Section 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 5.6.1-1 of Section 5 of ASME 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. 192-125, 84 FR 52254, Oct. 1, 2019 84 FR 52254, 7/1/2020; 89 FR 33282, 6/28/2024