Pipeline Integrity Program

Pipeline Integrity Rule

zFor All Transmission Pipelines Defined

192
zHigh Consequence Areas
zIntegrity Management Plan
Regulations

z49CFR Part 192 Subpart O

zNACE RP-0502-2002
zASME B31.8S-2001
Direct Assessment

z Can only be used for evaluating corrosion

threats.
z External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA)
z Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA)
z Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment
(SCCDA)
z Confirmatory Direct Assessment for interim
assessments, External & Internal
External Corrosion Direct Assessment

zMust follow NACE RP-0502-2002

zPre-Assessment
zIndirect Assessment
zDirect Assessment
zPost Assessment
Step 1. Pre-Assessment

zPipe Information
zConstruction Related Information
zSoils & Environment
zCorrosion Control
zOperational Parameters
zNACE RP-0502 Table 1
Data Integration

zIntegrate all data from past and present to

determine the current status of the
segment
zMajor Data integration is aligning the
pipeline to the surface; making sure the
spatial lay out matches what is actually
underground.
zThird Party Damage and all foreign
crossings need to be located spatially.
Feasibility
z Certain conditions can preclude a successful
ECDA.
z Lack of CP currents can prevent tools from
doing their job. (soils, structures)
z Excessive time to take a reading
z Accessibility to the pipeline
z Electrical interference from structures or other
sources.
z Cased piping and pipe shielding
Tool Selection

zMinimum of two indirect inspection tools

per ECDA region
zTools must be selected based on their
ability to detect corrosion or coating
holidays under the conditions
encountered.
zTools must be complementary
zNACE RP-0502 Tables 1&2 for tool
selection Matrix
ECDA Region

z Different pipe installations, operating, and

corrosion history will set up different regions.
z Different tools will yield different regions
z Casings and pipe crossings can be in separate
regions
z Different coatings and soil conditions can yield
different regions
z Identical regions do not have to be contiguous.
Initial ECDA Regions

z49CFR 192.925 requires more stringent

criteria for initial ECDA on a region:
zDefining a larger set of critical data to
determine if ECDA is feasible
zBreaking ECDA regions into smaller more
defined pipe section and characteristics.
zPossibility of selecting more than the
minimum of two tools
Step 2. Indirect Assessment

zPerform Indirect Inspections

zIdentify & Align Indications
zClassify Indications
zIntegrate Indication Data
Indirect Assessment
z Mark and accurately identify the ECDA region to
be assessed.
z Perform indirect assessment using at least two
inspection tools within a short time under the
same conditions. (same season)
z Use NACE RP-0502 or manufacture for spacing
recommendations.
z Determine reading variation parameters
z Positioning measurements to eliminate spatial
errors
Identify & Align Indications

zPerform tool validation checks

zData Collection
zHow information will be aligned
zIdentification of indications
zAligning the physical location of the
indication
Classifying Indications

zClassify all indications to specific

parameters
zResolve all conflicting indications between
tools
zAny unresolved indications must be
inspected
zCompare with pre-assessment and
historical data
Initial ECDA Regions

z49CFR 192.925 requires more stringent

criteria for initial ECDA on a region:
zconservative classification & magnitude of
indication for urgency of excavation
zRepeat indirect inspections to verify and
correlate readings
zPerform additional tool validation checks
Integrate Data

zPast inspections and known results

zPast corrosion & operational data
zAny possibility of third party damage
zOther parameters that may affect the
results
Step 3. Direct Examination

zPrioritizing indications identified

zConducting Excavation & Data collection
zMeasuring Defects and metal loss
zDetermining the remaining strength of pipe
zPre-forming Root Cause Analysis
zEvaluating the process
Evaluating Process

zReclassification of indications
zMitigative actions taken for reclassification
zPrior corrosion worse than assumed
zActive corrosion worse than predicted by
indirect assessment
zCorrosion less than predicted by indirect
assessment
Initial ECDA Regions

z49CFR 192.925 requires more stringent

criteria for initial ECDA on a ECDA region:
zRequire additional excavations
zAdditional Testing
zAdditional data collection at each
excavation
zNo reduction in classification or priority
NACE RP-0502 section 5.9.1.2
Step 4. Post Assessment

