Talk:Change in Location Classifications
1) Spacing of mainline valves: Consider deleting this row. It overlaps with the isolation plan requirements further down, and is very hard to change.
2) Min depth of cover: Prefer to replace Column 3 content with "Not easily changed for operating pipelines. Slabbing may be acceptable alternative subject to SMS." (Not edited directly because table syntax is inscrutable.)
3) If shallow cover allowable: Almost inconceivable that this would become an issue in a loc cl change situation (because shallow cover is allowed only in extremely remote locations) - suggest deleting this row.
4) As-built survey accuracy requirements: Suggest deleting, already noted as not applicable.
5) Pre-qualified design allowable: As above.
6) Pressure testing with air or gas: As above.
1), 3), 4), 5), 6) Deleting the rows feels incomplete, like we've missed something, if we don't address all the locations where the location class is referenced in relation to design. It may help for those considering relocation, to also see which tighter requirements apply, in different scenarios (and where there's no difference).
2) Table replaced with this update (and maintaining others) to avoid the split line cells; easier to edit. Doesn't look as good on screen though...
5) What about the case of an originally installed prequalified design, that has had population increase around it (to T2, maybe not ever likely though...)
Revised and tidied up table and have stored it on shared drive (which I think is no longer shared?); the website used for converting the table is: http://www.tablesgenerator.com/mediawiki_tables#