{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-80-019","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1980-10-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-80-019 response to Memo: Internal concerning 195.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-80-019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-80-019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-80-019","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1980/PI80019.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nACTION: Interpretation of the term \"otherwise changed\" as that\nterm is used in section 195.300\nMelvin A. Judah\nActing Associate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation, DMT-30\nDMT-14\nThis memo replies to your memo dated June 30, 1980, in which you\nrequest an interpretation of the term \"otherwise changed,\" as that\nterm is used in section 195.300.\nAttachment\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\300\\80-10-24\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nNo. 80-15\nDate: October 24,\n1980\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nMATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU\nFACTS: _________________________________________________________________\nPIPELINE SAFETY REGULATORY INTERPRETATION\n_________________________________________________________________No\nte:A pipeline safety regulatory interpretation applies a particular\nrule to a particular set of facts and circumstances, and, as such,\nmay be relied upon only by those persons to whom the interpretation\nis specifically addressed.\nSECTION: 195.300\nSUBJECT: Interpretation of the term \"otherwise changed\" as that\nterm is used in section 195.300.\nAs given in memorandum dated June 30, 1980, from Chief,\nCentral Region, DMT-14, thru Associate Director for\nOperations and Enforcement, DMT-10, to Acting Associate\nDirector for Pipeline Safety Regulation, DMT-30.\nAn existing bare pipeline is reconditioned in place by the\nfollowing:\n1. Uncovering\n2. Cleaning (sandblasting and wire brush)\n3. Repair by half sole or other acceptable procedure\n4. Coat\n5. Backfill\nQuestion: Must the line be hydrostatically tested after\nreconditioning by virtue of being \"otherwise changed.\"\nInterpretation:Under section 195.300, an existing pipeline must be\nhydrostatically tested if it is replaced, relocated, or \"otherwise\nchanged.\" The purpose of the hydrostatic test is to assure the\nstructural integrity of the replaced, relocated, or changed\npipeline. Although a presumption is made that relocations and\nreplacements by their very nature involve construction activities\nthat would create doubt over the continued structural integrity of\nthe pipeline, the same is not true for the variety of changes that\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\300\\80-10-24\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\ncan be made to an existing line. Hence, if an existing line is\nchanged in a manner that has the potential to compromise the\nstructural integrity of the pipeline, a new hydrostatic test is\nrequired.\nMelvin A. Judah\nActing Associate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\300\\80-10-24\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":2530}