PHMSA Update: Aging Infrastructure and Integrity Verification - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
phmsa update aging infrastructure and integrity
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

PHMSA Update: Aging Infrastructure and Integrity Verification - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 03, 2023 208 likes •701 views

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PHMSA Update: Aging Infrastructure and Integrity Verification Process NAPCA Workshop August 15, 2013 Houston, Texas Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

slide-1
SLIDE 1

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PHMSA Update: Aging Infrastructure and Integrity Verification Process

NAPCA Workshop

August 15, 2013 Houston, Texas Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Steve Nanney

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PHMSA Safety Update - Topics

  • Performance
  • Incidents from 2012 - Overview
  • PHMSA’s 2013 Agenda
  • Integrity Verification Process

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Performance

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Serious Incidents

Downward Trend Continues in 2012

4

Serious Incident – fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization

slide-5
SLIDE 5

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Significant Incidents

Downward Turn in 2012

5 Significant incidents include any of the following:

  • 1. Fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization; 2. $50,000 or more in total costs, measured in 1984 dollars
  • 3. Highly volatile liquid (HVL) releases of 5 barrels or more; 4. Non-HVL liquid releases of 50 barrels or more; and
  • 5. Liquid releases resulting in an unintentional fire or explosion
slide-6
SLIDE 6

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

2012 Hazardous Liquid Incidents

6

Top Causes for All Reported & Significant Categories

  • Material/

Weld/Equip Failure

  • Corrosion
  • Incorrect

Operation

slide-7
SLIDE 7

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

2012 Gas Transmission Incidents

7

Top Causes for All Reported & Significant categories

  • Material/Weld/

Equip Failure

  • Corrosion
slide-8
SLIDE 8

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

2012 Gas Distribution Incidents

Top Causes for all incident categories:

  • Other

Outside Force Damage

  • Excavation

Damage

  • Other

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Significant Accident Breakdown Total by Type (Fatalities)

Total for All Types1 Hazardous Liquid Gas Transmission Gas Distribution 2010 259 (19) 121 (1) 79 (10) 54 (8) 2011 284 (12) 139 (1) 83 (0) 60(11) 2012 244 (10) 129 (3) 62 (0) 49 (7) 3 Year Average

(2010-2012)

262 (14) 130 (2) 75 (3) 54 (9) 5 Year Average

(2008-2012)

268 (12) 124 (2) 74 (2) 62 (8) 10 Year Average

(2003-2012)

281 (15) 122 (2) 77 (2) 73 (11)

9

1 includes gas gathering (zero fatality) - excludes “fire first” incidents; data as of 03/29/2013

slide-10
SLIDE 10

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Incidents from 2012 Overview

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

High Profile Incidents

  • Chevron; Salt Lake City, Utah (Interstate)

– Crude oil and refined products – Multiple accidents: 6/10, 12/10, 3/13

  • Sissonville, West Virginia (Interstate)

– Impact to major interstate highway; questions on HCA determination – Led to Congressional oversight hearing – NTSB investigation

  • Mayflower, Arkansas (Interstate)

– Canadian heavy crude – Investigation underway

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Sissonville Pipeline Incident

  • Dec 11, 2012: Rupture of a 20” X-60, gas

transmission pipeline (1967 vintage)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Sissonville Pipeline Incident

  • No injuries or fatalities (thankfully)
  • 3 homes destroyed, others damaged
  • Interstate 77 damaged and temporarily closed
  • 3 pipelines in vicinity – 20”, 26” and 30”
  • PHMSA issued Corrective Action Order
  • NTSB investigated cause

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Mayflower, AR Pipeline Accident

  • March 29, 2012: 20” crude oil

pipeline ruptured in Mayflower, Arkansas

  • ~ 5,000 bbls of crude spilled
  • Pipeline carrying Canadian

crude oil (Wabusca) from Patoka, Illinois to Nederland, Texas

  • Pipeline installed - 1947/1948.

