Home
gpo.gov
govinfo.gov

e-CFR Navigation Aids

Browse

Simple Search

Advanced Search

 — Boolean

 — Proximity

 

Search History

Search Tips

Corrections

Latest Updates

User Info

FAQs

Agency List

Incorporation By Reference

eCFR logo

Related Resources

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

We invite you to try out our new beta eCFR site at https://ecfr.federalregister.gov. We???ve made big changes to make the eCFR easier to use. Be sure to leave feedback using the Help button on the bottom right of each page!

e-CFR data is current as of August 12, 2020

Title 49Subtitle BChapter ISubchapter DPart 192 → Subpart O


Title 49: Transportation
PART 192—TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS


Subpart O—Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management


Contents
§192.901   What do the regulations in this subpart cover?
§192.903   What definitions apply to this subpart?
§192.905   How does an operator identify a high consequence area?
§192.907   What must an operator do to implement this subpart?
§192.909   How can an operator change its integrity management program?
§192.911   What are the elements of an integrity management program?
§192.913   When may an operator deviate its program from certain requirements of this subpart?
§192.915   What knowledge and training must personnel have to carry out an integrity management program?
§192.917   How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and use the threat identification in its integrity program?
§192.919   What must be in the baseline assessment plan?
§192.921   How is the baseline assessment to be conducted?
§192.923   How is direct assessment used and for what threats?
§192.925   What are the requirements for using External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA)?
§192.927   What are the requirements for using Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA)?
§192.929   What are the requirements for using Direct Assessment for Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCCDA)?
§192.931   How may Confirmatory Direct Assessment (CDA) be used?
§192.933   What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?
§192.935   What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take?
§192.937   What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a pipeline's integrity?
§192.939   What are the required reassessment intervals?
§192.941   What is a low stress reassessment?
§192.943   When can an operator deviate from these reassessment intervals?
§192.945   What methods must an operator use to measure program effectiveness?
§192.947   What records must an operator keep?
§192.949   [Reserved]
§192.951   Where does an operator file a report?

Source: 68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, unless otherwise noted.

return arrow Back to Top

§192.901   What do the regulations in this subpart cover?

This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for an integrity management program on any gas transmission pipeline covered under this part. For gas transmission pipelines constructed of plastic, only the requirements in §§192.917, 192.921, 192.935 and 192.937 apply.

return arrow Back to Top

§192.903   What definitions apply to this subpart?

The following definitions apply to this subpart:

Assessment is the use of testing techniques as allowed in this subpart to ascertain the condition of a covered pipeline segment.

Confirmatory direct assessment is an integrity assessment method using more focused application of the principles and techniques of direct assessment to identify internal and external corrosion in a covered transmission pipeline segment.

Covered segment or covered pipeline segment means a segment of gas transmission pipeline located in a high consequence area. The terms gas and transmission line are defined in §192.3.

Direct assessment is an integrity assessment method that utilizes a process to evaluate certain threats (i.e., external corrosion, internal corrosion and stress corrosion cracking) to a covered pipeline segment's integrity. The process includes the gathering and integration of risk factor data, indirect examination or analysis to identify areas of suspected corrosion, direct examination of the pipeline in these areas, and post assessment evaluation.

High consequence area means an area established by one of the methods described in paragraphs (1) or (2) as follows:

(1) An area defined as—

(i) A Class 3 location under §192.5; or

(ii) A Class 4 location under §192.5; or

(iii) Any area in a Class 1 or Class 2 location where the potential impact radius is greater than 660 feet (200 meters), and the area within a potential impact circle contains 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or

(iv) Any area in a Class 1 or Class 2 location where the potential impact circle contains an identified site.

(2) The area within a potential impact circle containing—

(i) 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy, unless the exception in paragraph (4) applies; or

(ii) An identified site.

(3) Where a potential impact circle is calculated under either method (1) or (2) to establish a high consequence area, the length of the high consequence area extends axially along the length of the pipeline from the outermost edge of the first potential impact circle that contains either an identified site or 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy to the outermost edge of the last contiguous potential impact circle that contains either an identified site or 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy. (See figure E.I.A. in appendix E.)

(4) If in identifying a high consequence area under paragraph (1)(iii) of this definition or paragraph (2)(i) of this definition, the radius of the potential impact circle is greater than 660 feet (200 meters), the operator may identify a high consequence area based on a prorated number of buildings intended for human occupancy with a distance of 660 feet (200 meters) from the centerline of the pipeline until December 17, 2006. If an operator chooses this approach, the operator must prorate the number of buildings intended for human occupancy based on the ratio of an area with a radius of 660 feet (200 meters) to the area of the potential impact circle (i.e., the prorated number of buildings intended for human occupancy is equal to 20 × (660 feet) [or 200 meters]/potential impact radius in feet [or meters]2).

Identified site means each of the following areas:

(a) An outside area or open structure that is occupied by twenty (20) or more persons on at least 50 days in any twelve (12)-month period. (The days need not be consecutive.) Examples include but are not limited to, beaches, playgrounds, recreational facilities, camping grounds, outdoor theaters, stadiums, recreational areas near a body of water, or areas outside a rural building such as a religious facility; or

(b) A building that is occupied by twenty (20) or more persons on at least five (5) days a week for ten (10) weeks in any twelve (12)-month period. (The days and weeks need not be consecutive.) Examples include, but are not limited to, religious facilities, office buildings, community centers, general stores, 4-H facilities, or roller skating rinks; or

(c) A facility occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate. Examples include but are not limited to hospitals, prisons, schools, day-care facilities, retirement facilities or assisted-living facilities.

Potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius (PIR).

Potential impact radius (PIR) means the radius of a circle within which the potential failure of a pipeline could have significant impact on people or property. PIR is determined by the formula r = 0.69* (square root of (p*d2)), where ‘r’ is the radius of a circular area in feet surrounding the point of failure, ‘p’ is the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) in the pipeline segment in pounds per square inch and ‘d’ is the nominal diameter of the pipeline in inches.

Note: 0.69 is the factor for natural gas. This number will vary for other gases depending upon their heat of combustion. An operator transporting gas other than natural gas must use section 3.2 of ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) to calculate the impact radius formula.

Remediation is a repair or mitigation activity an operator takes on a covered segment to limit or reduce the probability of an undesired event occurring or the expected consequences from the event.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18231, Apr. 6, 2004; Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 29904, May 26, 2004; Amdt. 192-103, 72 FR 4657, Feb. 1, 2007; Amdt. 192-119, 80 FR 181, Jan. 5, 2015]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.905   How does an operator identify a high consequence area?

(a) General. To determine which segments of an operator's transmission pipeline system are covered by this subpart, an operator must identify the high consequence areas. An operator must use method (1) or (2) from the definition in §192.903 to identify a high consequence area. An operator may apply one method to its entire pipeline system, or an operator may apply one method to individual portions of the pipeline system. An operator must describe in its integrity management program which method it is applying to each portion of the operator's pipeline system. The description must include the potential impact radius when utilized to establish a high consequence area. (See appendix E.I. for guidance on identifying high consequence areas.)

(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for purposes of this subpart, from information the operator has obtained from routine operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of locations that meet the identified site criteria. These public officials could include officials on a local emergency planning commission or relevant Native American tribal officials.

(2) If a public official with safety or emergency response or planning responsibilities informs an operator that it does not have the information to identify an identified site, the operator must use one of the following sources, as appropriate, to identify these sites.

(i) Visible marking (e.g., a sign); or

(ii) The site is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local government agency; or

(iii) The site is on a list (including a list on an internet web site) or map maintained by or available from a Federal, State, or local government agency and available to the general public.

(c) Newly identified areas. When an operator has information that the area around a pipeline segment not previously identified as a high consequence area could satisfy any of the definitions in §192.903, the operator must complete the evaluation using method (1) or (2). If the segment is determined to meet the definition as a high consequence area, it must be incorporated into the operator's baseline assessment plan as a high consequence area within one year from the date the area is identified.

return arrow Back to Top

§192.907   What must an operator do to implement this subpart?

