{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-83-012","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1983-07-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-83-012 response to Memo: Internal concerning 192.327.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-012","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1983/PI83012.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJuly 26-27, 1983\nNAMES OF PERSONS: Mike Kidd and Frank Fulton\nSUBJECT: Interpretation: 192.327 depth of cover in waterways\nDIGEST: Kdid [sic] asked if \"navigable\" in 192.327(e) applied to river, stream and harbor, or\nonly river. If it applied only to rivers, then all pipelines in streams and harbors would have to be\nburied 48\" deep.\nFulton recalled that the concern during rulemaking was with large vessels only - anchors, etc. -\nand felt that the term \"navigable\" applied to all three. Therefore, it would not be necessary to\nhave 48\" of cover in all streams, rivers, and harbors. Only those streams, rivers, and harbors\nwhich support large vessel (ships, barges, etc.) traffic would require 48\" of cover for a buried\npipeline crossing. Less cover depth would be required for smaller or shallower streams, rivers,\nand harbors that do not support large vessel traffic.\nCONCLUSION: Notified Kidd of this \"determination\"\nIvan A. Huntoon\ndal\\192\\327\\83-07-26\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":973}