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Mayflower Pipeline Incident

  • Pipeline flow reversal

project was completed in 2006

  • Line from Patoka, IL to

Nederland, TX has been shut in pending the results

  • f the investigation
  • Considerable media

attention

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Incidents like these and others in past years helped to form the focus of PHMSA’s 2013 Agenda…

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PSA of 2011 - Mandates

  • 42 Mandates in Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and

Job Creation Act (PSA) of 2011

  • Includes 9 required studies (Leak Detection, Cover over

Buried Pipelines, R&D, Diluted Bitumen, Cast Iron, Damage Prevention, Expansion of IMP, Gathering Lines,…)

  • Other topics include:

– MAOP Records Verification, – Tests to Confirm Material Strength of Previously Untested GT in HCAs – 1 hour Notification of Incidents, – Automatic/Remote Shut-off Valves

  • 17 -
slide-18
SLIDE 18

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NTSB Recommendations

  • 27 NTSB recommendations:

– ERW Pipe Seam Study/Implementation – Emergency Response Information Sharing

  • Operator Sharing Plan Information
  • 911 Notification (Operator and 911 info exchange)

– ASVs/RCVs – Removal of Grandfather Clause for Gas Transmission – ILI Piggable Gas Transmission Pipelines – Pressure testing of Gas Transmission (w/ spike test)

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Nominal Pipe Size

data as of 7-1-2013 from Part H

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Decade Installed

data as of 7-1-2013 from Part J

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Specified Minimum Yield Strength

data as of 7-1-2013 from Part K

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PSA of 2011, §23 – MAOP Mandate

  • Verify records for Class Locations 3 & 4 and

HCAs

  • Reconfirm MAOP for pipe with incomplete

records

– 5,401 miles with Incomplete Records in Class 3 & 4 and HCAs

  • Strength test all untested pipe in HCAs
  • perating at > 30% SMYS

– 3,220 HCA miles with Pressure Test < 1.1 MAOP

  • 22 -

Gas Transmission 2012 Annual Report data as-of 7-1-2013

slide-23
SLIDE 23

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Specified Minimum Yield Strength

data as of 7-1-2013 from Part K

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NTSB Recommendation P-11-14

  • Eliminate Grandfather clause and require

hydrotest with a spike test for all pre-1970 pipe

– 55,120 miles Grandfathered miles reported 192.619(c) (22,717) and 192.619(a)(3) (32,403) – 93,817 miles with Pressure Test < 1.1 times MAOP – 20,272 miles with Stress Level > 72% SMYS or Unknown.

Except for Special Permit/Alt MAOP pipelines, PHMSA expects this mileage is Grandfathered.

  • PHMSA expects that Grandfather miles and

Pressure Test < 1.1 MAOP are actually close to same #

  • Somewhere between 55 and 94 thousand miles

Gas Transmission 2012 Annual Report data as-of 7-1-2013

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Pressure Test Range

Pressure Test Range

Total Miles % Total

PT ˂ 1.1 MAOP or no PT 93,817 31% 1.25 MAOP > PT ≥ 1.1 MAOP 19,131 6% PT ≥ 1.25 MAOP 187,628 62%

Gas Transmission 2012 Annual Report data, Part R, as-of 7-1-2013

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Pressure Test < 1.1 MAOP

data as of 7-1-2013 from Part R

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Operating Stress Levels over 72% SMYS & Unknown

% SMYS Interstate Intrastate Total > 72 to 80 11,665 231 11,895 > 80 978 321 1,299 Unknown 973 6,074 7,038

  • Miles operating between 72 and 80% SMYS are either

Grandfathered, Special Permit, or Alternative MAOP under 619(d)

  • Miles with Unknown SMYS are Grandfathered

Gas Transmission 2012 Annual Report data, Part K, as-of 7-1-2013

27

slide-28
SLIDE 28

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Data Summary by HCA and Class Location

data as of 7-1-2013 from Part Q

Location Total GT Miles % in HCA GT HCA Miles Non-HCA Miles Class 1 237,756 0.7 1,660 236,096 Class 2 30,210 4.7 1,412 28,798 Class 3 32,613 48.6 15,854 16,759 Class 4 962 78.2 752 209 Total 301,540 19,678 281,862

  • 28 -

HCA – high consequence area

slide-29
SLIDE 29

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NTSB Recommendation P-11-15

Manufacturing & Construction Defects Considered Stable Only for Pipe with Pressure Test ≥ 1.25 times MAOP