(a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of a covered pipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity management program that contains all the elements described in §192.911 and that addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment. The initial integrity management program must consist, at a minimum, of a framework that describes the process for implementing each program element, how relevant decisions will be made and by whom, a time line for completing the work to implement the program element, and how information gained from experience will be continuously incorporated into the program. The framework will evolve into a more detailed and comprehensive program. An operator must make continual improvements to the program.

(b) Implementation Standards. In carrying out this subpart, an operator must follow the requirements of this subpart and of ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) and its appendices, where specified. An operator may follow an equivalent standard or practice only when the operator demonstrates the alternative standard or practice provides an equivalent level of safety to the public and property. In the event of a conflict between this subpart and ASME/ANSI B31.8S, the requirements in this subpart control.

return arrow Back to Top

§192.909   How can an operator change its integrity management program?

(a) General. An operator must document any change to its program and the reasons for the change before implementing the change.

(b) Notification. An operator must notify OPS, in accordance with §192.18, of any change to the program that may substantially affect the program's implementation or may significantly modify the program or schedule for carrying out the program elements. An operator must provide notification within 30 days after adopting this type of change into its program.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18231, Apr. 6, 2004; Amdt. No. 192-125, 84 FR 52253, Oct. 1, 2019]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.911   What are the elements of an integrity management program?

An operator's initial integrity management program begins with a framework (see §192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and comprehensive integrity management program, as information is gained and incorporated into the program. An operator must make continual improvements to its program. The initial program framework and subsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements. (When indicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) for more detailed information on the listed element.)

(a) An identification of all high consequence areas, in accordance with §192.905.

(b) A baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of §192.919 and §192.921.

(c) An identification of threats to each covered pipeline segment, which must include data integration and a risk assessment. An operator must use the threat identification and risk assessment to prioritize covered segments for assessment (§192.917) and to evaluate the merits of additional preventive and mitigative measures (§192.935) for each covered segment.

(d) A direct assessment plan, if applicable, meeting the requirements of §192.923, and depending on the threat assessed, of §§192.925, 192.927, or 192.929.

(e) Provisions meeting the requirements of §192.933 for remediating conditions found during an integrity assessment.

(f) A process for continual evaluation and assessment meeting the requirements of §192.937.

(g) If applicable, a plan for confirmatory direct assessment meeting the requirements of §192.931.

(h) Provisions meeting the requirements of §192.935 for adding preventive and mitigative measures to protect the high consequence area.

(i) A performance plan as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 9 that includes performance measures meeting the requirements of §192.945.

(j) Record keeping provisions meeting the requirements of §192.947.

(k) A management of change process as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 11.

(l) A quality assurance process as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 12.

(m) A communication plan that includes the elements of ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 10, and that includes procedures for addressing safety concerns raised by—

(1) OPS; and

(2) A State or local pipeline safety authority when a covered segment is located in a State where OPS has an interstate agent agreement.

(n) Procedures for providing (when requested), by electronic or other means, a copy of the operator's risk analysis or integrity management program to—

(1) OPS; and

(2) A State or local pipeline safety authority when a covered segment is located in a State where OPS has an interstate agent agreement.

(o) Procedures for ensuring that each integrity assessment is being conducted in a manner that minimizes environmental and safety risks.

(p) A process for identification and assessment of newly-identified high consequence areas. (See §192.905 and §192.921.)

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18231, Apr. 6, 2004]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.913   When may an operator deviate its program from certain requirements of this subpart?

(a) General. ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) provides the essential features of a performance-based or a prescriptive integrity management program. An operator that uses a performance-based approach that satisfies the requirements for exceptional performance in paragraph (b) of this section may deviate from certain requirements in this subpart, as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Exceptional performance. An operator must be able to demonstrate the exceptional performance of its integrity management program through the following actions.

(1) To deviate from any of the requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, an operator must have a performance-based integrity management program that meets or exceed the performance-based requirements of ASME/ANSI B31.8S and includes, at a minimum, the following elements—

(i) A comprehensive process for risk analysis;

(ii) All risk factor data used to support the program;

(iii) A comprehensive data integration process;

(iv) A procedure for applying lessons learned from assessment of covered pipeline segments to pipeline segments not covered by this subpart;

(v) A procedure for evaluating every incident, including its cause, within the operator's sector of the pipeline industry for implications both to the operator's pipeline system and to the operator's integrity management program;

(vi) A performance matrix that demonstrates the program has been effective in ensuring the integrity of the covered segments by controlling the identified threats to the covered segments;

(vii) Semi-annual performance measures beyond those required in §192.945 that are part of the operator's performance plan. (See §192.911(i).) An operator must submit these measures, by electronic or other means, on a semi-annual frequency to OPS in accordance with §192.951; and

(viii) An analysis that supports the desired integrity reassessment interval and the remediation methods to be used for all covered segments.

(2) In addition to the requirements for the performance-based plan, an operator must—

(i) Have completed at least two integrity assessments on each covered pipeline segment the operator is including under the performance-based approach, and be able to demonstrate that each assessment effectively addressed the identified threats on the covered segment.

(ii) Remediate all anomalies identified in the more recent assessment according to the requirements in §192.933, and incorporate the results and lessons learned from the more recent assessment into the operator's data integration and risk assessment.

(c) Deviation. Once an operator has demonstrated that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, the operator may deviate from the prescriptive requirements of ASME/ANSI B31.8S and of this subpart only in the following instances.

(1) The time frame for reassessment as provided in §192.939 except that reassessment by some method allowed under this subpart (e.g., confirmatory direct assessment) must be carried out at intervals no longer than seven years;

(2) The time frame for remediation as provided in §192.933 if the operator demonstrates the time frame will not jeopardize the safety of the covered segment.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18231, Apr. 6, 2004]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.915   What knowledge and training must personnel have to carry out an integrity management program?

(a) Supervisory personnel. The integrity management program must provide that each supervisor whose responsibilities relate to the integrity management program possesses and maintains a thorough knowledge of the integrity management program and of the elements for which the supervisor is responsible. The program must provide that any person who qualifies as a supervisor for the integrity management program has appropriate training or experience in the area for which the person is responsible.

(b) Persons who carry out assessments and evaluate assessment results. The integrity management program must provide criteria for the qualification of any person—

(1) Who conducts an integrity assessment allowed under this subpart; or

(2) Who reviews and analyzes the results from an integrity assessment and evaluation; or

(3) Who makes decisions on actions to be taken based on these assessments.

(c) Persons responsible for preventive and mitigative measures. The integrity management program must provide criteria for the qualification of any person—

(1) Who implements preventive and mitigative measures to carry out this subpart, including the marking and locating of buried structures; or

(2) Who directly supervises excavation work carried out in conjunction with an integrity assessment.

return arrow Back to Top

§192.917   How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and use the threat identification in its integrity program?

(a) Threat identification. An operator must identify and evaluate all potential threats to each covered pipeline segment. Potential threats that an operator must consider include, but are not limited to, the threats listed in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 2, which are grouped under the following four categories:

(1) Time dependent threats such as internal corrosion, external corrosion, and stress corrosion cracking;

(2) Static or resident threats, such as fabrication or construction defects;

(3) Time independent threats such as third party damage, mechanical damage, incorrect operational procedure, weather related and outside force damage to include consideration of seismicity, geology, and soil stability of the area; and

(4) Human error.

(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the potential threats to a covered pipeline segment, an operator must gather and integrate existing data and information on the entire pipeline that could be relevant to the covered segment. In performing this data gathering and integration, an operator must follow the requirements in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 4. At a minimum, an operator must gather and evaluate the set of data specified in Appendix A to ASME/ANSI B31.8S, and consider both on the covered segment and similar non-covered segments, past incident history, corrosion control records, continuing surveillance records, patrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection records and all other conditions specific to each pipeline.