zRemaining Life Calculation

zDetermining re-assessment interval
zConducting a validation or effectiveness
check of the ECDA process
zPerformance measures of long term
effectiveness of ECDA
Conclusion ECDA

zAll the steps must be detailed and followed

in the written ECDA Plan
zReferences must be followed in 192,
NACE RP-0502-2002, ASME-B31.8S-
2001.
zAny new methods for evaluation must be
provided 6 months prior to the use of the
method for review by Federal and if
applicable State pipeline safety offices.
Dry Gas Internal Corrosion Direct
Assessment
z Dry gas process only. This is defined as tariff
quality gas 7 pounds of moisture per million
cubic feet of gas. Includes parameters for
composition.
z Currently only parameters approved by code in
49CFR 192.927.
z Meet all parameters of 192 and ASME B31.8S-
2001
z No approved wet gas process currently
Part 192.927 Outline

zPre-Assessment
zRegion Identification
zDirect Assessment
zPost Assessment
192.927 Special Provisions

z192.927 (c)(5)(ii) states: Apply more

restrictive criteria to each step on first use
z192.927 (c)(5)(iii) States: Perform ICDA
analysis on the entire pipeline that
contains a covered segment, except
remediation is limited to the covered
segment.
Step 1. Data Collection

z Data Outline in Part 192 and ASME B31.8S-

2001
z Conditions that could preclude ICDA such as;
z Electrolyte in areas that the model would not
predict from cleaning pigs or past water test
z Wet gas flow incomplete (current or past)
z Routine and frequent dehydration facility upsets
Step 2. Determine ICDA Regions

zLocate all inputs and outputs this should

include past locations
zRun Flow Model in GRI 02-0057(other
models can be used if the model is meets
the requirements of 192)
zProduce inclination profile
zDetermine hold up locations
Step 3. Identify Locations for Excavation
& Direct Examination
zReview the results of the model and
identify the locations for excavation.
zDetermine if the locations are in a covered
segment
zExcavate locations in a covered segment
zConduct a detailed evaluation of the pipe
condition.
Examination Finds Internal Corrosion

zEvaluate the Severity and remediate

zPerform additional excavation or testing
for additional conditions
zEvaluate similar segments both covered
and non-covered segments.
Step 4. Post Assessment Evaluation &
Monitoring
z Effectiveness of the Process
z Re-Assessment Interval
z Continuing Monitoring for Internal Corrosion
z If corrosion found continue evaluation for source
of problem
z Determine the effectiveness of the ICDA
z Uncorrelated Results require alternative
assessment methods
Wet Gas ICDA

zSubmit Notification to use “other

technology”
zDevelop ICDA plan suitable for wet gas
applications
zJustify any type of model used
Conclusion

zPast records of no internal corrosion does

not eliminate this threat
zLack of records does not eliminate this
threat
z192.927 and ASME B31.8S-2001 must be
followed for dry gas only.
zA detailed written plan must be completed
before conducting the process
Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct
Assessment
z49CFR 192.929 mandates use of ASME
B31.8S-2001
zLocate, Confirm, and Mitigate SCC
zCombination of screening criteria and bell
hole or hydro-test assessments
zScreening estimated to locate 2/3 to 3/4
SCC
zNACE RP0204-2004 available as resource
Types of SCC

zHigh-pH SCC or Classical SCC are cracks

that are inter-granular and typically
branched and associated with an alkaline
electrolyte with pH about 9.3
zNear-neutral-pH or Low-pH SCC are
cracks trans-granular and has limited
branching associated with some corrosion
with a near-neutral pH.
SCCDA Requirements

zDevelop a specific written plan with the

following;
zData gathering and integration
zAssessment methods
Data Collection

zPer ASME B31.8S-2001 Appendix A3

zAge of pipe
zOperating stress and temperature
zDistance of segment from compressor
station
zCoating type
zPast Hydro-test records and SCC failures
Criteria for SCC
z High pH z Low-Near Neutral-pH
z Operating Stress> 60% z Operating Stress> 60%
SMYS SMYS
z Operating Temp. > 100F z No temp. constraints
z Distance from z Distance from
compressor < 20 mi. compressor < 20 mi.
z Age of pipe > 10 yr. z Age of pipe > 10 yr.
z Coating other than FBE z Coating other than FBE
SCC Assessment Methods

