PHMSA’s Proposals: An Outsider’s Perspective Pipeliners Association of Houston November 4, 2013

PHMSA’s Proposals:An Outsider’s

PerspectivePipeliners Association of

HoustonNovember 4, 2013

JOHN A. JACOBI, P.E., J.D.

Client Services2

pipeline data and USDOT and PHMSA records compliance. G2 Partners is a

national leader in assisting pipeline owners and operators to responsively and efficiently improve their

data and record systems, processes, and governance to satisfy pipeline safety laws and reduce

incidents.

pipeline systems integrity. G2 Partners’ pipeline systems integrity management practice

focuses on ensuring quality of data, conducting disciplined risk-based integrity engineering, assuring

regulatory compliance, and implementing overarching risk management processes and operating

systems. Properly implemented, disciplined pipeline integrity programs can minimize lifecycle costs and

asset downtime, increase safety performance and asset reliability, and significantly reduce the likelihood

and consequences of major accidents.

environmental & water resources. Over the past 25 years, G2 Partners’ team members

have provided expert environmental services for thousands of environmental and water resource projects

for all types of clients both in the USA and Latin America. In all cases, G2 Partners strives to provide

cost-effective results for each client and their associated communities and stakeholders.

transaction, M&A, & project development. The G2 Partners team provides expert

technical and financial support to assist clients in evaluating the feasibility of transactions or project

developments for all types of energy facilities. We cover all aspects of a project from transaction

planning and development to implementation. We efficiently identify and quantify the key transaction or

development issues, and apply integrated technical and business practical solutions.

strategic consulting. G2 Partners is called upon to assist with the most challenging problems

facing the energy industry. From dismantling and removing energy assets from the remote and fragile

environments of Alaska to developing strategies for the cleanup and divestment of legacy liabilities in

complex financial and legal transactions worth $ hundreds of millions.

General Outline5

• New Secretary of Transportation

• Sequestration• Gas Transmission NPRM• New Central Region Director• Public Awareness Results• New Penalties Final Rule• IVP (next page)

Integrity Verification Outline6

• IVP Meeting Info• Advisory Bulletins• NTSB Recommendations• Longhorn FONSI• Recommended Presentations• Draft IVP Chart • Personal Observations• Questions

New Secretary of Transportation7

Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx was sworn in as the nation’s 17th Secretary of Transportation Tuesday,

July 2, 2013.

Sequestration8

PHMSA’s “essential functions” (e.g., operator inspections, accident investigations) continued.

Discretionary activities and travel was limited.

Inspection of state pipeline safety programs is apparently not an “essential function.”

Gas Transmission NPRM9

ANPRM Published 8/25/2011Major Topics under consideration:

• Expand assessments beyond HCAs• Repair criteria *• Assessment methods * **• Corrosion control• Expand gas gathering reporting requirements• Management of change• Seismicity requirements *• MAOP exceedance reporting *

(*Congressional Mandate **NTSB Recommendation)

Class Location ANPRM10

Docket ID PHMSA–2013–0161 (8/1/13)

Comment Period ends 11/1/13

More Classes or No Classes!!

Affects Integrity Management

New RD - Central Region11

Dave Barrett stepped down and, effective June 21, 2013, Linda Daugherty assumed those

responsibilities.

Public Awareness Results12

PHMSA held a Workshop June 19 -20, 2013 in Richardson TX

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg

?mtg=90&nocache=6406

I have a whole separate presentation on PAP.

Very few operators escaped unscathed.

Integrity Verification Process13

On August 7, 2013, PHMSA sponsored a public meeting in Arlington, Virginia to discuss a proposed

“Integrity Verification Process” (IVP) to help address several mandates set forth in Section 23,

Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure, of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 as well as several NTSB

Recommendations.

Meeting Web Site & Docket #14

Web Site:

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=91&nocache=9447

Docket Number: PHMSA-2013-0119

Access at www.regulations.gov

Advisory Bulletins15

Two Advisory Bulletins regarding MAOP/MOP verification:

ADB 11-01, 1/10/11

ADB 2102-06, 5/7/12

One Advisory Bulletin relating to Integrity Management

ADB 2012-10, 12/5/12

Advisory Bulletins16

• The first two are focused on the data required to document MAOP/MOP – traceable, verifiable and complete. Nothing new – same rules as always – but not everyone has been paying attention.

• The third is even more telling.

ADB 2012-1017

“[PHMSA] inspectors will check to confirm

that information and data gaps are

aggressively being addressed and that

assumptions are appropriately based on

location-specific data.”

ADB 2012-1018

“Operators should also be diligently working to eliminate information and data gaps

throughout their entire integrity management

program.”

Translation: Operators need data on every joint of pipe and every valve, flange, fitting or other appurtenance to the pipeline that could

affect integrity or affect MAOP.

