high consequence areas & pipeline assessment intervals –is there a need for change? terry boss...
TRANSCRIPT
High Consequence Areas & Pipeline Assessment Intervals –Is there a
need for change?Terry Boss
Sr. VP Environment Safety and OperationsInterstate Natural Gas Association of
America
Outline
• Natural Gas and Transportation• Management of Public Risk• Results of the IMP Program• Requesting Flexibility in IMP Program Schedule• Ongoing Initiatives to Improve Performance
Natural Gas and Transportation• Primarily Methane – Hydrogen with some Carbon
– Swamp Gas• Lower Density of Energy – Gaseous• Locations of Supply is Diverse• Locations of Market is Diverse• Transportation by Pipelines is Most Feasible• “Bridge” Fuel• Primary Risk is Fire
– Lighter than Air– Limited Ignition Range– Heat Radiation based on Quantity
4
Market and Population is Dispersed
The Natural Gas Industry Marketers
272,500 Gas Wells
Producers• Majors• Independents
Gathering
Storage
Commercial
Residential
Industrial &Utilities
1200 Distributors
Storage
30 MajorInterstatePipelines
Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines
More Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Informationwww.ingaa.org
Managing Public RiskNatural Gas Transmission Pipeline Safety Development
Pipeline Safety - Layers of Protection Example
OPS49 CFR192/5
ASMEB31.4/8
NACERP-0169 & RP-0502
APIRP-1163
Close Internal SurveyDirect Current Voltage Gradient
HydrotestingInline Inspection
Integrity Management
Regulations
Codes
Standards
Practices
Programs
External Corrosion Threat
SCC
ConstInternal
Mfg
Research & Development
Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Risk Management biased by Population Density• Design
– Design Classes• Materials
– Strength of Pipe• Construction
– Construction Techniques• Operation
– Operating pressures and Practices• Inspection
– Frequency and Type of Inspection• Maintenance
11
Example “High Consequence Area”
C-FER HCA determined by Pres. & Diameter
0100200300400500600700800900
1,0001,1001,2001,3001,4001,5001,6001,700
0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500
Maximum Operating Pressure (psig)
Dis
tan
ce (
ft)
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
16"
20"
24"
30"
36"
42"
Worst Case Consequence Analysis
r = 1009 ft.
Constant Consequence Concept
660 ft.
660 ft.
Pipeline diameter “d” (inches) = 36”
MAOP 1650 psig: PIR = 1000 ft
PIR = 0.69 pd2
Pipeline diameter “d” (inches) = 30”
MAOP 1000 psig: PIR = 655 ft
Pipeline diameter “d” (inches) = 18”
MAOP 600 psig: PIR = 304 ft
20 houses within circle
14
Pictorial of a High Consequence Area for Natural Gas Overlaid on the Class Location System
660 ft
30” Pipeline
1010 psig
HousesClass 3
HCA
Number of Significant Incidents
Number of Fatalities
Number of Injuries
Property Damage
Results of the IMP Program
(PHMSA) Carlsbad
Hurricanes
Ongoing Performance Metrics -PHMSA
INGAA Foundation Report
Probability of Failure
Types Failures
Static Anomalies Detrimental Non - Detrimental
Time Independent Defects Excavation Damage Weather Terrorist
Time Dependent Defects Corrosion Cracking
Manage Time Dependent Defects
Manage Time Dependent Effects Inline Inspection Pressure Test Direct Assessment Other Approved Methods
Integrity Assessment Technology Split
GAO Report (Sept 2006)
Timeline For IMP
Interaction of Baseline and Continuing Assessments
Condition of gas transmission pipelines are better than original public
perception
GAO concludes that 7 year reassessment period is conservative
Requesting Flexibility in IMP Program Schedule
Public Workshop to gather comments on Special Permit and Criteria Discussion for 7-year ReassessmentsLocation: Arlington, VirginiaJan 18, 2008
Congressional Testimony - March 2008
Number of Reportable Incidents
Number of Immediate Repairs
Number of Scheduled Repairs
Ongoing Initiatives to Improve Performance
• Tools• Processes• Procedures• Implementation
Cased Pipeline Integrity Assessment Workshop
Anomaly Assessment and Repair Workshop - October 22, 2008
Conclusions
• Natural Gas is a Very Important Energy Source– Flexible and Readily Available– Bridge Fuel for Climate Change– Energy Security
• Public Risk Can and Is Being Managed• Flexibility in the IMP Program is Very Desirable• Commitment to Ongoing Improvement
Background Material• COMPARISON OF INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES FOR NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION
PIPELINES– www.ingaa.org– F-2007-09
• NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY Risk-Based Standards Should Allow Operators to Better Tailor Reassessments to Pipeline Threats
– www.gao.gov– GAO-06-945
• Integrity Management Plan Metrics http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp/PerformanceMeasures.htm• PHMSA Workshops
– Public Workshop to gather comments on Special Permit and Criteria Discussion for 7-year Reassessments http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c/?vgnextoid=4aeb8defc8de6110VgnVCM1000001ecb7898RCRD&vgnextchannel=5296519d7e818110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCRD&vgnextfmt=print
– Cased Pipeline Integrity Assessment Workshop https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=54
– Anomaly Assessment and Repair Workshop https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=55• Congressional Hearing
– The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006: Implementation Review and Discussion of Safety Reassessment Intervals for Natural Gas Pipelines; Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Wednesday, March 12, 2008 http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.031208.PIPE.shtml