{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-92-022","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1992-05-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-92-022 response to Memo: Internal concerning 192.59.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-92-022.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-92-022.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-92-022","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1992/PI92022.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nDate:May 28, 1992\nSubject: Use of Multilayer Plastic Pipe\nFrom: Cesar De Leon\nDirector, Pipeline Safety Regulatory Programs, DPS-10\nTo: Richard Sanders\nManager, Pipeline Safety Division, DMA-607\nThis responds to your memo of December 3, 1991, on the use of multilayer plastic\npipe in gas pipelines. Your memo indicated that some forms of multilayer plastic\npipe may have been used in gas pipelines, but that such pipe is not covered by\nASTM D 2513.\nAs you know, plastic pipe that does not qualify under ASTM D2513 or ASTM\nD2517 may not be installed in service under Part 192. (§ 192.59) I considered\nyour suggestion that an alert notice might be an appropriate response. However,\nbased on our staff discussion with field personnel, the problem does not seem\npotentially widespread enough to warrant an alert notice. As a matter of\nnoncompliance, I believe it can reasonable be rectified by enforcement actions.\nWe will continue to monitor this issue to determine its impact on pipeline safety.\n#\njt\n192.59/92-05-28","truncated":false,"body_characters":1028}