Protocol Item B.01

Verify that the operator followed ASME B31.8S-2004, Section 6.2 and that the assessment method selected for each covered segment addresses all of the threats identified for the segment. More than one assessment tool may be necessary to address all applicable threats to a covered segment. [§192.919(b), §192.921(a), §192.921(c), and §192.921(h)]

1. Verify that the operator has evaluated the general reliability of any in-line assessment method selected by looking at factors including but not limited to: detection sensitivity; anomaly classification; sizing accuracy; location accuracy; requirements for direct examination; history of tool; ability to inspect full length and full circumference of the section; and ability to indicate the presence of multiple cause anomalies. Refer to ASME B31.8S-2004, Section 6.2.5. [§192.921(a)(1)]

If a pressure test is specified, verify that the test is required to be conducted in accordance with Part 192, Subpart J requirements. Verify that the operator followed ASME B31.8S-2004, Section 6.3 in selecting the pressure test as the appropriate assessment method. [§192.921(a)(2)]

If the operator specifies the use of "other technology," verify that notification to PHMSA is required in accordance with Part 192.949, 180 days before conducting the assessment. Also, verify that notification to a State or local pipeline safety authority is required when either a covered segment is located in a State where PHMSA has an interstate agent agreement, or an intrastate covered segment is regulated by that State. [�192.921(a)(4)]

If a covered pipeline segment contains low frequency electric resistance welded pipe (ERW) or lap welded pipe that satisfies the conditions specified in ASME B31.8S-2004, Appendix A4.3 and ASME B31.8S-2004, Appendix A4.4, and any covered or non-covered segment in the pipeline system with such pipe has experienced seam failure, or operating pressure on the covered segment has increased over the maximum operating pressure experienced during the preceding five years verify that the selected assessment method(s) are proven to be capable of assessing seam integrity and detecting seam corrosion anomalies. [§192.917(e)(4)]

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, verify that the operator documents an acceptable justification for the use of an alternative assessment method that will address the identified threats to the covered segment. [§192.921(h)]