{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-82-0102","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-82-0102","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1980-02-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-82-0102 concerning 195.248.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-82-0102.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-82-0102.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-82-0102","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1982/g82-05-11_Vragel_195.248-olox.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-82-0102\nFebruary 1, 1980\nMr. Duane M. Swinton\nWitherspoon, Kelley, Davenport & Toole\nAttorneys & Counselors\n11th Floor Old National Bank Building\nSpokane, Washington 99201\nDear Mr. Swinton:\nThis letter is in reply to your letter dated August 2, 1979, requesting an interpretation of Sections 195.248 and\n195.410.\nThe enclosed pipeline safety regulatory interpretation gives the information you requested. Although we find\nthat the sign markings are not in compliance with Section 195.410, another office within the Materials\nTransportation Bureau, the Office of Operations and Enforcement, is responsible for enforcing the regulations\nand any enforcement action that might be taken will come from that office.\nSincerely,\nSIGNED\nCesar De Leon\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nNo. 80-4\nDate: Feb 1, 1989\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nMATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU\nPIPELINE SAFETY REGULATORY INTERPRETATION\nNote: A pipeline safety regulatory interpretation applies a particular rule to\na particular set of facts and circumstances, and, as such, may be relied\nupon only by those persons to wham the interpretation is specifically\naddressed.\nSECTION: §195.248 and 195.410\nSUBJECT: Cover over buried pipeline and wording of pipeline marker.\nFACTS: As given in letter dated August 2, 1979, from Witherspoon Kelley, Davenport & Toole.\n\"The Chevron Pipeline Company constructed a pipeline in 1950. The line was buried at an unknown depth in\nloose soil subject to drifting and blowing. At the time of construction, the land was owned by the U.S.\nGovernment. The land is currently owned by a private individual who purchased the land in 1964. The pipeline\nruns parallel to a railroad track and under an unimproved limited access road which is used occasionally by the\nlandowner for access to his field, by the railroad company, and by fishermen for access to a nearby river.\"\n\"Recently, a construction company attempted to grade the road to gain better access to a house being\nconstructed on adjacent property. The driver of the construction company's road grader walked along the\nroad and saw the marker of Chevron Pipeline Company.\"\n\"The sign was approximately 8 1/2 inches high by 13 1/2 inches long and consisted of words in blue letters\nwith an orange background. The words 'Notice Petroleum Pipelines' were on the sign in all capital letters one\ninch high. Below the words 'Notice Petroleum Pipelines' were the words 'Before Digging in this Vicinity call\ncollect Chevron Pipeline Company 801-359-3098, Salt Lake City, Utah' in letters approximately 1/2 inch high.\"\n\"The driver of the grader did not call the number as instructed on the sign. Had he called the dispatcher in Salt\nLake City, the dispatcher would have notified the area supervisor who is then instructed to send Chevron\npersonnel to the location where the construction is to occur to locate the lines for digging. Because the\ndispatcher was not called, the line was ruptured by the road grader, resulting in extensive damage to the\nneighboring farm and loss of Chevron fuel product. Following the accident, it was determined that the road\ngrader had removed approximately one to two feet of soil from above the ruptured pipeline before striking it.\"\nQuestion: Is the cover over the buried line in compliance with 195.248 and is the wording on the pipeline\nmarker in compliance with 195.410? Are these the first Federal regulations adopted concerning these\nmatters?\nInterpretation: Compliance with 195.248 is not required because this section applies only to pipelines\nconstructed after October 4, 1969, whereas the pipeline was constructed in 1950. The sign markings do not\ncontain the word \"Warning\" and are, therefore not in compliance with 195.410. These are the first Federal\nregulations adopted concerning these matters.\nSIGNED\nCesar De Leon\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nJanuary 23 1970\nMr. William V. Bud Porter\nPresident\nThe Porter Company\nNew Braunfels, Texas 78130\nDear Mr. Porter:\nThis is in answer to your letter of December 15, 1969, requesting clarification of Section 195.410 of the\nDepartment of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations. Specifically, your question involved markers\nat navigable waterway crossings and whether on such markers all lettering must be 12 inches high with a\nstroke of approximately 1 3/4 inches or just the lettering in the words \"Do Not Anchor or Dredge.