zFor segments with in service SCC leaks or

ruptures; hydro-test within 12 month and
develop hydro-test plan
zFor segments at risk of SCC; bell hole
inspection & examination or hydro-test
zCode requirements for assessment
methods per ASME B31.8S-2001
Appendix A3
SCC Remediation
z Bell hole inspections & Evaluation finds: No SCC
recoat & evaluate interval for future inspections,
SCC present repair or replace, perform hydro-
test on section, perform Engineering Critical
Assessment
z Hydro-test Fails: written hydro-test plan, retest
intervals must be justified or Engineering Critical
Assessment to crack growth & Safety
z Code requirements for remediation per ASME
B31.8S-2001 Appendix A3 section 3.4
SCC DA Conclusions

z49CFR 192.929 & ASME B31.8S-2001

zNACE RP-0204-2004 can be used as a
resource
zAll segments meeting the criteria for SCC
must be assessed for SCC
zA written plan for SCCDA must be
followed
Confirmatory Direct Assessment

z49CFR 192.937(5) Confirmatory direct

assessment when used on a covered
segment that is scheduled for
reassessment at a period longer than
seven years.
z49CFR 192.931 Outlines the parameters
of Confirmatory direct assessment
zOnly valid for Internal & External corrosion
CDA Intent & Basis

z Same ECDA & ICDA principals /technique

z Cannot be used as base line assessment or to
extend the interval for conducting a full
reassessment
z Interim assessment method for 7-year re-
inspection for PSIA of 2002
z Validate corrosion growth rates & mitigation
measures from previous assessment methods
CDA External Corrosion

z49CFR 192.925, NACE RP-0502, ASME

B31.8S, Exceptions:
zMay use one indirect inspection tool for
indirect inspection
zAt least one High Risk Scheduled
indication excavated in each ECDA region
CDA Internal Corrosion

z49CFR 192.927, ASME B31.8S Exception:

zOnly one High Risk Indication excavated
in each ICDA Region
CDA Remediation

zDefects requiring remediation prior to next

scheduled full assessment must:
zUse NACE RP-0502 section 6.2 & 6.3 to
determine re-assessment interval
zImmediate indications require a pressure
reduction per 49CFR 192.933 to remain in
place until the next full assessment is
completed.
Re-Assessment Intervals DA

zWritten process is required for determining

Re-Assessment Intervals
zMaximum Intervals Specified in 49CFR
192.939 & ASME B31.8S & NACE RP-
0502
zInterim Assessment < 7-years
zRe-Assessment Intervals based on 30% of
SMYS
Re-Assessment Intervals
> 30% SMYS
z If Re-Assessment Interval is > 7-years:
z Perform CDA or Primary method within 7-years
z Followed by primary Re-Assessment at
established interval
z Re-Assessment Intervals can not exceed
192.939 values unless deviation is permitted by
192.913(c).
z Primary Re-Assessment Interval determination:
z Evaluation of results or ASME B31.8S table 3
Re-Assessment Interval
< 30% SMYS
zIf Re-Assessment Interval is > 7-years:
zPerform CDA or Primary method within 7-
years
zCan use primary method, CDA, or low
stress re-assessment
zFull assessment with primary assessment
< 20 years
Re-Assessment Interval for Prior
Assessments
z Prior integrity assessment conducted before
December 17, 2002 as a baseline assessment
z Initial re-assessment must be conducted by
12/17/09
z If the interval between the assessment date and
12/17/09 is > than the maximum interval a
primary assessment must be completed
z If the re-assessment interval is past 12/17/09 an
Interim method may be used
Re-assessment Interval Implementation

zUse appropriate re-assessment interval in

49CFR 192.939 or ASME B31-8S-2001
table 3.
zBe able to provide adequate
documentation
zTechnical bases to support intervals
selected
Credits

zCYCLA Corporation for information

provided
zDOT RSPA for information provided
zPA PUC for formatting the information