(c) Risk assessment. An operator must conduct a risk assessment that follows ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 5, and considers the identified threats for each covered segment. An operator must use the risk assessment to prioritize the covered segments for the baseline and continual reassessments (§§192.919, 192.921, 192.937), and to determine what additional preventive and mitigative measures are needed (§192.935) for the covered segment.

(d) Plastic transmission pipeline. An operator of a plastic transmission pipeline must assess the threats to each covered segment using the information in sections 4 and 5 of ASME B31.8S, and consider any threats unique to the integrity of plastic pipe.

(e) Actions to address particular threats. If an operator identifies any of the following threats, the operator must take the following actions to address the threat.

(1) Third party damage. An operator must utilize the data integration required in paragraph (b) of this section and ASME/ANSI B31.8S, Appendix A7 to determine the susceptibility of each covered segment to the threat of third party damage. If an operator identifies the threat of third party damage, the operator must implement comprehensive additional preventive measures in accordance with §192.935 and monitor the effectiveness of the preventive measures. If, in conducting a baseline assessment under §192.921, or a reassessment under §192.937, an operator uses an internal inspection tool or external corrosion direct assessment, the operator must integrate data from these assessments with data related to any encroachment or foreign line crossing on the covered segment, to define where potential indications of third party damage may exist in the covered segment. An operator must also have procedures in its integrity management program addressing actions it will take to respond to findings from this data integration.

(2) Cyclic fatigue. An operator must analyze and account for whether cyclic fatigue or other loading conditions (including ground movement, and suspension bridge condition) could lead to a failure of a deformation, including a dent or gouge, crack, or other defect in the covered segment. The analysis must assume the presence of threats in the covered segment that could be exacerbated by cyclic fatigue. An operator must use the results from the analysis together with the criteria used to determine the significance of the threat(s) to the covered segment to prioritize the integrity baseline assessment or reassessment. Failure stress pressure and crack growth analysis of cracks and crack-like defects must be conducted in accordance with §192.712. An operator must monitor operating pressure cycles and periodically, but at least every 7 calendar years, with intervals not to exceed 90 months, determine if the cyclic fatigue analysis remains valid or if the cyclic fatigue analysis must be revised based on changes to operating pressure cycles or other loading conditions.

(3) Manufacturing and construction defects. An operator must analyze the covered segment to determine and account for the risk of failure from manufacturing and construction defects (including seam defects) in the covered segment. The analysis must account for the results of prior assessments on the covered segment. An operator may consider manufacturing and construction related defects to be stable defects only if the covered segment has been subjected to hydrostatic pressure testing satisfying the criteria of subpart J of at least 1.25 times MAOP, and the covered segment has not experienced a reportable incident attributed to a manufacturing or construction defect since the date of the most recent subpart J pressure test. If any of the following changes occur in the covered segment, an operator must prioritize the covered segment as a high-risk segment for the baseline assessment or a subsequent reassessment.

(i) The pipeline segment has experienced a reportable incident, as defined in §191.3, since its most recent successful subpart J pressure test, due to an original manufacturing-related defect, or a construction-, installation-, or fabrication-related defect;

(ii) MAOP increases; or

(iii) The stresses leading to cyclic fatigue increase.

(4) Electric Resistance Welded (ERW) pipe. If a covered pipeline segment contains low frequency ERW pipe, lap welded pipe, pipe with longitudinal joint factor less than 1.0 as defined in §192.113, or other pipe that satisfies the conditions specified in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, Appendices A4.3 and A4.4, and any covered or non-covered segment in the pipeline system with such pipe has experienced seam failure (including seam cracking and selective seam weld corrosion), or operating pressure on the covered segment has increased over the maximum operating pressure experienced during the preceding 5 years (including abnormal operation as defined in §192.605(c)), or MAOP has been increased, an operator must select an assessment technology or technologies with a proven application capable of assessing seam integrity and seam corrosion anomalies. The operator must prioritize the covered segment as a high-risk segment for the baseline assessment or a subsequent reassessment. Pipe with seam cracks must be evaluated using fracture mechanics modeling for failure stress pressures and cyclic fatigue crack growth analysis to estimate the remaining life of the pipe in accordance with §192.712.

(5) Corrosion. If an operator identifies corrosion on a covered pipeline segment that could adversely affect the integrity of the line (conditions specified in §192.933), the operator must evaluate and remediate, as necessary, all pipeline segments (both covered and non-covered) with similar material coating and environmental characteristics. An operator must establish a schedule for evaluating and remediating, as necessary, the similar segments that is consistent with the operator's established operating and maintenance procedures under part 192 for testing and repair.

(6) Cracks. If an operator identifies any crack or crack-like defect (e.g., stress corrosion cracking or other environmentally assisted cracking, seam defects, selective seam weld corrosion, girth weld cracks, hook cracks, and fatigue cracks) on a covered pipeline segment that could adversely affect the integrity of the pipeline, the operator must evaluate, and remediate, as necessary, all pipeline segments (both covered and non-covered) with similar characteristics associated with the crack or crack-like defect. Similar characteristics may include operating and maintenance histories, material properties, and environmental characteristics. An operator must establish a schedule for evaluating, and remediating, as necessary, the similar pipeline segments that is consistent with the operator's established operating and maintenance procedures under this part for testing and repair.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18231, Apr. 6, 2004; Amdt. No. 192-125, 84 FR 52253, Oct. 1, 2019]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.919   What must be in the baseline assessment plan?

An operator must include each of the following elements in its written baseline assessment plan:

(a) Identification of the potential threats to each covered pipeline segment and the information supporting the threat identification. (See §192.917.);

(b) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe, including an explanation of why the assessment method was selected to address the identified threats to each covered segment. The integrity assessment method an operator uses must be based on the threats identified to the covered segment. (See §192.917.) More than one method may be required to address all the threats to the covered pipeline segment;

(c) A schedule for completing the integrity assessment of all covered segments, including risk factors considered in establishing the assessment schedule;

(d) If applicable, a direct assessment plan that meets the requirements of §§192.923, and depending on the threat to be addressed, of §192.925, §192.927, or §192.929; and

(e) A procedure to ensure that the baseline assessment is being conducted in a manner that minimizes environmental and safety risks.

return arrow Back to Top

§192.921   How is the baseline assessment to be conducted?

(a) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity of the line pipe in each covered segment by applying one or more of the following methods for each threat to which the covered segment is susceptible. An operator must select the method or methods best suited to address the threats identified to the covered segment (See §192.917).

(1) Internal inspection tool or tools capable of detecting those threats to which the pipeline is susceptible. The use of internal inspection tools is appropriate for threats such as corrosion, deformation and mechanical damage (including dents, gouges and grooves), material cracking and crack-like defects (e.g., stress corrosion cracking, selective seam weld corrosion, environmentally assisted cracking, and girth weld cracks), hard spots with cracking, and any other threats to which the covered segment is susceptible. When performing an assessment using an in-line inspection tool, an operator must comply with §192.493. In addition, an operator must analyze and account for uncertainties in reported results (e.g., tool tolerance, detection threshold, probability of detection, probability of identification, sizing accuracy, conservative anomaly interaction criteria, location accuracy, anomaly findings, and unity chart plots or equivalent for determining uncertainties and verifying actual tool performance) in identifying and characterizing anomalies;

(2) Pressure test conducted in accordance with subpart J of this part. The use of subpart J pressure testing is appropriate for threats such as internal corrosion; external corrosion and other environmentally assisted corrosion mechanisms; manufacturing and related defects threats, including defective pipe and pipe seams; stress corrosion cracking; selective seam weld corrosion; dents; and other forms of mechanical damage. An operator must use the test pressures specified in Table 3 of section 5 of ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) to justify an extended reassessment interval in accordance with §192.939.

