{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-89-016","title":"Looper, Reed, Ewing & McGraw, Incorporated — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1989-08-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-89-016 response to Looper, Reed, Ewing & McGraw, Incorporated concerning 192.317, 192.319.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-89-016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-89-016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-89-016","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1989/PI89016.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nMr. Douglas B. Wyatt\nLooper, Reed, Ewing & McGraw Incorporated\nAttorneys\nSuite 1717\nNine Greenway Plaza\nHouston, Texas 77046\nDear Mr. Wyatt:\nYour letter of July 20, 1989, asks what protection other than minimum burial under §192.319(c)\nmay be required to protect offshore pipelines against the potential hazards listed in §192.317(a).\nSection 192.317(a) requires operators to provide a reasonable level of protection for offshore\npipelines against the anticipated effects of each listed hazard that could threaten the pipeline.\nDepending on the nature and level of the risk perceived, the protection might include any one or\ncombination of the following, based on sound engineering judgment; deeper burial, anchorage,\ngreater wall thickness, added flexibility, heavy concrete coating, or any other measure considered\nnecessary to protect the pipeline against foreseeable damage.\nI trust this information is helpful to you.\nSincerely,\n/signed/\nJames C. Thomas\nActing Director\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\317\\89-08-31\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":1053}