\"\nMarkers located at navigable waterway crossings must contain all of the information required on other\nmarkers, and in addition, must contain the words \"Do Not Anchor or Dredge.\" The intent of Section\n195.410 is that just the words \"Do Not Anchor or Dredge\" be of lettering not less than 12 inches high with an\napproximate stroke of 1 3/4 inches. All other lettering required by Section 195.410 on markers at navigable\nwatering crossings including the name of the carrier and telephone number must be at least 1 inch high with\nan approximate stroke of ¼ inch\nSincerely\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDeputy Director\nMine of Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nMr. Clint McClure, Project Manager\nResource Sciences Center\n6600 S. Yale Avenue\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74136\nDear Mr. McClure:\nThis letter is in response to your inquiry dated August 7, 1978, regarding interpretation of the term \"navigable\nwaterway\" as it appears in Section (a) (2) of paragraph 195.410.\nNavigable waters or waterways include those waterways which have h6ett designated as being navigable by\nPart 2 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations.\nThe term \"navigable waters of the United States\" is defined in Subpart 2.10-5 of 33 CFR where it states that.\n\". . . navigable waters of the United States shall be construed to mean those waters of the United States,\nincluding the territorial seas adjacent thereto, the general character of which is navigable and which either by\nthemselves or by uniting with other waters, form a continuous waterway on which boats or vessels may\nnavigate or travel between two or more States, or to or from foreign nations . . .\"\nIf we can be any further assistance, please advise.\nSincerely,\nCesar De Leon\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulations\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nJune 20, 1978\nMr. G. V. Rohleder\nMid-America Pipeline System\n1800 South Baltimore Avenue\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74119\nDear Mr. Rohleder:\nThis is in further response to your letter of November 28, 1977, requesting a waiver of compliance with the\nrequirements of 49 CFR 195.410, regarding line markers for four river crossing. (Docket No.,78-1).\nWe have reviewed your request in light of the Section 195.410 requirements governing markers at river\ncrossings. Section 195.410 (a) (1) requires that markers be located at each public road crossing, at each\nrailroad crossing, and in sufficient number along the remainder of each buried line so that its location is\naccurately known. That section does not specifically require that a carrier install line markers at navigable or\nother waterway crossings. If markers are necessary at, the four river crossings in order that the location of the\npipeline is accurately known, then a waiver of the requirements of Section 195.410(a) (2) would be required\nfor not installing \"Do Not Anchorage or Dredge\" signs at these streams.\nSince your waiver request may be unnecessary, we will withhold action on your request pending your advising\nus if such a request is necessary.\nSincerely,\nSIGNED\nCesar De Leon\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nOctober 7, 1974\nMr. Clarence J. Yablonski\nDirector of Safety\nSun Pipe Line Company\nGeneral Washington Building\n216 Goddard Boulevard\nKing of Prussia, PA 19406\nDear Mr. Yablonski:\nThis responds to your letter of June 21, 1974, concerning the practice of marking pipelines installed in a\ncommon trench. You state that four pipelines (both liquid and gas pipelines) are in the trench which varies in\nwidth from 6 to 10 feet. Currently, markers are installed at each edge o the trench so that a pipeline is no\nmore than 5 feet away from a marker. You ask whether this practice complies with 49 CFR 195.410.\nSection 195.410(a) requires carriers to place and maintain line markers \"over each\" buried liquid line at certain\nlocations. From the information you have provided, it is unclear whether a marker is \"over each\" liquid line.\nThe only pipelines which would be marked as required are the ones at each side of the trench, but you do not\nstate whether these lines carry liquid or gas. Any liquid line which lies in between the pipelines at each side of\nthe trench does not have a marker over it, and consequently, is not marked in accordance with section\n195.410(a).\nMoreover, neither the existing nor the proposed line marking, signs display the word \"petroleum\" or name the\ncommodity transported, as required by §195.410(a)(2).