(3) Spike hydrostatic pressure test conducted in accordance with §192.506. The use of spike hydrostatic pressure testing is appropriate for time-dependent threats such as stress corrosion cracking; selective seam weld corrosion; manufacturing and related defects, including defective pipe and pipe seams; and other forms of defect or damage involving cracks or crack-like defects;

(4) Excavation and in situ direct examination by means of visual examination, direct measurement, and recorded non-destructive examination results and data needed to assess all threats. Based upon the threat assessed, examples of appropriate non-destructive examination methods include ultrasonic testing (UT), phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT), inverse wave field extrapolation (IWEX), radiography, and magnetic particle inspection (MPI);

(5) Guided wave ultrasonic testing (GWUT) as described in Appendix F. The use of GWUT is appropriate for internal and external pipe wall loss;

(6) Direct assessment to address threats of external corrosion, internal corrosion, and stress corrosion cracking. The use of direct assessment to address threats of external corrosion, internal corrosion, and stress corrosion cracking is allowed only if appropriate for the threat and the pipeline segment being assessed. Use of direct assessment for threats other than the threat for which the direct assessment method is suitable is not allowed. An operator must conduct the direct assessment in accordance with the requirements listed in §192.923 and with the applicable requirements specified in §§192.925, 192.927 and 192.929; or

(7) Other technology that an operator demonstrates can provide an equivalent understanding of the condition of the line pipe for each of the threats to which the pipeline is susceptible. An operator must notify PHMSA in advance of using the other technology in accordance with §192.18.

(b) Prioritizing segments. An operator must prioritize the covered pipeline segments for the baseline assessment according to a risk analysis that considers the potential threats to each covered segment. The risk analysis must comply with the requirements in §192.917.

(c) Assessment for particular threats. In choosing an assessment method for the baseline assessment of each covered segment, an operator must take the actions required in §192.917(e) to address particular threats that it has identified.

(d) Time period. An operator must prioritize all the covered segments for assessment in accordance with §192.917 (c) and paragraph (b) of this section. An operator must assess at least 50% of the covered segments beginning with the highest risk segments, by December 17, 2007. An operator must complete the baseline assessment of all covered segments by December 17, 2012.

(e) Prior assessment. An operator may use a prior integrity assessment conducted before December 17, 2002 as a baseline assessment for the covered segment, if the integrity assessment meets the baseline requirements in this subpart and subsequent remedial actions to address the conditions listed in §192.933 have been carried out. In addition, if an operator uses this prior assessment as its baseline assessment, the operator must reassess the line pipe in the covered segment according to the requirements of §192.937 and §192.939.

(f) Newly identified areas. When an operator identifies a new high consequence area (see §192.905), an operator must complete the baseline assessment of the line pipe in the newly identified high consequence area within ten (10) years from the date the area is identified.

(g) Newly installed pipe. An operator must complete the baseline assessment of a newly-installed segment of pipe covered by this subpart within ten (10) years from the date the pipe is installed. An operator may conduct a pressure test in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to satisfy the requirement for a baseline assessment.

(h) Plastic transmission pipeline. If the threat analysis required in §192.917(d) on a plastic transmission pipeline indicates that a covered segment is susceptible to failure from causes other than third-party damage, an operator must conduct a baseline assessment of the segment in accordance with the requirements of this section and of §192.917. The operator must justify the use of an alternative assessment method that will address the identified threats to the covered segment.

(i) Baseline assessments for pipeline segments with a reconfirmed MAOP. An integrity assessment conducted in accordance with the requirements of §192.624(c) may be used as a baseline assessment under this section.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18232, Apr. 6, 2004; Amdt. No. 192-125, 84 FR 52253, Oct. 1, 2019]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.923   How is direct assessment used and for what threats?

(a) General. An operator may use direct assessment either as a primary assessment method or as a supplement to the other assessment methods allowed under this subpart. An operator may only use direct assessment as the primary assessment method to address the identified threats of external corrosion (EC), internal corrosion (IC), and stress corrosion cracking (SCC).

(b) Primary method. An operator using direct assessment as a primary assessment method must have a plan that complies with the requirements in—

(1) Section 192.925 and ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) section 6.4, and NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) , if addressing external corrosion (EC).

(2) Section 192.927 and ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 6.4, appendix B2, if addressing internal corrosion (IC).

(3) Section 192.929 and ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), appendix A3, if addressing stress corrosion cracking (SCC).

(c) Supplemental method. An operator using direct assessment as a supplemental assessment method for any applicable threat must have a plan that follows the requirements for confirmatory direct assessment in §192.931.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-114, 75 FR 48604, Aug. 11, 2010; Amdt. 192-119, 80 FR 178, 182, Jan. 5, 2015; 80 FR 46847, Aug. 6, 2015]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.925   What are the requirements for using External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA)?

(a) Definition. ECDA is a four-step process that combines preassessment, indirect inspection, direct examination, and post assessment to evaluate the threat of external corrosion to the integrity of a pipeline.

(b) General requirements. An operator that uses direct assessment to assess the threat of external corrosion must follow the requirements in this section, in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 6.4, and in NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7). An operator must develop and implement a direct assessment plan that has procedures addressing pre-assessment, indirect inspection, direct examination, and post assessment. If the ECDA detects pipeline coating damage, the operator must also integrate the data from the ECDA with other information from the data integration (§192.917(b)) to evaluate the covered segment for the threat of third party damage and to address the threat as required by §192.917(e)(1).

(1) Preassessment. In addition to the requirements in ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE SP0502, section 3, the plan's procedures for preassessment must include—

(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting ECDA for the first time on a covered segment; and

(ii) The basis on which an operator selects at least two different, but complementary indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA Region. If an operator utilizes an indirect inspection method that is not discussed in Appendix A of NACE SP0502, the operator must demonstrate the applicability, validation basis, equipment used, application procedure, and utilization of data for the inspection method.

(2) Indirect inspection. In addition to the requirements in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 6.4 and in NACE SP0502, section 4, the plan's procedures for indirect inspection of the ECDA regions must include—

(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting ECDA for the first time on a covered segment;

(ii) Criteria for identifying and documenting those indications that must be considered for excavation and direct examination. Minimum identification criteria include the known sensitivities of assessment tools, the procedures for using each tool, and the approach to be used for decreasing the physical spacing of indirect assessment tool readings when the presence of a defect is suspected;

(iii) Criteria for defining the urgency of excavation and direct examination of each indication identified during the indirect examination. These criteria must specify how an operator will define the urgency of excavating the indication as immediate, scheduled or monitored; and

(iv) Criteria for scheduling excavation of indications for each urgency level.

(3) Direct examination. In addition to the requirements in ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE SP0502, section 5, the plan's procedures for direct examination of indications from the indirect examination must include—

(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting ECDA for the first time on a covered segment;

(ii) Criteria for deciding what action should be taken if either:

(A) Corrosion defects are discovered that exceed allowable limits (Section 5.5.2.2 of NACE SP0502), or

(B) Root cause analysis reveals conditions for which ECDA is not suitable (Section 5.6.2 of NACE SP0502);

(iii) Criteria and notification procedures for any changes in the ECDA Plan, including changes that affect the severity classification, the priority of direct examination, and the time frame for direct examination of indications; and

(iv) Criteria that describe how and on what basis an operator will reclassify and reprioritize any of the provisions that are specified in section 5.9 of NACE SP0502.

(4) Post assessment and continuing evaluation. In addition to the requirements in ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE SP0502, section 6, the plan's procedures for post assessment of the effectiveness of the ECDA process must include—

(i) Measures for evaluating the long-term effectiveness of ECDA in addressing external corrosion in covered segments; and

(ii) Criteria for evaluating whether conditions discovered by direct examination of indications in each ECDA region indicate a need for reassessment of the covered segment at an interval less than that specified in §192.939. (See Appendix D of NACE SP0502.)

