U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Pipeline Safety Update
NAPCA Workshop
August 18, 2011 Houston, Texas
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
Steve Nanney
- 1 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
PHMSA Safety Update - Topics
• Pipeline Safety – Past Year In-Review
• 2011 Workshops - Pipe Seam and Risk Assessment
• Year In-Review – Incidents
• 2011 - New Pipeline Quality
• The Year In-Review - PHMSA Actions
• Industry Actions
• The Impact of 2010
• PHMSA Web Site Links
- 2 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
PHMSA Mission
• To ensure the operation of the Nation’s pipeline transportation system is:
– Safe
– Reliable
– Environmentally sound
- 3 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 4 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
U.S. Pipeline System
Pipeline Mileage%
TotalOperators
%
Total
Hazardous Liquid
173,396 7 306 12
Gas Transmission
317,516 13 939 38
Gas Distribution
(main)
(service)
2,035,253 80
1,245 501,200,803 48
834,450 32
Total 2,526,165 100 2,490 100
- 5 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 6 -
y = 81.869e-0.033x
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Inci
dent
s w
/dea
th o
r maj
or in
jury
Calendar Year
Pipeline Incidents w/Death or Major Injury (1988-2010)
Incidents w/death or injury
Exponential Trendline 1988-2008
'+1 Standard Deviation from trendline
'-1 Standard Deviation from trendline
Data Sources: PHMSA Incident Data - as of May 2, 2011.
Exponential regression to show long-tem trend
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Pipeline Deaths and Injuries (1986-2010)
Injuries
Deaths
-4.9%/year
-1.9%/year
Data: DOT/PHMSA Incident data (May 2, 2011)
1,971 Injuries in 1994
- 7 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
y = 160.77e-0.059x
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Spill
s w
ith
Envi
ronm
enta
l Con
sequ
ence
s
Calendar Year
Liquid Pipeline Spills w/Environmental Consequences (1988-2010)
Spills w/environmental consequences
Exponential Trendline 2002-2009
'+1 Standard Deviation from trendline
'-1 Standard Deviation from trendline
Data Sources: PHMSA Incident Data - as of March 1, 2011.
Exponential regression to show long-tem trend
- 8 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
Mill
ions
Property Damage from Pipeline Incidents, 1986-2010 (1985 dollars)
Data: DOT/PHMSA Incident data (May 2, 2011)
- 9 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 10 -
0
5
10
15
20
25
EQUIPMENT CORROSION EXCAVATION MATERIAL /
WELD
OTHER OTHER
OUTSIDE
FORCE
DAMAGE
NATURAL
FORCES
INCORRECT
OPERATION
Incidents - Hazardous Liquid, Gas
Transmission and Gas Distribution
2002-2011 YTD
1124829 643
628 605456 445
1415
%
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Aging Infrastructure (% by Decade)
DecadeHazardous
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%
- 11 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 12 -
Vintage/Legacy Pipe
• Grandfathered Pipe (with no pressure test)
• Pipe seam issues (LF-ERW, Lap Welded, etc.)
• Older manufacturing quality issues
• Hard spots
• Laminations
• Low toughness
• Legacy coatings (CP shielding)
• Population growth
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
PHMSA 2011 Workshops
• Managing Challenges with Pipeline Seam Welds – Wednesday, July 21
• Improving Pipeline Risk Assessments and Recordkeeping – Thursday, July 22
Workshops - Address Aging Infrastructure Issues
- 13 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Managing Challenges with Pipeline Seam Welds
DSAW Pipe Lap Welded Pipe
Spiral Weld – SAW Pipe ERW Pipe
- 14 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Pipe Seam - Failures
Pipe – ERW Seam
Submerged Arc Welded (SAW)
Electric Resistance Welded Pipe (ERW)
- 15 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
What are the Issues for Pipe Seams?