  • 3,220 GT HCA Miles with Pressure Test < 1.25 MAOP

– 1,483 miles ILI Able – 1,737 miles ILI Not Able

  • 29 -

Gas Transmission 2012 Annual Report data as-of 7-1-2013

slide-30
SLIDE 30

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Pressure Test < 1.25 MAOP

data as of 7-1-2013 from Part R

  • 30 -
slide-31
SLIDE 31

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NTSB Recommendation P-11-17

Configure all lines to accommodate smart pigs, with priority given to older lines

  • ILI Piggable

60% of Total

  • 118,947 miles

ILI Not Able 40% of Total

  • 69,579 miles

Diameter ≤ 8-inch 23% of Total

  • 44,600 miles

Diameter ≤ 6-inch 15% of Total

  • ???? miles

ILI Not Able due to system configuration

  • 31 -

Gas Transmission 2012 Annual Report data as-of 7-1-2013

slide-32
SLIDE 32

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

ILI Able vs Not Able

  • 32 -

Part R Total Miles ILI Able ILI Not Able Class 1 - HCA 1,658 1,380 278

  • non-HCA

234,851 146,035 88,816 Class 2 - HCA 1,409 1,152 257

  • non-HCA

28,978 15,073 13,905 Class 3- HCA 15,850 10,469 5,381

  • non-HCA

16,751 6,924 9,827 Class 4 - HCA 752 366 386

  • non-HCA

209 112 97 TOTAL 300,458 181,511 118,947

Gas Transmission 2012 Annual Report data as-of 7-1-2013

slide-33
SLIDE 33

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Integrity Verification Process

  • 33 -
slide-34
SLIDE 34

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Integrity Verification Process

  • GOAL:

Establish a comprehensive program to effectively address Congressional Mandates and NTSB Recommendations.

34

slide-35
SLIDE 35

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Overview

  • Held IVP Workshop on August 7
  • Link to Workshop and Presentations

– http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mt g=91

  • Speakers

– NTSB – Vice Chairman Chris Hart – PHMSA – Pipeline Safety Trust – NAPSR – Operators – Gas and Liquids

  • Intrastate (2) – PG&E and Northwest Natural Gas
  • Interstate – INGAA
  • Liquids – API/AOPL – Explorer Pipeline
  • 35 -
slide-36
SLIDE 36

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Integrity Verification Process (IVP) Chart

Based upon Congressional Mandates and NTSB Recommendations

36

slide-37
SLIDE 37

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Basic Principles of IVP Approach

  • IVP is based on 4 principles
  • 1. Apply to higher risk locations

– High Consequence Areas (HCAs) and Moderate Consequence Areas (MCAs)

  • 2. Screen segments for categories of concern

(e.g., “Grandfathered” segments)

  • 3. Assure adequate material and documentation
  • 4. Perform assessments to establish MAOP

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Principle #1 Apply to Higher Risk Locations

  • High Consequence Areas (HCAs)
  • Moderate Consequence Area (MCA):

– Non-HCA pipe in Class 2, 3, and 4 locations – Non-HCA pipe Class 1 locations that are populated in PIR (proposed 1 house or occupied site) to align with INGAA commitment – House count and occupied site definition same as HCA, except for 1 house or 1 person at a site (instead of 20)

  • PHMSA Estimates  91,000 miles HCA/MCA (out of 

300,000 miles)

38

slide-39
SLIDE 39

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

HCAs and Est. MCA Mileage

39

  • Scope of Proposed IVP Process Estimated to Apply to:

– Total Estimated HCA + MCA Mileage =  91,000 miles

  • PHMSA estimates approximately 33,000 miles of GT pipe (approximately 11% of total

GT mileage) would meet screening criteria & require IVP assessment to establish MAOP – IVP Process Steps 1 – 12 based upon 2012 Annual Report Data.