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 29904, May 26, 2004; Amdt. 192-114, 75 FR 48604, Aug. 11, 2010; Amdt. 192-119, 80 FR 178, Jan. 5, 2015; Amdt. 192-120, 80 FR 12779, Mar. 11, 2015]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.927   What are the requirements for using Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA)?

(a) Definition. Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA) is a process an operator uses to identify areas along the pipeline where fluid or other electrolyte introduced during normal operation or by an upset condition may reside, and then focuses direct examination on the locations in covered segments where internal corrosion is most likely to exist. The process identifies the potential for internal corrosion caused by microorganisms, or fluid with CO2, O2, hydrogen sulfide or other contaminants present in the gas.

(b) General requirements. An operator using direct assessment as an assessment method to address internal corrosion in a covered pipeline segment must follow the requirements in this section and in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 6.4 and appendix B2. The ICDA process described in this section applies only for a segment of pipe transporting nominally dry natural gas, and not for a segment with electrolyte nominally present in the gas stream. If an operator uses ICDA to assess a covered segment operating with electrolyte present in the gas stream, the operator must develop a plan that demonstrates how it will conduct ICDA in the segment to effectively address internal corrosion, and must provide notification in accordance with §192.921 (a)(4) or §192.937(c)(4).

(c) The ICDA plan. An operator must develop and follow an ICDA plan that provides for preassessment, identification of ICDA regions and excavation locations, detailed examination of pipe at excavation locations, and post-assessment evaluation and monitoring.

(1) Preassessment. In the preassessment stage, an operator must gather and integrate data and information needed to evaluate the feasibility of ICDA for the covered segment, and to support use of a model to identify the locations along the pipe segment where electrolyte may accumulate, to identify ICDA regions, and to identify areas within the covered segment where liquids may potentially be entrained. This data and information includes, but is not limited to—

(i) All data elements listed in appendix A2 of ASME/ANSI B31.8S;

(ii) Information needed to support use of a model that an operator must use to identify areas along the pipeline where internal corrosion is most likely to occur. (See paragraph (a) of this section.) This information, includes, but is not limited to, location of all gas input and withdrawal points on the line; location of all low points on covered segments such as sags, drips, inclines, valves, manifolds, dead-legs, and traps; the elevation profile of the pipeline in sufficient detail that angles of inclination can be calculated for all pipe segments; and the diameter of the pipeline, and the range of expected gas velocities in the pipeline;

(iii) Operating experience data that would indicate historic upsets in gas conditions, locations where these upsets have occurred, and potential damage resulting from these upset conditions; and

(iv) Information on covered segments where cleaning pigs may not have been used or where cleaning pigs may deposit electrolytes.

(2) ICDA region identification. An operator's plan must identify where all ICDA Regions are located in the transmission system, in which covered segments are located. An ICDA Region extends from the location where liquid may first enter the pipeline and encompasses the entire area along the pipeline where internal corrosion may occur and where further evaluation is needed. An ICDA Region may encompass one or more covered segments. In the identification process, an operator must use the model in GRI 02-0057, “Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment of Gas Transmission Pipelines—Methodology,” (incorporated by reference, see §192.7). An operator may use another model if the operator demonstrates it is equivalent to the one shown in GRI 02-0057. A model must consider changes in pipe diameter, locations where gas enters a line (potential to introduce liquid) and locations down stream of gas draw-offs (where gas velocity is reduced) to define the critical pipe angle of inclination above which water film cannot be transported by the gas.

(3) Identification of locations for excavation and direct examination. An operator's plan must identify the locations where internal corrosion is most likely in each ICDA region. In the location identification process, an operator must identify a minimum of two locations for excavation within each ICDA Region within a covered segment and must perform a direct examination for internal corrosion at each location, using ultrasonic thickness measurements, radiography, or other generally accepted measurement technique. One location must be the low point (e.g., sags, drips, valves, manifolds, dead-legs, traps) within the covered segment nearest to the beginning of the ICDA Region. The second location must be further downstream, within a covered segment, near the end of the ICDA Region. If corrosion exists at either location, the operator must—

(i) Evaluate the severity of the defect (remaining strength) and remediate the defect in accordance with §192.933;

(ii) As part of the operator's current integrity assessment either perform additional excavations in each covered segment within the ICDA region, or use an alternative assessment method allowed by this subpart to assess the line pipe in each covered segment within the ICDA region for internal corrosion; and

(iii) Evaluate the potential for internal corrosion in all pipeline segments (both covered and non-covered) in the operator's pipeline system with similar characteristics to the ICDA region containing the covered segment in which the corrosion was found, and as appropriate, remediate the conditions the operator finds in accordance with §192.933.

(4) Post-assessment evaluation and monitoring. An operator's plan must provide for evaluating the effectiveness of the ICDA process and continued monitoring of covered segments where internal corrosion has been identified. The evaluation and monitoring process includes—

(i) Evaluating the effectiveness of ICDA as an assessment method for addressing internal corrosion and determining whether a covered segment should be reassessed at more frequent intervals than those specified in §192.939. An operator must carry out this evaluation within a year of conducting an ICDA; and

(ii) Continually monitoring each covered segment where internal corrosion has been identified using techniques such as coupons, UT sensors or electronic probes, periodically drawing off liquids at low points and chemically analyzing the liquids for the presence of corrosion products. An operator must base the frequency of the monitoring and liquid analysis on results from all integrity assessments that have been conducted in accordance with the requirements of this subpart, and risk factors specific to the covered segment. If an operator finds any evidence of corrosion products in the covered segment, the operator must take prompt action in accordance with one of the two following required actions and remediate the conditions the operator finds in accordance with §192.933.

(A) Conduct excavations of covered segments at locations downstream from where the electrolyte might have entered the pipe; or

(B) Assess the covered segment using another integrity assessment method allowed by this subpart.

(5) Other requirements. The ICDA plan must also include—

(i) Criteria an operator will apply in making key decisions (e.g., ICDA feasibility, definition of ICDA Regions, conditions requiring excavation) in implementing each stage of the ICDA process;

(ii) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting ICDA for the first time on a covered segment and that become less stringent as the operator gains experience; and

(iii) Provisions that analysis be carried out on the entire pipeline in which covered segments are present, except that application of the remediation criteria of §192.933 may be limited to covered segments.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18232, Apr. 6, 2004]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.929   What are the requirements for using Direct Assessment for Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCCDA)?

(a) Definition. Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment (SCCDA) is a process to assess a covered pipe segment for the presence of SCC primarily by systematically gathering and analyzing excavation data for pipe having similar operational characteristics and residing in a similar physical environment.

(b) General requirements. An operator using direct assessment as an integrity assessment method to address stress corrosion cracking in a covered pipeline segment must have a plan that provides, at minimum, for—

(1) Data gathering and integration. An operator's plan must provide for a systematic process to collect and evaluate data for all covered segments to identify whether the conditions for SCC are present and to prioritize the covered segments for assessment. This process must include gathering and evaluating data related to SCC at all sites an operator excavates during the conduct of its pipeline operations where the criteria in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), appendix A3.3 indicate the potential for SCC. This data includes at minimum, the data specified in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, appendix A3.

(2) Assessment method. The plan must provide that if conditions for SCC are identified in a covered segment, an operator must assess the covered segment using an integrity assessment method specified in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, appendix A3, and remediate the threat in accordance with ASME/ANSI B31.8S, appendix A3, section A3.4.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18233, Apr. 6, 2004]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.931   How may Confirmatory Direct Assessment (CDA) be used?

An operator using the confirmatory direct assessment (CDA) method as allowed in §192.937 must have a plan that meets the requirements of this section and of §§192.925 (ECDA) and §192.927 (ICDA).

(a) Threats. An operator may only use CDA on a covered segment to identify damage resulting from external corrosion or internal corrosion.

(b) External corrosion plan. An operator's CDA plan for identifying external corrosion must comply with §192.925 with the following exceptions.

(1) The procedures for indirect examination may allow use of only one indirect examination tool suitable for the application.

