Pipeline Safety Update - NAPCA Nanney Workshop... · Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline Safety Update NAPCA Workshop August 16, 2012 Houston, Texas

U.S. Department of Transportation

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

Safety Administration

Pipeline Safety Update

NAPCA Workshop

August 16, 2012

Houston, Texas

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

Steve Nanney

- 1 -




PHMSA Safety Update - Topics

• PHMSA – Overview

• Perspective on Past Performance

• Agency Priorities for 2012

• Where are we now?

• Verification of Records

- 2 -




Who is PHMSA - DOT/PHMSA?

- 3 -



(PHMSA)

FAA

FRA

FHWA

FMCSA

MARAD

NHTSA

PHMSA

RITA

STB




Office of Hazardous

Materials Safety

Chief Counsel

Public Affairs

Contracts/Procurement

Human Resources

Training Center

Civil Rights

PHMSA

Office of

Pipeline Safety

Office of

Pipeline Safety

- 4 -




PHMSA - OPS Regions

- 5 -




PHMSA Mission

• To ensure the operation of the Nation’s pipeline transportation system is:

– Safe

– Reliable

– Environmentally sound

- 6 -




U.S. Pipeline Transportation System

- 7 -




Pipeline Mileage Total

(%) Operators

Total

(%)

Hazardous Liquid 182,135 7 359 12

Gas Transmission 304,580 11 899 32

Gas Gathering 20,242 1 310 11

Gas Distribution

(main)

(service)

2,113,511 81

1,284 45 1,232,173 47

881,338 34

Total 2,620,468 100 2,852 100

- 8 -

Pipeline System Components - 2011




Perspective on Past Performance

- 9 -




Significant Accident Breakdown Total by Type (Fatalities)

Total for All Types1

Hazardous Liquid

Gas Transmission

Gas Distribution

2010 255 (19) 120 (1) 75 (10) 54 (8)

20112 222 (16) 99 (1) 62 (0) 57 (15)

3 Year Average

(2008-2010)

269 (14) 116 (2) 74 (3) 68 (8)

5 Year Average

(2006-2010)

266 (15) 112 (2) 75 (3) 68 (10)

10 Year Average

(2001-2010)

277 (14) 119 (2) 72 (2) 76 (10)

1 Does not include gathering lines - totals may not add – excludes “fire first” incidents; 2 data as of 12/13.2011

- 10 -




y = 89.103e-0.034x

(3.4% decline/yr.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Pipeline Incidents w/Death or Injury (1986-2011)

Data source: DOT-PHMSA Incident data (as of Jan. 18, 2012)- 11 -




y = 176.92e-0.048x

(4.8% decline/yr.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Pipeline Major Injuries (1986-2011)

↑1,971

in 1994





- 13 -

y = 23.102e-0.019x

(1.9% decline/yr.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Pipeline Fatalities (1986-2011)

Data source: DOT-PHMSA Incident data (as of Jan. 18, 2012)




y = 5E+07e0.0836x

(8.4% increase/yr.)

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

(Millions)

Mill

ion

s

Dollar Damage from Pipeline Incidents (1986-2011), in 2010 Dollars





- 15 -

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

All Incidents - Gas Transmission and

Liquid Pipelines - 2002 to 2012/08

All Other Causes

Corrosion

Excavation Damage

Incorrect Operations

Material/Weld/Equip. Failure

Natural Force Damage

Other Outside Forces




Agency Priorities for 2012

- 16 -




A Busy Year for PHMSA

• PHMSA “reauthorized” with new mandates

• 14 new NTSB recommendations

• Inspector General recommendations for HL pipelines

– State programs and oil spill response planning

• GAO issued some recommendations

• Conducted workshops, studies, and regs.

• Construction Inspections

- 17 -




Agency Priorities for 2012

• Major Priorities

– Federal enforcement on excavation damage NPRM

– Hazardous Liquid Rule – through final phase

– Pipeline Enforcement Rulemaking – through final phase

– Gas Rulemaking – through proposed rule phase

• Likely to pick up most Congressional/NTSB items

– MAOP verification in class 3 & 4 + HCA’s (and beyond?)

• Records inadequacies, reporting and material testing requirements

- 18 -




Where are we now?

- 19 -




Aging Infrastructure (% by Decade)

Decade Hazardous

Liquid

Gas Transmission Distribution

Main Service

UNK/Pre 20s

2% ---

1920s 2% 2% --- ---

1930s 3% 4% 6% 3%

1940s 8% 7% 2% 2%

1950s 20% 22% 10% 8%

1960s 21% 23% 17% 13%

1970s 16% 11% 12% 14%

1980s 9% 10% 14% 17%

1990s 11% 11% 21% 22%

2000s 8% 10% 18% 21%

- 20 -




Vintage/Legacy Pipe

• Grandfathered Pipe (with no pressure test)

• Pipe seam issues (LF/HF-ERW, Lap Welded, etc.)