Total HCA Non-HCA MCA Class 1 237,756 1,660 236,096 (est.) 25,394 Class 2 30,210 1,412 28,798 28,798 Class 3 32,613 15,854 16,759 16,759 Class 4 962 752 209 209 Total 301,540 19,678 281,862 (est.) 71,160

slide-40
SLIDE 40

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Principle #2 Screen for Categories of Concern

  • Apply process to pipeline segments with:

– Grandfathered Pipe

  • Based upon 5-year highest actual operating pressure of

segment prior to July1,1970

– Operating pressures over 72% SMYS

  • pre-Code – Grandfathered Pipe

– Lack of Records to Substantiate MAOP – Lack of Adequate Pressure Test – History of Failures Attributable to M&C Defects

40

slide-41
SLIDE 41

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Principle #3 Know & Document Pipe Material

  • If Missing or Inadequate Validated Traceable Material

Documentation, then Establish Material Properties by an approved process: – Cut out and Test Pipe Samples (Code approved process) – In Situ Non-Destructive Testing (if validated and Code approved) – Field verification of code stamp for components such as valves, flanges, and fabrications – Other verifications

41

slide-42
SLIDE 42

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Principle #4 Assessments to Establish MAOP

  • Allow Operator to Select Best Option to Establish MAOP
  • Candidate IVP Options for Establishing MAOP

– Subpart J Test with Spike Test – Derate pressure – Engineering Critical Assessment – Replace – Other options PHMSA should consider?

42

slide-43
SLIDE 43

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Draft - Process Steps

  • 21 Step Process

– Grandfather Clause and MAOP Review – Process Steps 1 – 4 – Integrity Review – Process Steps 5 – 8 – Low Stress Review – Process Steps 9 – 12 – Material Documentation Review – Process Steps 13 – 15 – Assessment and Analysis Review – Process Steps 16 – 20 – Implementation – Process Step 21 – Deadlines for Implementation

43

slide-44
SLIDE 44

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Draft Process Step 1 Grandfather Clause Screen

  • Related Mileage

– 22,717 miles reported as Grandfathered MAOP (192.619(c)) – 32,403 miles reported for MAOP (192.619(a)(3)) – Estimated 14,000 HCA/MCA Miles for 192.619(a)(3) and 192.19(c) MAOP

192.619(c) MAOP Est. by “Grandfather” 1

44

slide-45
SLIDE 45

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Draft Process Step 9 HCA/MCA Screen

45

  • A major screening criterion is location risk (HCA
  • r MCA)
  • Even though listed on the draft flow chart as Step

9, the HCA/MCA screening step may be accomplished first.

  • HCA/MCA screen should be done first to avoid

exhaustive and expensive documentation review for segments that are screened out by virtue of low location risk

  •  91,000 HCA/MCA miles (out of  300,000 mi.)

Segment in HCA or MCA? 9

slide-46
SLIDE 46

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Assessment & Analysis - Steps 15-21

46 Assessment and Analysis to Establish Material Condition of Pipeline and MAOP, commensurate with segment-specific issues and documentation

  • shortcomings. Assessment could include, as

appropriate, specific assessments such as:  ILI Program  CIS  Coating Survey  Interference Survey  Engineering Critical Assessment Perform Subpart J Pressure Test Supplemented with “Spike” Pressure per NTSB P-11-14 Derate Pipeline Commensurate with Class Location And Perform Remaining Life Fatigue Analysis. Future Uprating allowed per Subpart K OR Replace Pipe Document Basis for MAOP and Perform Remaining Life Fatigue Analysis Based on Results Take Appropriate Action to Est. MAOP Develop Specific Guidelines Develop Specific Guidelines Develop Specific Guidelines Develop Specific Guidelines Develop Specific Guidelines 16 19 17 18 20 Select Method to Establish MAOP 15 Continue to Operate and Maintain in Accordance with Part 192

21 21

46

slide-47
SLIDE 47

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Specific Guidelines & Criteria

  • IVP Chart is high level concept
  • Details and specifications under

development

– Will use knowledge from workshop and comments on web site to develop details – Details to Develop:

  • Spike pressure test specs (pressure, hold time, etc.)
  • De-rate criteria (amount of MAOP reduction)
  • ILI program requirements and specifications
  • Material verification specs (# of cutouts, etc.)

47

slide-48
SLIDE 48

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

  • Implementation Timeframe

– Multi-Year Effort – Graduated timeframes with priority to:

  • Legacy (LF-ERW /Seam Issue) pipe segments
  • HCAs
  • High Stress segments
  • Proposed deadlines under development

Target Completion Timeframes

48

slide-49
SLIDE 49

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Thank you

Steve Nanney

US DOT / PHMSA (713) 272-2855 office steve.nanney@dot.gov

49