NTSB Recommendations19

San Bruno, California – 9/9/10 – 39 recommendations

• PHMSA (16)• PG&E (12)• CPUC (5)• U.S. Secretary of Transportation (4)• INGAA and AGA (1)• Governor of California (1)


NTSB P-11-14 “. . . delete the grandfather clause and require that

all gas transmission pipelines constructed before 1970 be subjected

to a hydrostatic pressure test that incorporates a spike test.”


NTSB P-11-15 (Seam Stability)- “. . . manufacturing- and construction-

related defects can only be considered stable if a gas pipeline has been subjected to a postconstruction hydrostatic pressure test of at least 1.25 times the maximum allowable

operating pressure.”


NTSB P-11-17 (Piggability) – “Require . . . all natural gas

transmission pipelines be configured so as to accommodate in-line

inspection tools, with priority given to older pipelines.”

• 119,026 Total Miles Not Piggable• ILI tools not commercially available for

most very small lines (~ 22,018 miles of GT ≤ 4” Diameter)

• Motivate operators to upgrade lines to the maximum extent practicable

The Longhorn EA23

• PHMSA announced the availability of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Longhorn Pipeline Reversal Project (Project) January 2, 2013 (78 FR 146).

• The FONSI is available online at www.regulations.gov in docket number PHMSA–2012–0175.

The Longhorn EA24

• The Material Documentation Plan (Section 9.3.3.3.1, page 9-40 to 9-44) is particularly significant in that it sets forth the procedures and assessments required by PHMSA where historic documentation is incomplete (i.e., historic information is insufficient to adequately demonstrate Maximum Operating Pressure 49 CFR §195.406)

The Longhorn EA25

• The Longhorn EA is much more than just an Advisory Bulletin.

• While Longhorn is a Part 195 system, the underlying rationale can be applied to Part 192 systems.

• The rationale is not yet reflected in a rulemaking, but is a strong indicator.

Recommended Presentations26

All of the presentations are available on the web site (as is the video recording of the meeting). There are, however,

four that are “must see”:

1. Material_Strength_Decision_Chart_-_07-09-2013.pdf

2. Blaine_Keener.pdf (Contains an analysis of the CY 2012 GT Annual Report submissions)

3. Steve_Nanney.pdf (Explains the Material Strength Decision Chart)

4. 2012_GT_Annual_Key_Data_Points_2013-07-15.pdf (the data analyzed by Blaine Keener)

Personal Observations28

1. The mileage reported with incomplete records was, in my opinion, remarkably low (only 5401 miles out of a total of almost 307,000).

2. The numbers are changing because supplemental reports are being filed and it appears obvious that some operators did not report in the fashion that PHMSA expected.

3. Very high level discussion – what is available now, what else is needed, and how can it be collected and analyzed.


3. NTSB does not like the grandfather clause and eventually it will be removed from the code (at least in its current form). PHMSA emphasized that 192.619(c) IS the grandfather clause and that all four portions of 192.619(a) must be available in order to identify the lowest of the four as the MAOP for a segment if the segment is not grandfathered.


4. The NTSB likes “Spike Tests” and it is likely that PHMSA will eventually publish criteria for such tests (probably based on TTO Number 6, Spike Hydrostatic Test Evaluation, July 2004, Baker & Kiefner)

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp/docs/TTO06_SpikeHydrostaticTestEvaluation_FinalReport_July2004.pdf

(or e-mail me if you want a copy)


5. Concern that this initiative (the Draft IVP Chart) is too complex was voiced. My guess is that PHMSA will be reluctant to break this down into multiple rulemakings.

6. The current initiative does NOT include gas distribution, gas gathering or hazardous liquid lines. That said, if it works for gas transmission, it will almost certainly carry over in some form.


7. A risk-based approach similar to that used in Appendix B to Part 195 was mentioned as a possible approach but PHMSA did not offer any further comment (the regulatory deadlines found in Appendix B have expired but it appears that PHMSA MAY be receptive, in principle, to such an approach).


8. Smart pigging is a preferred approach to evaluating the condition of the pipeline but the issue of making existing non-piggable lines piggable is problematic.

9. Pressure testing will likely be the ultimate trump card for pre-code lines and for lines which do not have traceable, verifiable and complete records.


10.The Docket Number is PHMSA-2013-0119 (accessible at www.regulations.gov). Comments may be submitted there and all previous submissions can be reviewed there. There was no indication as to when the comment period will end.

11.The regulatory process is still “stuck in amber” and it may take several years before regulations become final.

Closing Comments35

If you do not have “bulletproof” records you need to be developing a

plan to address your data gaps and

ways to convince PHMSA that, whatever

else the plan is, it is reasonable in light

of 49 CFR Parts 190 -199.

Questions36

John Jacobi

[email protected]

(713) 260-4039 (Office)

(832) 712-3098 (Mobile)

Thank YOU!!

PHMSA’s Proposals: An Outsider’s Perspective Pipeliners Association of Houston November 4, 2013

Documents

Transcript of PHMSA’s Proposals: An Outsider’s Perspective Pipeliners Association of Houston November 4, 2013