\nWith respect to the gas pipelines in the trench, placement of the markers as you have described is in\naccordance with 49 CFR 192.707, presuming the gas pipelines are transmission lines. You should note,\nhowever, that this rule is the subject of a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on\nMay 25, 1972, a copy of which is enclosed. As a result of this proceeding, we expect to revise section 192.707\nin the near future. If a final rule is adopted as proposed, a line marker would be required over each gas main\nor transmission line, similarly as required for liquid lines. Also, the words \"Warning Gas Pipeline\" would be\nrequired on each line marking sign. This latter proposed requirement should be of concern to you because\nneither your current signs nor the signs you intend to purchase bear the word \"gas.\"\nWe appreciate your concern for pipeline safety.\nSincerely,\nSINGNED\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nJanuary 10, 1973\nM. W. A. Elliott\nSenior Vice President\nWilliams Brothers Pipeline Company\nP.O. Drawer 3448\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74101\nDear Mk. Elliott:\nThis refers to your correspondence dated December 4, 1972, concerning pipeline markers at the residence of Stephen P.\nand Evelyn V. Stimac.\nWith exceptions not here pertinent, Section 195.410(a) specifically provides that a marker shall be placed \". . . over each\nburied line. . .\" Therefore, you are correct in your interpretation. When we stated in our previous letter that the Federal\nregulations on line markers afford necessary flexibility to the carrier in his method of compliance, we had reference to\nsuch things as vertical positioning, overall size, or height of markers which are not wavered by the regulations. We were\nnot suggesting that you develop a marking policy that did not comply with Section 195.410. The safety objective will not\nbe met if you are allowed to mark multiple lines with only one line marker. Therefore, we do not agree that using a\nsingle marker over multiple lines in residential areas such as the Stimacs' is an acceptable solution.\nIn our previous letter we referenced the API publication for marking liquid pipelines. In this publication API recognized\nthat different type markers could be used and suggested some alternatives for the operators' consideration.\nPlease review your policy for marking pipelines in residential areas. We suggest that you consider developing a marking\npolicy that would be more satisfactory to the property owners and still comply with Section 195.410.\nIf we may be of any further assistance to you in this matter, please advise.\nSincerely,\nSIGNED\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nSanta Fe industries, Inc.\n224 S. Michigan Ave\nChicago, Illinois 60604\nMay 11, 1982\nMr. Melvin A. Judah\nActing Associate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\nUnited States Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Judah:\nThank you for the copies of the six interpretations previously made of 49 CFR 195.410, sent to me\nunder date of May 6, 1982.\nIn order to assist us in reviewing these interpretations, may we please ask for copies of the letters to\nwhich those interpretations are responsive, in particular the letter dated August 2, 1979, from Mr. Duane M.\nSwinton; the letter dated January 23, 1980, from Mr. William V. Bud Porter; the letter dated August 7, 1978,\nfrom Mr. Clint McClure; the letter dated November 28, 1977, from Mr. G. V. Rohleder; the letter dated June\n21, 1974, from Mr. Clarence J. Yablonski; and the letter dated December 4, 1972, from Mr. W. A. Elliott.\nWe are interested in obtaining a description of the specific fact situation underlying each\ninterpretation. To that end, then, we would have no objection to your deleting from those letters any\ninformation which does not pertain to the fact situation under review, Again, thank you very much.\nSincerely,\nKurt E. Vragel, Jr.\nAssistant General Attorney\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nMay 6, 1982\nMr. Kurt E. Vragel, Jr.\nAssistant General Attorney\nSanta Fe Industries, Inc.\n224 S. Michigan Avenue\nChicago, Illinois 60604\nDear Mr. Vragel:\nIn response to your letter of April 7, 1982, I have enclosed copies of six interpretations previously made of 49\nCFR 195.410.\nSincerely,\nSIGNED\nMelvin A. Judah\nActing Associate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nSanta Fe Industries, Inc.\n224 S. Michigan Ave.\nChicago, Illinois 60604\nApril 7, 1982\nMr. Judah\nOffice of Pipeline Safety Regulation\nRoom 8423\nDepartment of Transportation\nNassif Building\n400 - 7th Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Judah:\nWould you please send me copies of all interpretations, made by the Department of Transportation, of\nthe pipeline marking section of the hazardous liquids pipeline transportation safety regulations, 49 C.F.R.\n195.410. We will pay any costs involved; please advise me by telephone at 312/347-3119 of any such costs.\nThank you very much.\nSincerely,\nKurt E. Vragel, Jr.\nAssistant General Attorney","truncated":false,"body_characters":14103}