• Older manufacturing quality issues

• Hard spots

• Laminations

• Low toughness

• Legacy coatings (CP shielding)

- 21 -




Managing Challenges with Pipeline Seam Welds

DSAW Pipe Lap Welded Pipe

- 22 -

Spiral Weld – SAW Pipe LF and HF - ERW Pipe




Pipe Seam - Failures

Pipe – ERW Seam

Submerged Arc Welded (SAW)

- 23 -

Electric Resistance Welded Pipe (ERW)




What are the Issues?

• Seam weld integrity issues are:

– Not always being identified by operator’s integrity management and risk assessment approaches

• Inadequate actions taken:

– Pipe seam not identified for special or urgent preventive and mitigative actions in some cases

• Grandfather MAOP/MOP

– No Code pressure test to +125% MAOP/MOP

- 24 -




Pipe Seams Failures (2002-2012/8)

Seam Type Gas Hazardous

Liquid TOTAL

% of Total

DSAW 9 5 14 18

Flash Welded 1 5 6 8

HF ERW 3 15 18 23

LF ERW 5 23 28 35

Lap Weld 1 2 3 4

SAW 2 3 5 6

Other 4 2 6 7

Total 25 55 80 100

- 25 -




Remediation Uncertainties in Vintage Pipe

• ILI Tool Accuracy/Tolerance and Reliability

− Tool tolerance, excavations, usage of unity plots

• Hard-to-Detect Threats

– SCC, girth weld defects, long seam defects, equipment failure, manufacturing defects

• Hydrostatic Pressure Test

– Future growth of un-remediated defects

• Direct Assessment

– Conclusions based on minimal excavations

- 26 -




2011 – New Pipeline Quality Low Strength Fittings

• Coating is cracking due to expansion of fitting during testing

- 27 -




2011 – New Pipeline Quality

• 24-inch Fitting

– Hydrotest – 2160 psi

– Failed at – 1740 psig

- 28 -





- 29 -

Right–of-Way • Backfill practices • Clean-up practices • Maintenance





- 30 -





- 31 -

2011 – HF-ERW Pipe Seam

• Where is the pipe mill and

construction QA/QC?





• Mill applied repair removed by scratching

• No surface prep at coating plant

• 2-part repair over spiral seam with portion of repair lifting off coating

- 32 -




Current Challenges 2010/11/12

• High Profile Accidents with Serious Consequences on Aging and New Infrastructure

• Incidents on Several New Pipelines in 1st Year of Service –

– Industry needs improved material, construction, and operational QA/QC

• Differing Levels of “Acceptable Risk” with Different Audiences

- 33 -




Verification of Records

PIPE DOCUMENTATION – Based on Code, Special Permit, and Operating Conditions

- 34 -




Material Records

• Why are pipeline material records needed?

– To establish design and maximum operating pressures (MOP or MAOP)

– For integrity management (IM) programs

– Anomaly evaluations for safe operating pressure

- 35 -




Records Management

• Materials must be manufactured in accordance:

– DOT referenced standards

– Able to maintain structural integrity of the pipeline:

• Operating pressure, temperature, and environmental conditions including outside force loads

• Fracture arrest for 80% SMYS pipelines

• Pipe Design

– Withstand external pressures and anticipated loads

– Designed for service and class location

- 36 -




Records Management

• What are the first items looked at if a pipeline has an incident? Records!

– Material Records – pipe, fittings & fabrications, etc.

• QA and QC

– Standards – API, ASME, ANSI, MSS, and ASTM

– Tests – mechanical & chemical properties, welding, NDE, and hydrostatic test

– Design and Construction Records – Hydrostatic Test

– Operations and Maintenance Records

– Integrity Management Records

- 37 -




Records Management

• What type pipe records are needed?

– For Design Formula and Maximum Operating Pressure

• Outside diameter

• Pipe wall thickness

• Yield Strength

• Weld Joint/Seam Type

– API 5L – pipe mill test report for new pipe also has….

• Chemical properties

• Tensile properties – yield and ultimate

• Hydrostatic test pressure

- 38 -




What pipe records are needed?

• Needs to be based upon Code, Special Permit and Service/Operating Conditions:

– 72% MAOP/MOP

• 192.105 or 195.106

– 80% MAOP/MOP

• 192.105 and 192.112 or Special Permit

• CE, Charpy, DWTT, Seam Hardness, Steel/Pipe UT, Marco Etch Tests, mill hydrotest pressure, seam weld tensile strength, etc.

– Fracture Arrest – Charpy, DWTT, etc.

– Strain Based Design – possible all of above

- 39 -




API 5L – 44th Edition Requirements Section 13 – Retention of Records

• hydrostatic-tester recorder charts or electronic;

• radiographic images for pipe inspection;

• non-destructive inspection by other methods where applicable;

• qualifications of non-destructive inspection personnel;

• radiographic images for jointer welds;

• repair welding procedure tests;

• heat and product analyses;

• tensile tests;

• guided-bend tests;

• CVN tests;

• DWT tests;

• records of any other test as specified in the annexes or the purchase order

• all welding procedure specifications (WPS) and welding-procedure qualification test records (WPQT/PQR) (see Annex A).