(2) The procedures for direct examination and remediation must provide that—

(i) All immediate action indications must be excavated for each ECDA region; and

(ii) At least one high risk indication that meets the criteria of scheduled action must be excavated in each ECDA region.

(c) Internal corrosion plan. An operator's CDA plan for identifying internal corrosion must comply with §192.927 except that the plan's procedures for identifying locations for excavation may require excavation of only one high risk location in each ICDA region.

(d) Defects requiring near-term remediation. If an assessment carried out under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section reveals any defect requiring remediation prior to the next scheduled assessment, the operator must schedule the next assessment in accordance with NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 6.2 and 6.3. If the defect requires immediate remediation, then the operator must reduce pressure consistent with §192.933 until the operator has completed reassessment using one of the assessment techniques allowed in §192.937.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-114, 75 FR 48604, Aug. 11, 2010; Amdt. 192-119, 80 FR 178, Jan. 5, 2015]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.933   What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?

(a) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity assessment. In addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely to pose a threat to the integrity of the pipeline until the next reassessment of the covered segment.

(1) Temporary pressure reduction. If an operator is unable to respond within the time limits for certain conditions specified in this section, the operator must temporarily reduce the operating pressure of the pipeline or take other action that ensures the safety of the covered segment. An operator must determine any temporary reduction in operating pressure required by this section using ASME/ANSI B31G (incorporated by reference, see §192.7); R-STRENG (incorporated by reference, see §192.7); or by reducing the operating pressure to a level not exceeding 80 percent of the level at the time the condition was discovered. An operator must notify PHMSA in accordance with §192.18 if it cannot meet the schedule for evaluation and remediation required under paragraph (c) of this section and cannot provide safety through a temporary reduction in operating pressure or through another action.

(2) Long-term pressure reduction. When a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days, an operator must notify PHMSA under §192.18 and explain the reasons for the remediation delay. This notice must include a technical justification that the continued pressure reduction will not jeopardize the integrity of the pipeline.

(b) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an operator has adequate information about a condition to determine that the condition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. A condition that presents a potential threat includes, but is not limited to, those conditions that require remediation or monitoring listed under paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section. An operator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after conducting an integrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to make that determination, unless the operator demonstrates that the 180-day period is impracticable.

(c) Schedule for evaluation and remediation. An operator must complete remediation of a condition according to a schedule prioritizing the conditions for evaluation and remediation. Unless a special requirement for remediating certain conditions applies, as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, an operator must follow the schedule in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 7, Figure 4. If an operator cannot meet the schedule for any condition, the operator must explain the reasons why it cannot meet the schedule and how the changed schedule will not jeopardize public safety.

(d) Special requirements for scheduling remediation—(1) Immediate repair conditions. An operator's evaluation and remediation schedule must follow ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 7 in providing for immediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an operator must temporarily reduce operating pressure in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section or shut down the pipeline until the operator completes the repair of these conditions. An operator must treat the following conditions as immediate repair conditions:

(i) A calculation of the remaining strength of the pipe shows a predicted failure pressure less than or equal to 1.1 times the maximum allowable operating pressure at the location of the anomaly. Suitable remaining strength calculation methods include ASME/ANSI B31G (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) , PRCI PR-3-805 (R-STRENG) (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), or an alternative equivalent method of remaining strength calculation.

(ii) A dent that has any indication of metal loss, cracking or a stress riser.

(iii) An indication or anomaly that in the judgment of the person designated by the operator to evaluate the assessment results requires immediate action.

(2) One-year conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(3) of this section, an operator must remediate any of the following within one year of discovery of the condition:

(i) A smooth dent located between the 8 o'clock and 4 o'clock positions (upper 23 of the pipe) with a depth greater than 6% of the pipeline diameter (greater than 0.50 inches in depth for a pipeline diameter less than Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) 12).

(ii) A dent with a depth greater than 2% of the pipeline's diameter (0.250 inches in depth for a pipeline diameter less than NPS 12) that affects pipe curvature at a girth weld or at a longitudinal seam weld.

(3) Monitored conditions. An operator does not have to schedule the following conditions for remediation, but must record and monitor the conditions during subsequent risk assessments and integrity assessments for any change that may require remediation:

(i) A dent with a depth greater than 6% of the pipeline diameter (greater than 0.50 inches in depth for a pipeline diameter less than NPS 12) located between the 4 o'clock position and the 8 o'clock position (bottom 13 of the pipe).

(ii) A dent located between the 8 o'clock and 4 o'clock positions (upper 23 of the pipe) with a depth greater than 6% of the pipeline diameter (greater than 0.50 inches in depth for a pipeline diameter less than Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) 12), and engineering analyses of the dent demonstrate critical strain levels are not exceeded.

(iii) A dent with a depth greater than 2% of the pipeline's diameter (0.250 inches in depth for a pipeline diameter less than NPS 12) that affects pipe curvature at a girth weld or a longitudinal seam weld, and engineering analyses of the dent and girth or seam weld demonstrate critical strain levels are not exceeded. These analyses must consider weld properties.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18233, Apr. 6, 2004; Amdt. 192-104, 72 FR 39016, July 17, 2007; Amdt. 192-119, 80 FR 182, Jan. 5, 2015; 80 FR 46847, Aug. 6, 2015; Amdt. No. 192-125, 84 FR 52254, Oct. 1, 2019]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.935   What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take?

(a) General requirements. An operator must take additional measures beyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in a high consequence area. An operator must base the additional measures on the threats the operator has identified to each pipeline segment. (See §192.917) An operator must conduct, in accordance with one of the risk assessment approaches in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 5, a risk analysis of its pipeline to identify additional measures to protect the high consequence area and enhance public safety. Such additional measures include, but are not limited to, installing Automatic Shut-off Valves or Remote Control Valves, installing computerized monitoring and leak detection systems, replacing pipe segments with pipe of heavier wall thickness, providing additional training to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders and implementing additional inspection and maintenance programs.

(b) Third party damage and outside force damage—

(1) Third party damage. An operator must enhance its damage prevention program, as required under §192.614 of this part, with respect to a covered segment to prevent and minimize the consequences of a release due to third party damage. Enhanced measures to an existing damage prevention program include, at a minimum—

(i) Using qualified personnel (see §192.915) for work an operator is conducting that could adversely affect the integrity of a covered segment, such as marking, locating, and direct supervision of known excavation work.

(ii) Collecting in a central database information that is location specific on excavation damage that occurs in covered and non covered segments in the transmission system and the root cause analysis to support identification of targeted additional preventative and mitigative measures in the high consequence areas. This information must include recognized damage that is not required to be reported as an incident under part 191.

(iii) Participating in one-call systems in locations where covered segments are present.

(iv) Monitoring of excavations conducted on covered pipeline segments by pipeline personnel. If an operator finds physical evidence of encroachment involving excavation that the operator did not monitor near a covered segment, an operator must either excavate the area near the encroachment or conduct an above ground survey using methods defined in NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7). An operator must excavate, and remediate, in accordance with ANSI/ASME B31.8S and §192.933 any indication of coating holidays or discontinuity warranting direct examination.

(2) Outside force damage. If an operator determines that outside force (e.g., earth movement, loading, longitudinal, or lateral forces, seismicity of the area, floods, unstable suspension bridge) is a threat to the integrity of a covered segment, the operator must take measures to minimize the consequences to the covered segment from outside force damage. These measures include increasing the frequency of aerial, foot or other methods of patrols; adding external protection; reducing external stress; relocating the line; or inline inspections with geospatial and deformation tools.

(c) Automatic shut-off valves (ASV) or Remote control valves (RCV). If an operator determines, based on a risk analysis, that an ASV or RCV would be an efficient means of adding protection to a high consequence area in the event of a gas release, an operator must install the ASV or RCV. In making that determination, an operator must, at least, consider the following factors—swiftness of leak detection and pipe shutdown capabilities, the type of gas being transported, operating pressure, the rate of potential release, pipeline profile, the potential for ignition, and location of nearest response personnel.

