Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

What is the OPS position with regard to implementation of “should” statements in industry standards that are invoked by the rule?

0
Posted

What is the OPS position with regard to implementation of “should” statements in industry standards that are invoked by the rule?

0

OPS expects operators to implement “should” statements in industry standards that are invoked by the rule. Operators may choose to implement an alternative approach in meeting the recommendations of invoked standards. If this approach is taken, program requirements for the alternative approach must exist in IM Program documents and records must be generated by the alternative approach. The IM Program documents must also technically justify that the alternative approach provides an equivalent level of protection. If an operator chooses not to implement a “should” statement in an invoked standard, a sound technical basis for why it has not been implemented must be documented in the IM Program documents. • Rule Applicability [Top] [Bottom] FAQ-7. Do the requirements of the rule apply to “idle” pipe? [02/20/2004]Answer: The regulations do not define “idle” pipe. Pipe is considered either active or abandoned. OPS understands “idle” pipe, as used in the context of this question, as pipe not

Related Questions

Thanksgiving questions

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.