High Consequence Areas & Pipeline Assessment Intervals –Is there a need for change? Terry Boss Sr. VP Environment Safety and Operations Interstate 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 Major Interstate Pipelines

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines

More Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Information

Managing Public Risk Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Safety Development Individual Concept (1920-) Company Practices (1927-) Industry Guidelines (1932-) Consensus Standards and Codes (1935- State Regulations (1940--) Federal Regulations (1968-)

Pipeline Safety - Layers of Protection Example OPS 49 CFR 192/5 ASME B31.4/8 NACE RP-0169 & RP-0502 API RP-1163 Close Internal Survey Direct Current Voltage Gradient Hydrotesting Inline Inspection Integrity Management Regulations Codes Standards Practices Programs External Corrosion Threat SCC Const Internal 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”

Worst Case Consequence Analysis

r = 1009 ft. Constant Consequence Concept 660 ft. Pipeline diameter “d” (inches) = 36” MAOP 1650 psig: PIR = 1000 ft PIR = 0.69 pd 2 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 Reassessments Location: Arlington, Virginia Jan 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 – – F NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY Risk-Based Standards Should Allow Operators to Better Tailor Reassessments to Pipeline Threats – – GAO Integrity Management Plan Metrics PHMSA Workshops – Public Workshop to gather comments on Special Permit and Criteria Discussion for 7-year Reassessments d=4aeb8defc8de6110VgnVCM ecb7898RCRD&vgnextchannel= d7e818110VgnVCM ed07898RCRD&vgnextfmt=print d=4aeb8defc8de6110VgnVCM ecb7898RCRD&vgnextchannel= d7e818110VgnVCM ed07898RCRD&vgnextfmt=print – Cased Pipeline Integrity Assessment Workshop – Anomaly Assessment and Repair Workshop 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, hrg PIPE.shtmlhttp://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq- hrg PIPE.shtml