- 40 -




Metallurgical & Pipe Test Report

• Needs to be based upon:

– API 5L

– Operator

– Code

– Permit, if any

– Operating Conditions

- 41 -




Retention of Pipe Records

• Pipeline Operator for new pipelines:

– needs pipe records for Design, MAOP/MOP Determination, Operations and Integrity Management for the;

• “Life of the Pipeline”

• Based upon Code, Special Permit, and/or Operating Conditions/Parameters

- 42 -




Why are material records needed?

• NTSB recommendation (San Bruno)

– delete the grandfather clause and require all pre-70 gas transmission pipelines be subjected to a hydrostatic pressure test incorporating a spike test.

• Act requires PHMSA to:

– direct gas transmission operators to provide verification that their records accurately reflect MAOP of Class 3/4 location and Class 1/2 HCAs

- 43 -




NTSB San Bruno Investigation

• Where were the pipe material records?

• NTSB Board Meeting August 30, 2011

• http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2010/sanbruno_ca.html

- 44 -




Record Management Issues That PHMSA Has Seen!

• Unknown or unverifiable pipe specifications/mill test reports

• “Known” (but really unknown) information

• Project files not properly indexed or recallable – poor housekeeping.

• Incomplete or missing hydrostatic test records

• Lost records – acquisitions, mishaps

- 45 -




Keep in Mind

• We all want safe operations

– Operators must know their systems, including risks and potential weaknesses.

• In San Bruno, we didn’t know??

• Suspect pipe, not meeting any standard.

- 46 -




PHMSA – Advisory Bulletin

• Advisory Bulletin (ADB) - ADB-11-01 – 01-10-11

– Titled: Establishing MAOP or MOP using record evidence, and integrity management risk identification, assessment, prevention, and mitigation. Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0381

– Reminded operators that records used to support MAOP and MOP determinations must be reliable, traceable, verifiable and complete.

- 47 -




Adversary Bulletin (ADB)

• Directed to ALL pipeline operators – gas transmission, gas distribution and liquid

• Does NOT create any new records requirements

• Reminds operators of expectation that operational decisions are based on documented information

- 48 -




What does the ADB Require?

• The ADB information clarifies that adequate records should be:

– Traceable

– Verifiable

– Complete

- 49 -




Traceable

• Traceable records are:

– clearly linked to original information about a pipeline segment or facility

Examples might include:

– Pipe mill records, purchase requisition or as-built documentation indicating minimum pipe yield strength, seam type, wall thickness and diameter.

• Records transcribed from original documents must have careful attention:

– Information from a transcribed record should be verified with complementary or supporting documents.

- 50 -




Verifiable

• Verifiable records –

– information confirmed by other complementary, but separate, documentation.

• Two or more complementary records -

– positively linked can be used together as a verifiable record.

• A single record which has all needed information does not need a separate, complementary, document.

- 51 -




Complete

• Complete records must include:

– a signature, date or other appropriate marking.

• Incomplete or partial records:

– not an adequate basis for establishing MAOP or MOP.

• If records are unknown, a more conservative approach is indicated.

- 52 -




PHMSA – Links

• PHMSA – Pipeline Technical Resources

– http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ptr.htm

• Advisory Bulletins

• Alternative MAOP (80% SMYS)

• Pipeline Construction Issues

• Low Strength Pipe

- 53 -

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ptr.htm




ERW Pipe Needed for PHMSA R&D Program at Battelle

Pipe with seam defects will be used in many tasks of the project including:

• Hydrotest Protocols to for ERW/FW Seams

– improve hydrotesting protocols and validate their practical utility.

• Defect Characterization: Types, Sizes, and Shapes

– bridge gaps in defect characterization in regard to types, sizes, and shapes

– improvements in the tools - ILI and hydrotesting

• Enhanced Detection and Sizing via Inspection

– work with vendors to improve the sensors, interpretive algorithms, and tool platforms in regard to ILI and ITDM to better ensure integrity

• Develop and Refine Essential Predictive Models and Quantify Growth Mechanism

– validate existing models and where gaps preclude validation refine or develop models needed to assess / quantify defect severity.

- 54 -




For R&D ERW Pipe Donations

• The source of the pipe will be blind to DOT PHMSA

• Please contact Battelle directly:

– Bruce Nestleroth

– [email protected]

– 614-424-3181

• Battelle will pay freight charges

- 55 -

mailto:[email protected]




Thank You

Steve Nanney [email protected]

- 56 -

Documents

Pipeline Safety Update - NAPCA Nanney Workshop... · Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline Safety Update NAPCA Workshop August 16, 2012 Houston, Texas