Pipeline Integrity Management Programs

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Museum Presentation Intermuseum Conservation Association.
Advertisements

On the way to an effective regulatory framework of pipeline safety The WP-6 sectoral initiative on pipeline safety Prepared by Sergey Mokrousov.
Joe Killins & Associates, LLC Pipelines & Risk Based Management How Safe is Safe?
GTI’s Composite Materials (CM) Program
NACE Direct Assessment Standards Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) Public Meeting November 4, 2003.
August 21, 2012 Western Regional Gas Conference Paul Gustilo Southwest Gas Corporation.
Government Industry R&D Forum March 2005 Pipeline Design & Construction Near Term Focus Future Gaps & Opportunities.
Demonstration Grant PARTNERS FOR PIPELINE SAFETY WEB PAGES Develop interactive and informative webpage for residents, property owners, contractors and.
Ohio’s One-Stop Utility Resource Gas Pipeline Safety Pipelines - State and Local Issues Pete Chace GPS Program Manager (614)
Pipelines & Land Use How Can They Help You? Charles H. Batten, P.E. President Batten & Associates, Inc. Locust Grove, Virginia.
High Consequence Areas & Pipeline Assessment Intervals –Is there a need for change? Terry Boss Sr. VP Environment Safety and Operations Interstate Natural.
Railroad Commission of Texas Pipeline Safety Division.
BASIC CONCEPTS IN PIPELINE INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT
Overview of Key Rule Features
1 Resources for Integrity Management Marty Matheson, American Petroleum Institute OPS Public Meeting August 8, 2001 Houston, TX.
Direct Assessment Basics
Pipeline Corrosion Management NACE Houston Section April 9, 2013 Drew Hevle - Manager, Corrosion Control Kinder Morgan Natural Gas Pipeline.
Transportation Strategy SCMN 4780 Modal Analysis: Pipeline.
DELIVERING SAFE & RELIABLE OPERATION
Stress Corrosion Cracking Overview & Introduction David Johnson December 2, 2003.
1 Philip Sher Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Gas Pipeline Safety Unit RepresentingNAPSR National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives.
ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION Darin Burk Pipeline Safety Program Manager.
Safety Meeting Protective Equipment EDM Services, Inc. March 2008.
SCC DA Program Stress-corrosion-cracking direct assessment (SCCDA) is a structured process that contributes to pipeline company’s efforts to improve.
Technical Advisory Committee December 2012 Fitness for Service.
Comprehensive Volume, 18 th Edition Chapter 52: Environmental Law and Land Use Controls.
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS Stephanie Weidman Austin Regional Manager Oversight and Safety Division Pipeline Safety September 2015.
HOUSTON, TEXAS1 Pipeline Repair ENGINEERING SERVICES LP HOUSTON, TEXAS Engineering Specification.
Integrity Management Continuous Improvement Fitness For Service and Management of Pre-Regulation Pipe Chad Zamarin Chief Operating Officer NiSource Midstream.
Risk Management for Business
ICDA of Gas Transmission, Gathering & Storage Systems GOAL: Develop a protocol for Validation of dry gas ICDA method: –Identify data needs –Develop procedures.
Informed Planning Near Pipelines Brought to you by a Community Technical Assistance Grant from the U.S. Dept of Transportation.
ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION Darin Burk Manager – Pipeline Safety 1.
HCAs & Pipeline Assessment Intervals Is There a Need for Change? Richard B. Kuprewicz President, Accufacts Inc. For Pipeline Safety Trust New Orleans Conference.
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS Chairman David Porter Commissioner Christi Craddick Commissioner Ryan Sitton September 15-17, 2015.
Ensuring Success in Integrity Management Marty Matheson American Petroleum Institute July 24, 2002.
METAL LOSS IN-LINE INSPECTION SURVEYS LIMITS AND INACCURACIES.
A Framework for Your Pipeline Integrity Program. 2 A Few Thoughts Before Beginning l This rule is new to the pipeline industry although many of the concepts.
What’s Wrong with Integrity Management? How Do We Improve Integrity Management? Terry Boss Senior Vice President Safety Environment and Operations PST.
I. M. DMYTRAKH and V. V. PANASYUK Karpenko Physico-Mechanical Institute, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 5 Naukova Street, Lviv, 79601, UKRAINE.
U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline Standards and Rulemaking Division: Current Rulemakings.
Pipeline Safety – 2015 Year in Review. Large PHMSA Budget Increase Pipeline Safety spending in 2015 was increased $26.9 million. Main areas of expansion.
How Old is too Old? Who Makes that Decision? Alan Mayberry New Orleans, Louisiana Pipeline Safety Trust Annual Conference
Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Josef Kopec, P.Eng.
OPS Observations, Expectations, and Concerns Zach Barrett (OPS) Direct Assessment Workshop November 4, 2003.
Who is INGAA? INGAA represents the majority of the interstate natural gas transmission pipeline companies operating in the U.S., as well as comparable.
The Pipeline Safety Trust “Restoring Trust In Pipeline Safety” New Orleans, LA November 2-3, 2006 Nate Muehl Damage Prevention & ROW Relations Manager.
Pipeline Safety in Michigan Jennifer McKay Policy Director Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council City of Boyne City Commission Meeting April 25, 2016.
Gas Pipeline Safety Federal Regulatory Update Pete Chace Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Gas Pipeline Safety Program Manager.
4/28/2017 Stress Corrosion Cracking Assessment in Pipeline Mohammed Abu Four October 11, 2010.
4.04 Understand the Marketplace Experience
4.04 Understand the Marketplace Experience
Make the pic clearer, name & university Oshin Paranjape
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Chapter 34 risk management Section 34.1 Business Risk Management
PipelineML 90th OGC Technical Committee Washington, DC
Chapter 3: IRS and FTC Data Security Rules
Traceability of Gas Pipeline Materials Research & Materials Manager
Contractor Liability on
Utility Technologies International
Evaluating Non-Leak Threats
Washington State Department of Ecology
Environmental Compliance
Prevention of Pipeline Failures by adopting Integrity Management System N . Bose Babu Executive Director GSPL & CEO – GITL Gandhinagar.
Effect of Earthquake on Fire Protection Systems
Risk Based inspection in pipelines PSC th March 2018
Personal Injury Law Overview
Chapter 34 Risk Management
Cost Benefit Analysis of Implementing LOTO
Introduction Bunds have been used for years to protect against the effects of losses from storage tanks. They can limit the loss of flammable liquids,
Presentation transcript:

