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

(c) Unless otherwise specified, if an operator submits, pursuant to § 192.8, § 192.9, § 192.13, § 192.179, § 192.319, § 192.461, § 192.506, § 192.607, § 192.619, § 192.624, § 192.632, § 192.634, § 192.636, § 192.710, § 192.712, § 192.714, § 192.745, § 192.917, § 192.921, § 192.927, § 192.933, or § 192.937, a notification for use of a different integrity assessment method, analytical method, compliance period, sampling approach, pipeline material, or technique (e.g., “other technology” or “alternative equivalent technology”) than otherwise prescribed in those sections, that notification must be submitted to PHMSA for review at least 90 days in advance of using the other method, approach, compliance timeline, or technique. An operator may proceed to use the other method, approach, compliance timeline, or technique 91 days after submitting the notification unless it receives a letter from the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety informing the operator that PHMSA objects to the proposal or that PHMSA requires additional time and/or more information to conduct its review.

(6) Direct assessment to address threats of external corrosion, internal corrosion, and stress corrosion cracking. The use of 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; or

(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.

(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

(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;

(2) Section 192.927 and NACE SP0206 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7), if addressing internal corrosion (IC).

(c) 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.

(3) 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;

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

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).

(1) ANSI/NACE SP0502-2010, Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology, revised June 24, 2010, (NACE SP0502); IBR approved for §§ 192.319(f); 192.461(h); 192.620(d); 192.923(b); 192.925(b); 192.931(d); 192.935(b); 192.939(a).