• 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
- 16 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Pipe Seams Failures (2002-2010)
Seam Type GasHazardous
LiquidTOTAL
% of Total
DSAW 9 5 14 18
Flash Welded 1 5 6 8
HF ERW 2 14 16 22
LF ERW 5 21 26 35
Lap Weld 1 2 3 4
SAW 1 3 4 5
Other 4 2 6 8
Total 23 52 75 100
- 17 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Past Accident History
• Late 80s concern with LF-ERW
– PHMSA Technical Report 89-1, August 1989
• 172 LF-ERW Failures in HL P/L 1968-1988
• 103 ERW Seam Failures in Gas P/L 1970 – 1988
– PHMSA Alert Notices ALN 88-01 & 89-01
• Late 90s concern with managing integrity
– IMP rules including risk analysis
– Special requirements for LF-ERW & Lap Welded pipe
- 18 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Seam Integrity
• Present and Future Seam Integrity issues:
– Processes and tools to analyze seam integrity needs improvement
– Better analysis of interacting threats that could destabilize a marginally stable seam
– Process to obtain and integrate data relevant to seam integrity needs improvement
– Actions when data is lacking or suspect
- 19 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Improving Pipeline Risk Assessments and Recordkeeping
- 20 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Improving Pipeline Risk Assessments and Recordkeeping
• Panels
– Regulatory Perspective on Risk Assessments
– Pipeline Operator Perspective on Risk Assessments
– How Should Recordkeeping Gaps Influence Risk Assessments?
– Indentifying Interactive Threats and Understanding Options
- 21 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 22 -
Integrity Management RuleRetrospective
• Need for accurate pipeline-specific risk assessment
• Underlying need for flexible regulations
– Enhance operator systems and processes
– Identify, prevent, and mitigate risks and threats specific to each pipeline
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 23 -
Recent Events Illustrate Weaknesses in Risk Analysis
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 24 -
Interacting Threats• Multiple discreet threats that endanger pipeline
integrity by simultaneously degrading pipe
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Integrity Management Rule
• Success depends on OPERATOR
– Investigative
– Data-driven
– Analytical
– Integrity-related decision-making
– Prevention
– Mitigation
- 25 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 26 -
PHMSA Risk Assessment Concerns
• Weaknesses of Simple Relative Index Models
• Records (Availability and Quality of Data)
• Data Integration
• Interacting Threats
• Vintage/Legacy Pipe
• Connection to Real Decision-Making
• Uncertainties
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 27 -
Uncertainties
• Subject matter expert opinion
• 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
• Heavy reliance in inferred conclusions
• Conclusions based on minimal excavations
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 28 -
Challenges to Success
• Data validation
• Response to missing or suspect data
• Risk analysis methods suitable to support effective integrity-related decision-making
• Identify effective preventive and mitigative(P&M) measures
• Rigorous processes
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 29 -
Summary
Historic opportunity to improve risk analysis
Challenges
• Data validation
• Response to missing or suspect data
• Deploy more sophisticated risk analysis methods
• Integrity-related decision-making
• Serious P&M measures
• Overall execution of integrity management
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Challenges – Pipeline
• Repair, Rehabilitation, or Replacement
– Integrity Management Programs have driven thousands of repairs to the Nation’s energy transportation pipelines
• Hazardous Liquid – nearly through 2 assessments
• Natural Gas Transmission – through 1st cycle in 2012
• Distribution Systems – compliance begins August 2011
– Much work has been done to remedy repair issues, though more remains
– Some systems or segments, due to time dependent issues, need to undergo major rehabilitation or replacement
– Age is ONE of many considerations in risk assessment
- 30 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Year in Review - Incidents
• Trans Alaska Pipeline, PS-9 – Crude oil
• Deepwater Horizon – (MMS/BOEMRE) – Major Tragedy
• Salt Lake City I – Crude oil
• Marshall, Michigan – Crude oil – Major Spill
• Romeoville, Illinois – Crude oil
• San Bruno, California – Natural Gas – LDC – Major Tragedy
• Upstate New York – HVL, Propane
• Texas and North Dakota – Excavation related fatalities
• Salt Lake City II – Crude oil