Pipeline Integrity Management Programs Ernest Klechka

CASA Pipeline

CASA Pipeline Product Pipeline: Diesel, Gasoline Product received from Corpus Christi Refinery transported to Victoria and San Antonio Terminals Length: 234.66 Miles CASA Pipeline system: 8-inch piping was constructed by Sinclair Pipeline in 1947 and commissioned in 1948. 6-inch pipeline to San Antonio was constructed in 1948. Line Number Miles From To Nominal Pipe Size Long Seam Comments 132A 80.27 Nueces Station Victoria Station 8 Lap 132B 70.41 Luling Station 132C 49.24 San Antonio Terminal 6 Seamless ERW (1965) 132D 34.74 Austin Idle 132E <1 San Antonio Seamless

BENEFITS OF INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT Public safety Reduced liabilities Environmental protection Enhances system reliability Extend the life of pipeline assets Goodwill Required by 49 CFR Part 192 and Part 195

PIPELINE INTEGRITY PROGRAM CONSISTS OF 5 PLANS Integrity Management Plan Performance Plan Communications Plan Management of Change Plan Quality Control plan

THREATS TO PIPELINE INTEGRITY There are numerous potential threats to pipeline integrity First challenge includes recognizing these threats and establishing an assessment program ASME B31.8S (gas pipelines) 21 Threats, 9 categories 3 time related defects External Corrosion Internal Corrosion Stress Corrosion Cracking Manufacturing and related defects Construction and related defects Equipment and related defects Third party inflicted damage Incorrect operations and procedures Weather related, earth related and other outside forces API 1160 (liquid pipelines) lists similar threats under categories of metal loss and construction/third party damage

Integrity Assessments ILI PIGGING TOOLS WALL LOSS TOOLS MFL ULTRASONIC CRACK TOOLS GEOMETRY AND MAPPING TOOLS HYDROSTATIC TESTING PRESSURE TESTING USUALLY WITH WATER TO 125% OF MOP DIRECT ASSESSMENT EXTERNAL DIRECT ASSESSMENT INTERNAL DIRECT ASSESSMENT STRESS CORROSION DIRECT ASSESSMENT OTHER TECHNOLOGY (Equivalent understanding)

ILI PIGGING TOOLS NACE SP0102 ADVANTAGES Ability to obtain accurate data for identifying and sizing defects Applicable to long sections of pipeline Ability to retrieve and compare data for corrosion trending Transferable to geographic information systems (GIS) Non-destructive nature of the tools

HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE TESTING DISTRUCTIVE PROCESS ONLY CRITICAL FLAW LEADING TO FAILURE AT THE TIME OF TEST ARE FOUND Pipeline must be taken out of service Large Volume of water must be used and disposed of in accordance with environmental regulations Introducing water into the pipeline is a corrosion risk factor Hydrostatic testing may be destructive; use in highly populated areas is not desirable

DIRECT ASSESSMENT 4 STEP PROCESS Pre-assessment Indirect inspection Direct examination Post assessment ECDA (External Corrosion Direct Assessment) NACE SP0502 ICDA (Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment) Dry gas DG-ICDA NACE SP0206 Wet gas WG-ICDA NACESP0119 Liquids LP-ICDA NACE SP0208 SCCDA (Stress corrosion cracking direct assessment) SP0204

ECONOMIC OF AN INCIDENT WHAT ARE THE REAL COSTS OF AN INCIDENT? Lost revenue from interruption operations Lost product Cost of repair and property damage Public liability including increased insurance costs Public image including investor relations Civil and criminal penalties

Bellingham, Washington June 10, 1999 Creek filled with 200,000 gallons of gasoline from a 16”D pipe that ruptured. Ignited and caused three deaths Caused $45 million in property damage That federal investigation ultimately resulted in prison or probation terms for three company officials and a settlement requiring $112 million in penalties and safety improvements. Cost of incident exceeded $1 Billion

San Bruno, California 2010 The indictment charges the utility with 12 felony violations of federal pipeline safety laws, which could carry a total possible fine of $6 million, or more if the court decides it somehow benefited financially from the disaster. Federal prosecutors allege that PG&E knowingly relied on erroneous and incomplete information when assessing the safety of the pipeline that eventually ruptured, sparked a fireball and leveled 38 homes in San Bruno. The neighborhood where eight were killed and dozens injured is still recovering.

QUESTION?