1. PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety Montana Governor’s Task Force 11/15/2011

2. Water Crossing Survey of Montana Petroleum Pipelines
Reason for Study: As a result of the July 2, 2011 crude oil spill into the Yellowstone River, ensure the integrity of petroleum pipelines at major water crossings that affect rivers in Montana.
Primary Purpose: Collaborate with State of Montana to compile an inventory of petroleum pipelines at water crossings and determine if they are currently safe.

3. Other Purposes of Survey
Determine if additional steps are required before Spring 2012 run off.
Determine adequacy of pipeline operators’ patrolling methods and remedial actions at water crossings
Develop recommendations regarding:
Enhance PHMSA inspection guidance to ensure operators are meeting all aspects of regulations, particularly with respect to protecting their pipelines from water-related damage.
Identify possible regulatory changes to PHMSA leadership expanding the requirements for water crossings.

4. Scope
Examined petroleum pipelines crossing streams and rivers affecting the upper Missouri River Basin. Focus on Montana and Northern Wyoming rivers flowing into Montana.
Collected pipeline information from operators regarding major (greater than 100 feet) river crossings.
Conducted field validation of submitted information.
Performed numerous right-of-way visits on pipelines where they crossed lesser streams to document the extent of flood damage.

5. Limitations Utilized Operator’s depth of cover survey information.
Could not visit all ROW areas either due to inaccessibility or lack of time.
Did not address numerous above ground spans where continued erosion may have increased the length of unsupported spans.

6. Heightened Awareness
Recent Exxon Mobil spill and increased PHMSA focus on water crossings resulted in Operator’s assessing the conditions of the Right of Way.
Numerous mitigative actions are complete or underway.

7. Information Collected (example)
Pipeline specifications
Installation dates
Major water crossing locations
Installation method (trench, bored)
Commodity
Date of latest hydrotest
ILI dates
Latest depth of cover survey

8. Examples of what our inspectors looked for in field
Focusing on the potential for pipe exposures
Evidence of upstream obstructions
Indications of channel deepening or localized scour
What type of channel, e.g. meandering, straight, braided?
Visible erosion of stream banks associated with crossing.
Stream stability issues known by landowners, Montana DNRC, local conservation district, concerned citizens.

9. Basic Pipeline Statistics
Operator
Miles
Major River Crossings
ExxonMobil 70 4
CHS
591 9
Conoco Phillips
1350 48
Plains 71 1
Marathon
250 (WY) 6
Kinder Morgan
310 10
ONEOK
True
193 3
* Note: Montana Refining less than 5 miles with no water crossings

10. Type of Construction at River Crossings
Percentage that are HDD versus open trench
82 Crossings (23 HDD vs 58 open trench w 1 unknown)
Number by year of crossing construction
1940 to
1961 to
1981 to
Post 2001 – 4
TBD – 17 (mostly reported as idled)

11. Planned or Completed Improvements of Major River Crossings
ExxonMobil
Yellowstone River (Laurel) HDD completed (9/11)
HDD scheduled for Rock Creek and Clark’s Fork (start late November and complete by late January 2012)
CHS
HDD planned for Musselshell River (12/11)
Tongue River -TBD
ConocoPhillips - Survey received 11/11/11 (Exposures)
Completed Belt Creek remediation over Glacier P/L (8/11)
Judith (enhanced cover over Glacier P/L by 12/11)
Missouri (Glacier) and Gallatin (YPL) - TBD

12. Other Exposed Pipeline Crossing Remediation Efforts (Preliminary)
CHS – Canyon Creek Span(Billings) and 3 small tributaries of Yellowstone (Lignite - HDD, O’Fallon-Lowering, and Diamond Ring Ranch - Relocation) – All by next spring
ExxonMobil – Canyon Creek Span (Billings)
ConocoPhillips – Belt Creek, Beauvais Creek (Lodge Grass), Beaver Creek (Winston), Beaver Creek (York), - All will be completed by end of year
Other recently revealed exposures on Conoco Phillips-_
YPL Hauser, Seminoe Bitter Creek – Action TBD
Final Survey Results need to be reviewed in depth to identify other areas requiring remediation

13. What concerns us most before next runoff season
What are PHMSA’s Immediate Concerns
Completion of Exxon’s Silvertip’s Rock Creek and Clarks Fork crossings.
CHS HDD – Musselshell River
Conoco Phillips – Missouri and Gallatin Rivers
Final Review of depth of cover surveys – Just coming in
Review IMP Plans to see whether cover is sufficient
Control Room Management Inspections (Eff. 10/2011)

14. Next Steps Aggregate data
Complete review of 2011 river crossing inspections
Develop enforcement actions for operator’s not addressing known risks
Inspect new pipeline construction atwater crossings
Improve coordination with State, including the need for safety enhancements at water crossings

15. Comments or Questions?