{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-82-019","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1982-10-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-82-019 response to Memo: Internal concerning 192.611.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-82-019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-82-019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-82-019","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1982/PI82019.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nINFORMATION: Section 192.611\nRichard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for Pipeline Safety Regulation, DMT-30\nJames C. Thomas\nChief, Southern Region\nOffice of Operations and Enforcement, DMT-16\nThe following responds to the three questions in your memo of September 10, 1982, about the\nproper application of §192.611:\n1. Under §192.611(a), an MAOP equivalent to 72 percent of SMYS may be\nconfirmed for a new Class 2 location. The design pressure referenced in\n§192.619(a)(1) is based on original conditions, and does not change with changes\nin Class location.\n2. Under §192.611(b), a preexisting MAOP must be reduced to provide a hoop stress\nthat is not more than that allowed for new pipe in the new class location. In\naccordance with §§192.105 and 192.111, the maximum hoop stress allowed for\nnew pipe in a Class 2 location is 60 percent of SMYS.\n3. Under §192.611(c), if the operator tests to 90 percent of SMYS, an MAOP\nequivalent to 72 percent of SMYS may be confirmed. Section 192.553(d) would\nnot apply since uprating would not be needed for an MAOP based on 72 percent\nof SMYS.\n#\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPTR\\192\\611\\82-10-07\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDate: September 10, 1982\nSubject: ACTION: Clarification of interpretation of Sections 192.611 amd\n192.619\nFrom: James C. Thomas, Chief\nSouthern Region, Pipeline Safety, DMT-16\nTo: Richard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for Pipeline Safety Regulation, DMT-30\nFollowing your August 10, 1982 response to my request for interpretation, I discussed the\nanswers with Mr. Mel Judah and now request further clarification of question 2.\nIf a transmission operator has an MAOP established under Section 192.619(a)(1) for a Class 1\nLocation and is operating at a pressure equivalent to 72% SMYS, and the class location\nsubsequently changes to Class 2 -\n1. If the operator qualifies under 192.611(a) can the MAOP be confirmed at the same\npressure (equivalent to 72% SMYS) i.e. is the design pressure limitation under\n192.619(a)(1) calculated using the original 72% class location factor or the new\n60% factor after the class location change?\n2. If the operator qualifies under 192.611(b), would the MAOP be revised to a\npressure equivalent to 60% SMYS?\n3. If the operator qualifies under 192.611(c), could the operator confirm the pressure\nequivalent to 72% SMYS or must it be reduced to 60% SMYS in accordance with\nSection 192.533(d)?\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPTR\\192\\611\\82-10-07\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":2407}