• Trans Alaska Pipeline, PS-1 – Crude Oil
• Philadelphia – Natural Gas - LDC
• Allentown – Natural Gas – LDC – Major Tragedy
• Yellowstone River – Crude oil
• Wyoming – Natural Gas – New Transmission Line
- 31 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Marshall, Michigan(Federally Regulated HL Pipeline)
- 32 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Marshall, Michigan(Federally Regulated HL Pipeline)
- 33 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
San Bruno, California(State Regulated Gas Transmission)
- 34 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 35 -
San Bruno, CA
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 36 -
San Bruno, CA
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Allentown, PA(State regulated Distribution Main)
- 37 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
- 38 -
Allentown, PA
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
2011 – New Pipeline Quality
Low Strength Fittings
• Coating is cracking due to expansion of fitting during testing
- 39 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
2011 – New Pipeline Quality
• 24-inch Fitting
– Hydrotest – 2160 psi
– Failed at – 1740 psig
- 40 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
2011 – New Pipeline Quality
- 41 -
Right–of-Way• Backfill practices• Clean-up practices• Maintenance
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
2011 – New Pipeline Quality
- 42 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
2011 – New Pipeline Quality
- 43 -
2011 – HF-ERW Pipe Seam
• Where is the pipe mill and
construction QA/QC?
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
2011 – New Pipeline Quality
• Mill applied repair removed by scratching with a finger nail
• No surface prep at coating plant
• 2-part repair over spiral seam with portion of repair lifting off coating
- 44 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
The Year in Review – PHMSA Actions
• Safety Advisory Bulletins:
– Oil Spill Response Plans
– Emergency Response Plans
– MAOP/Risk Assessment/ Records
• Program Improvements
– Benchmarking study
– Interagency team on spill response
– Operator drill participation
- 45 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
The Year in Review – PHMSA Actions
• Regulatory Agenda
– NPRM – Control Room Management Acceleration
– Final Rule – “One Rule” – Annual Reports
– ANPRM – Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
– ANPRM – Damage Prevention
– ANPRM – Gas Pipelines
- 46 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Industry Actions
• Workshops
• Pipe Quality Work Groups (8 work groups)
• Construction Work Groups (5 work groups)
• Standards updates
– API 5L
– API 1104
- 47 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
The Impact of 2010
• Got the Attention of Everyone –
– Public, White House, Secretary, Congress, Media, and Oversight Agencies
• Expect to See More Media Attention to Pipeline Failures
• Expect to See PHMSA, DOJ and EPA Stepping Up Their Attention
• Delayed DOT Pipeline Reauthorization
- 48 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
The Impact of 2010 - Other Issues
• Damage Prevention – Adequacy of State Laws/Programs
• Population Encroachment: Getting the PIPA word out
• New Construction
– OQ & QMS: Role of Contractors in Determining Quality
– Material Deficiencies
• Public Awareness Programs: Inspections and Effectiveness
• Repair Criteria and Response Times Outside HCA’s
• Research and Development Investment
• Transparency/Adequacy of Consensus Standards
- 49 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Current Challenges
• Rash of High Profile Accidents with Serious Consequences on Aging 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
• We all have accomplished a lot. We all still have much work to do.
- 50 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
PHMSA – Links
• Pipeline Safety Guidance – Advisory Bulletins, Low Strength Pipe Guidelines, MAOP Rule FAQs
– http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/guidance
• Construction
– http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/construction/index.htm
• Alternative MAOP Rule
– http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/maop/index.htm
• Distribution Integrity Management
– http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/dimp/
• Special Permits – FAQs
– http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/classloc/faqs.htm
- 51 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Pipeline Construction Webpagehttp://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/construction/index.htm
- 52 -
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Thank You
- 53 -