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