# Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation

- **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:** Not available
- **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>>>

INFORMATION: Section 192.611
Richard L. Beam
Associate Director for Pipeline Safety Regulation, DMT-30
James C. Thomas
Chief, Southern Region
Office of Operations and Enforcement, DMT-16
The following responds to the three questions in your memo of September 10, 1982, about the
proper application of §192.611:
1. Under §192.611(a), an MAOP equivalent to 72 percent of SMYS may be
confirmed for a new Class 2 location. The design pressure referenced in
§192.619(a)(1) is based on original conditions, and does not change with changes
in Class location.
2. Under §192.611(b), a preexisting MAOP must be reduced to provide a hoop stress
that is not more than that allowed for new pipe in the new class location. In
accordance with §§192.105 and 192.111, the maximum hoop stress allowed for
new pipe in a Class 2 location is 60 percent of SMYS.
3. Under §192.611(c), if the operator tests to 90 percent of SMYS, an MAOP
equivalent to 72 percent of SMYS may be confirmed. Section 192.553(d) would
not apply since uprating would not be needed for an MAOP based on 72 percent
of SMYS.
#
DB
C:\WP51\INTERPTR\192\611\82-10-07
1

<<<PAGE 2>>>

Date: September 10, 1982
Subject: ACTION: Clarification of interpretation of Sections 192.611 amd
192.619
From: James C. Thomas, Chief
Southern Region, Pipeline Safety, DMT-16
To: Richard L. Beam
Associate Director for Pipeline Safety Regulation, DMT-30
Following your August 10, 1982 response to my request for interpretation, I discussed the
answers with Mr. Mel Judah and now request further clarification of question 2.
If a transmission operator has an MAOP established under Section 192.619(a)(1) for a Class 1
Location and is operating at a pressure equivalent to 72% SMYS, and the class location
subsequently changes to Class 2 -
1. If the operator qualifies under 192.611(a) can the MAOP be confirmed at the same
pressure (equivalent to 72% SMYS) i.e. is the design pressure limitation under
192.619(a)(1) calculated using the original 72% class location factor or the new
60% factor after the class location change?
2. If the operator qualifies under 192.611(b), would the MAOP be revised to a
pressure equivalent to 60% SMYS?
3. If the operator qualifies under 192.611(c), could the operator confirm the pressure
equivalent to 72% SMYS or must it be reduced to 60% SMYS in accordance with
Section 192.533(d)?
DB
C:\WP51\INTERPTR\192\611\82-10-07
2
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 2407