(d) Pipelines operating below 30% SMYS. An operator of a transmission pipeline operating below 30% SMYS located in a high consequence area must follow the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section. An operator of a transmission pipeline operating below 30% SMYS located in a Class 3 or Class 4 area but not in a high consequence area must follow the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section.

(1) Apply the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(iii) of this section to the pipeline; and

(2) Either monitor excavations near the pipeline, or conduct patrols as required by §192.705 of the pipeline at bi-monthly intervals. If an operator finds any indication of unreported construction activity, the operator must conduct a follow up investigation to determine if mechanical damage has occurred.

(3) Perform semi-annual leak surveys (quarterly for unprotected pipelines or cathodically protected pipe where electrical surveys are impractical).

(e) Plastic transmission pipeline. An operator of a plastic transmission pipeline must apply the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv) of this section to the covered segments of the pipeline.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18233, Apr. 6, 2004; Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 29904, May 26, 2004; Amdt. 192-114, 75 FR 48604, Aug. 11, 2010; Amdt. 192-119, 80 FR 178, Jan. 5, 2015; Amdt. No. 192-125, 84 FR 52254, Oct. 1, 2019]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.937   What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a pipeline's integrity?

(a) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment of a covered segment, an operator must continue to assess the line pipe of that segment at the intervals specified in §192.939 and periodically evaluate the integrity of each covered pipeline segment as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. An operator must reassess a covered segment on which a prior assessment is credited as a baseline under §192.921(e) by no later than December 17, 2009. An operator must reassess a covered segment on which a baseline assessment is conducted during the baseline period specified in §192.921(d) by no later than seven years after the baseline assessment of that covered segment unless the evaluation under paragraph (b) of this section indicates earlier reassessment.

(b) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as frequently as needed to assure the integrity of each covered segment. The periodic evaluation must be based on a data integration and risk assessment of the entire pipeline as specified in §192.917. For plastic transmission pipelines, the periodic evaluation is based on the threat analysis specified in 192.917(d). For all other transmission pipelines, the evaluation must consider the past and present integrity assessment results, data integration and risk assessment information (§192.917), and decisions about remediation (§192.933) and additional preventive and mitigative actions (§192.935). An operator must use the results from this evaluation to identify the threats specific to each covered segment and the risk represented by these threats.

(c) Assessment methods. In conducting the integrity reassessment, an operator must assess the integrity of the line pipe in each covered segment by applying one or more of the following methods for each threat to which the covered segment is susceptible. An operator must select the method or methods best suited to address the threats identified on the covered segment (see §192.917).

(1) Internal inspection tools. When performing an assessment using an in-line inspection tool, an operator must comply with the following requirements:

(i) Perform the in-line inspection in accordance with §192.493;

(ii) Select a tool or combination of tools capable of detecting the threats to which the pipeline segment is susceptible such as corrosion, deformation and mechanical damage (e.g. dents, gouges and grooves), material cracking and crack-like defects (e.g. stress corrosion cracking, selective seam weld corrosion, environmentally assisted cracking, and girth weld cracks), hard spots with cracking, and any other threats to which the covered segment is susceptible; and

(iii) Analyze and account for uncertainties in reported results (e.g., tool tolerance, detection threshold, probability of detection, probability of identification, sizing accuracy, conservative anomaly interaction criteria, location accuracy, anomaly findings, and unity chart plots or equivalent for determining uncertainties and verifying actual tool performance) in identifying and characterizing anomalies.

(2) Pressure test conducted in accordance with subpart J of this part. The use of pressure testing is appropriate for threats such as: Internal corrosion; external corrosion and other environmentally assisted corrosion mechanisms; manufacturing and related defects threats, including defective pipe and pipe seams; stress corrosion cracking; selective seam weld corrosion; dents; and other forms of mechanical damage. An operator must use the test pressures specified in table 3 of section 5 of ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) to justify an extended reassessment interval in accordance with §192.939.

(3) Spike hydrostatic pressure test in accordance with §192.506. The use of spike hydrostatic pressure testing is appropriate for time-dependent threats such as: Stress corrosion cracking; selective seam weld corrosion; manufacturing and related defects, including defective pipe and pipe seams; and other forms of defect or damage involving cracks or crack-like defects;

(4) Excavation and in situ direct examination by means of visual examination, direct measurement, and recorded non-destructive examination results and data needed to assess all threats. Based upon the threat assessed, examples of appropriate non-destructive examination methods include ultrasonic testing (UT), phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT), inverse wave field extrapolation (IWEX), radiography, or magnetic particle inspection (MPI);

(5) Guided wave ultrasonic testing (GWUT) as described in Appendix F. The use of GWUT is appropriate for internal and external pipe wall loss;

(6) Direct assessment to address threats of external corrosion, internal corrosion, and stress corrosion cracking. The use of direct assessment to address threats of external corrosion, internal corrosion, and stress corrosion cracking is allowed only if appropriate for the threat and pipeline segment being assessed. Use of direct assessment for threats other than the threat for which the direct assessment method is suitable is not allowed. An operator must conduct the direct assessment in accordance with the requirements listed in §192.923 and with the applicable requirements specified in §§192.925, 192.927, and 192.929;

(7) Other technology that an operator demonstrates can provide an equivalent understanding of the condition of the line pipe for each of the threats to which the pipeline is susceptible. An operator must notify PHMSA in advance of using the other technology in accordance with §192.18; or

(8) Confirmatory direct assessment when used on a covered segment that is scheduled for reassessment at a period longer than 7 calendar years. An operator using this reassessment method must comply with §192.931.

(d) MAOP reconfirmation assessments. An integrity assessment conducted in accordance with the requirements of §192.624(c) may be used as a reassessment under this section.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18234, Apr. 6, 2004; Amdt. No. 192-125, 84 FR 52254, Oct. 1, 2019]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.939   What are the required reassessment intervals?

An operator must comply with the following requirements in establishing the reassessment interval for the operator's covered pipeline segments.

(a) Pipelines operating at or above 30% SMYS. An operator must establish a reassessment interval for each covered segment operating at or above 30% SMYS in accordance with the requirements of this section. The maximum reassessment interval by an allowable reassessment method is 7 calendar years. Operators may request a 6-month extension of the 7-calendar-year reassessment interval if the operator submits written notice to OPS, in accordance with §192.18, with sufficient justification of the need for the extension. If an operator establishes a reassessment interval that is greater than 7 calendar years, the operator must, within the 7-calendar-year period, conduct a confirmatory direct assessment on the covered segment, and then conduct the follow-up reassessment at the interval the operator has established. A reassessment carried out using confirmatory direct assessment must be done in accordance with §192.931. The table that follows this section sets forth the maximum allowed reassessment intervals.

(1) Pressure test or internal inspection or other equivalent technology. An operator that uses pressure testing or internal inspection as an assessment method must establish the reassessment interval for a covered pipeline segment by—

(i) Basing the interval on the identified threats for the covered segment (see §192.917) and on the analysis of the results from the last integrity assessment and from the data integration and risk assessment required by §192.917; or

(ii) Using the intervals specified for different stress levels of pipeline (operating at or above 30% SMYS) listed in ASME B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 5, Table 3.

(2) External Corrosion Direct Assessment. An operator that uses ECDA that meets the requirements of this subpart must determine the reassessment interval according to the requirements in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7).

(3) Internal Corrosion or SCC Direct Assessment. An operator that uses ICDA or SCCDA in accordance with the requirements of this subpart must determine the reassessment interval according to the following method. However, the reassessment interval cannot exceed those specified for direct assessment in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 5, Table 3.

(i) Determine the largest defect most likely to remain in the covered segment and the corrosion rate appropriate for the pipe, soil and protection conditions;

(ii) Use the largest remaining defect as the size of the largest defect discovered in the SCC or ICDA segment; and

(iii) Estimate the reassessment interval as half the time required for the largest defect to grow to a critical size.

