The Interior\nFish and Wildlife Service\nEcological Services\nSuite 24, Commerce One\n4455 S. Padre Island Drive\nCorpus Christi, Texas 78411\nDecember 27, 1979\nDistrict Engineer\nAttn: Chief, Permit Branch\nCorps of Engineers, U. S. Army\nPost Office Box 1229\nGalveston, Texas 77553\nDear Sir:\nBy public notice dated November 30, 1979 you informed this office of an application by Sun Pipe Line\nCompany for Department of the Army permit 14015 to do work in Nueces Bay and adjacent wetlands\napproximately 8 miles northwest from Corpus Christi, Texas. The applicant proposes to install a 16-inch\ndiameter pipeline across Nueces Bay and a wetland area located between the bay and the Nueces River. The\nnew pipeline would be installed adjacent to an existing 8-inch pipeline.\nThe revised Department of the Interior Manual Instructions (503 DM 1), dated August 3, 1973, assign\nresponsibility for Department of the Interior coordination and review of Department of the Army permit\napplications to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In accordance with these instructions\nwe submit the following Departmental comments on permit 14015.\nThis report was prepared under the authority of and in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act\n(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.). This report has been coordinated with representatives of\nthe National Marine Fisheries Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.\nThe applicant proposes to install a 2-mile long by 16-inch pipeline which will be buried 4 Feet beneath the bed\nof Nueces Bay. Approximately 36,000 cubic yards of dredged material would be temporarily placed in piles 50\nfeet on either side of the trench with 50-foot breaks or spaces every 200 feet. The pipeline trench would be\nbackfilled where dredge barge flotation is required. The pipeline trench would not be backfilled in waters\nwhere dredge barge flotation is not required and where piles will not represent a navigational hazard. The\npipeline would be buried 4 feet below the surface of an adjacent wetland area. Approximately 21,000 cubic\nyards of dredged material would be temporarily placed 50 feet on either side of the trench and would be used\nas backfill to restore the area to pre-project conditions. All spoil would be used to refill the ditch line.\nThe Nueces Bay and adjacent wetland areas provide high quality habitat for numerous species of fish and\ncrustaceans. Species of fish and crustaceans utilizing the bay include spotted seatrout, sand seatrout, red\ndrum, black drum, sheepshead, Atlantic croaker, flounder, blue crab, and white and brown shrimp. This is an\nimportant use area for sport and commercial fishermen.\nA number of species of waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds occur in the area. The principal species of\nwaterfowl include pintail, gadwall, American wigeon, green-winged teal, lesser scaup, canvas back, and\nredhead. Waterfowl hunting occurs in moderate amounts. Shorebirds and wading birds known to occur in the\narea include roseate spoonbills, herons, egrets, cormorants, willet, sandpipers, plovers, terns, and gulls.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nThe average depth of Nueces Bay along the pipeline route averages 2 feet mean high water. A number of\nscattered oyster reefs exist in the vicinity of the proposed route and may be affected by the proposed project.\nTherefore, the applicant would need to detect and avoid shell reefs while laying the line. Also, much less\nenvironmentally damaging alternatives than laying pipeline as proposed exist; these include, jetting, disking,\nor plowing and using shallow draft barges. Therefore, these alternatives should be considered by the\napplicant. Also, burial to a depth of four feet below the bed of the bay seems excessive since most pipelines\nhave been buried to a depth averaging 2 feet below the bay bottom.\nThe proposed construction in the wetlands would be less damaging if the work was conducted using the\n\"double-ditching\" method of construction. This would entail removal and separation of the top 6-12 inches of\ntopsoil and attached vegetation from the rest of the excavated material so that in the backfilling of the\npipeline, the topsoil can be placed again over the trench to form the surface layer. This would eliminate the\npossiblity that clay or other non productive materials would be placed on the surface and thus not interfere\nwith the restoration of the vegetative cover over the pipeline. Additionally, breaks or gaps would need to be\nplaced between the spoil mounds. All work should be confined to the narrowest right of way possible, not to\nexceed 50 feet on each side.\nTherefore, to minimize harmful effects to fish and wildlife resources, the Department of the Interior\nrecommends that permit 14015 not be issued unless it is conditioned to include the following stipulations:\n1. The applicant should install pipeline by jetting, disking, or plowing across Nueces By to a depth\nnot exceeding 2 feet below the bay bottom.\n2. The applicant shall avoid reefs during pipeline construction.\n3. The use of tracked vehicles with cleats for work in wetlands is prohibited.\n4. For work in wetlands, the \"double-ditch\" method is to be employed so that temporary spoil will\nbe placed no further than 50 feet on either side of the pipeline trench with 50-foot breaks every\n200 feet.\nSincerely yours,\nSAM SPILLER\nActing Field Supervisor\nFor: U. S. Department of the Interior Coordinator\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nUnited States Department of Commerce\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nDuval Building\n9450 Koger Boulevard\nSt. Petersburg, FL 33702\nJanuary 15, 1980 F/SER61/RR\n893-3503\nColonel James M. Sigler\nDistrict Engineer, Galveston District\nDepartment of the Army, Corps of Engineers\nP.O. Box 1229\nGalveston, TX 77550\nDear Colonel Sigler:\nThe National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed Public Notice 14015 dated November 30,\n1979, wherein Sun Pipe Line Company proposes to place a 16-inch pipeline beneath the bed of Nueces Bay at\na location approximately eight miles northwest of Corpus Christi, Texas.\nA report was prepared by Theta Analysis, Inc., under contract with the NMFS. Their field evaluation\nwas conducted on December 19, 1979. A copy of their site description and project impact evaluation is\nenclosed.\nIn view of this enclosed information and our knowledge of comparable activities in similar areas, we\nare convinced that the proposed pipeline laying activities would adversely impact fishery resources for which\nwe are responsible. The proposed activities involve the dredging and filling of vegetated and unvegetated\nwetlands without adequate mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that the permit not be issued unless the\nfollowing conditions are included to minimize potential adverse impacts to marine fishery resources:\n1. In vegetated wetlands, double-ditching techniques shall be employed; and\n2. The Nueces Bay crossing shall be accomplished using dredging techniques which minimize bay-\nbottom disturbances. These methods could include use of shallow-draft vessels to eliminate the need for\nflotation canals in combination with jetting, discing, etc., for pipeline burial. The use of the push-pull\ntechnique for pipeline laying should also be explored.\nIf we can be of further assistance, please advise.\nSincerely yours,\nWilliam H. Stevenson\nRegional Director","truncated":false,"body_characters":19328}