(b) Pipelines Operating below 30% SMYS. An operator must establish a reassessment interval for each covered segment operating below 30% SMYS in accordance with the requirements of this section. The maximum reassessment interval by an allowable reassessment method is 7 calendar years. Operators may request a 6-month extension of the 7-calendar-year reassessment interval if the operator submits written notice to OPS in accordance with §192.18. The notice must include sufficient justification of the need for the extension. An operator must establish reassessment by at least one of the following—

(1) Reassessment by pressure test, internal inspection or other equivalent technology following the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section except that the stress level referenced in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section would be adjusted to reflect the lower operating stress level. If an established interval is more than 7 calendar years, an operator must conduct by the seventh calendar year of the interval either a confirmatory direct assessment in accordance with §192.931, or a low stress reassessment in accordance with §192.941.

(2) Reassessment by ECDA following the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(3) Reassessment by ICDA or SCCDA following the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(4) Reassessment by confirmatory direct assessment at 7-year intervals in accordance with §192.931, with reassessment by one of the methods listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section by year 20 of the interval.

(5) Reassessment by the low stress assessment method at 7-year intervals in accordance with §192.941 with reassessment by one of the methods listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section by year 20 of the interval.

(6) The following table sets forth the maximum reassessment intervals. Also refer to Appendix E.II for guidance on Assessment Methods and Assessment Schedule for Transmission Pipelines Operating Below 30% SMYS. In case of conflict between the rule and the guidance in the Appendix, the requirements of the rule control. An operator must comply with the following requirements in establishing a reassessment interval for a covered segment:

Maximum Reassessment Interval

Assessment method Pipeline operating at or above 50% SMYS Pipeline operating at or above 30% SMYS, up to 50% SMYS Pipeline operating below 30% SMYS
Internal Inspection Tool, Pressure Test or Direct Assessment10 years(*)15 years(*)20 years.(**)
Confirmatory Direct Assessment7 years7 years7 years.
Low Stress ReassessmentNot applicableNot applicable7 years + ongoing actions specified in §192.941.

(*)A Confirmatory direct assessment as described in §192.931 must be conducted by year 7 in a 10-year interval and years 7 and 14 of a 15-year interval.

(**)A low stress reassessment or Confirmatory direct assessment must be conducted by years 7 and 14 of the interval.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18234, Apr. 6, 2004; Amdt. 192-114, 75 FR 48604, Aug. 11, 2010; Amdt. 192-119, 80 FR 178, 182, Jan. 5, 2015; Amdt. No. 192-125, 84 FR 52255, Oct. 1, 2019]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.941   What is a low stress reassessment?

(a) General. An operator of a transmission line that operates below 30% SMYS may use the following method to reassess a covered segment in accordance with §192.939. This method of reassessment addresses the threats of external and internal corrosion. The operator must have conducted a baseline assessment of the covered segment in accordance with the requirements of §§192.919 and 192.921.

(b) External corrosion. An operator must take one of the following actions to address external corrosion on the low stress covered segment.

(1) Cathodically protected pipe. To address the threat of external corrosion on cathodically protected pipe in a covered segment, an operator must perform an electrical survey (i.e. indirect examination tool/method) at least every 7 years on the covered segment. An operator must use the results of each survey as part of an overall evaluation of the cathodic protection and corrosion threat for the covered segment. This evaluation must consider, at minimum, the leak repair and inspection records, corrosion monitoring records, exposed pipe inspection records, and the pipeline environment.

(2) Unprotected pipe or cathodically protected pipe where electrical surveys are impractical. If an electrical survey is impractical on the covered segment an operator must—

(i) Conduct leakage surveys as required by §192.706 at 4-month intervals; and

(ii) Every 18 months, identify and remediate areas of active corrosion by evaluating leak repair and inspection records, corrosion monitoring records, exposed pipe inspection records, and the pipeline environment.

(c) Internal corrosion. To address the threat of internal corrosion on a covered segment, an operator must—

(1) Conduct a gas analysis for corrosive agents at least once each calendar year;

(2) Conduct periodic testing of fluids removed from the segment. At least once each calendar year test the fluids removed from each storage field that may affect a covered segment; and

(3) At least every seven (7) years, integrate data from the analysis and testing required by paragraphs (c)(1)-(c)(2) with applicable internal corrosion leak records, incident reports, safety-related condition reports, repair records, patrol records, exposed pipe reports, and test records, and define and implement appropriate remediation actions.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18234, Apr. 6, 2004]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.943   When can an operator deviate from these reassessment intervals?

(a) Waiver from reassessment interval in limited situations. In the following limited instances, OPS may allow a waiver from a reassessment interval required by §192.939 if OPS finds a waiver would not be inconsistent with pipeline safety.

(1) Lack of internal inspection tools. An operator who uses internal inspection as an assessment method may be able to justify a longer reassessment period for a covered segment if internal inspection tools are not available to assess the line pipe. To justify this, the operator must demonstrate that it cannot obtain the internal inspection tools within the required reassessment period and that the actions the operator is taking in the interim ensure the integrity of the covered segment.

(2) Maintain product supply. An operator may be able to justify a longer reassessment period for a covered segment if the operator demonstrates that it cannot maintain local product supply if it conducts the reassessment within the required interval.

(b) How to apply. If one of the conditions specified in paragraph (a) (1) or (a) (2) of this section applies, an operator may seek a waiver of the required reassessment interval. An operator must apply for a waiver in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 60118(c), at least 180 days before the end of the required reassessment interval, unless local product supply issues make the period impractical. If local product supply issues make the period impractical, an operator must apply for the waiver as soon as the need for the waiver becomes known.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18234, Apr. 6, 2004]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.945   What methods must an operator use to measure program effectiveness?

(a) General. An operator must include in its integrity management program methods to measure whether the program is effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each covered pipeline segment and in protecting the high consequence areas. These measures must include the four overall performance measures specified in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7 of this part), section 9.4, and the specific measures for each identified threat specified in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, Appendix A. An operator must submit the four overall performance measures as part of the annual report required by §191.17 of this subchapter.

(b) External Corrosion Direct assessment. In addition to the general requirements for performance measures in paragraph (a) of this section, an operator using direct assessment to assess the external corrosion threat must define and monitor measures to determine the effectiveness of the ECDA process. These measures must meet the requirements of §192.925.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18234, Apr. 6, 2004; 75 FR 72906, Nov. 26, 2010]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.947   What records must an operator keep?

An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review during an inspection.

(a) A written integrity management program in accordance with §192.907;

(b) Documents supporting the threat identification and risk assessment in accordance with §192.917;

(c) A written baseline assessment plan in accordance with §192.919;

(d) Documents to support any decision, analysis and process developed and used to implement and evaluate each element of the baseline assessment plan and integrity management program. Documents include those developed and used in support of any identification, calculation, amendment, modification, justification, deviation and determination made, and any action taken to implement and evaluate any of the program elements;

(e) Documents that demonstrate personnel have the required training, including a description of the training program, in accordance with §192.915;

(f) Schedule required by §192.933 that prioritizes the conditions found during an assessment for evaluation and remediation, including technical justifications for the schedule.

(g) Documents to carry out the requirements in §§192.923 through 192.929 for a direct assessment plan;

(h) Documents to carry out the requirements in §192.931 for confirmatory direct assessment;

(i) Verification that an operator has provided any documentation or notification required by this subpart to be provided to OPS, and when applicable, a State authority with which OPS has an interstate agent agreement, and a State or local pipeline safety authority that regulates a covered pipeline segment within that State.

[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18234, Apr. 6, 2004]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.949   [Reserved]

return arrow Back to Top

§192.951   Where does an operator file a report?

An operator must file any report required by this subpart electronically to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in accordance with §191.7 of this subchapter.

[Amdt. 192-115, 75 FR 72906, Nov. 26, 2010]

return arrow Back to Top

Need assistance?