Transcript Slide 1
Pipeline Safety and Reauthorization Pipeline Safety Trust conference November 4, 2010 Perspectives of liquid pipeline operators • No accidents are acceptable • Safety record has improved over the decade – Inside and outside HCAs – All leading causes (corrosion, equipment, materials/seams, operator error, excavation damage) • “Annus Horriblus” – Major project (Keystone XL) opposed partly because of non-pipeline energy policy concerns – Deepwater Horizon, even though not a pipeline accident – And then Marshall, MI, and San Bruno, CA Perspective on the MI and CA accidents • Operators say “I don’t want that to happen to us” • Operators are eager for NTSB findings – What happened and how do we prevent it? – Will the findings identify any regulatory gaps? • Industry works to learn from accidents – PPTS, Performance Excellence Team, Data Mining Team, Pipeline Information eXchange (PIX), Safety Culture workshops • PHMSA has many tools and is not afraid to use them Incentives to avoid a release • • • • • • Injury to public, employees, contractors Clean-up costs Claims and litigation Penalties and fines Reputation hurt with regulators Lost business; reputation with shippers Dramatic Improvement: Liquids Pipeline Industry Onshore Pipe Spill Record Number of Spills per 1,000 Miles 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Barrels Released per 1,000 Miles 800 2.0 629 600 -48% -63% 400 330 0.7 0.5 200 0.0 0 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 3-Year Averages Ending in Year Shown Source: Pipeline Performance Tracking System, a voluntary spill reporting system involving 85% of the U.S. liquids pipeline mileage. Percentage decline from 1999-2001 average to 2006-2008 average. Public concerns about ‘aging infrastructure’ • Data shows no specific trends – Some accidents on older pipe not caused by time-dependent factors • Very long lives if properly constructed, operated, maintained, and protected – Operators focus on specific construction methods, coatings, welding practices, etc. • Thankful for recognition of this by others – But we need to find a better way to explain that Focus in Reauthorization • Excavation damage prevention (One-call exemptions) • Improving the NRC telephonic notification regime • Maintain focus on protecting against the greatest risks • Any requirements should have a technical and engineering basis and enhance safety • Avoid creating security risks • Remember the leading causes of accidents are already covered by regulations PPTS Onshore Pipe Incidents '99-'08 (3-year Average) TOTAL, ALL CAUSES 300 CORROSION 150 250 200 100 150 100 50 ‘08 EQUIP./NON-PIPE 0 20 30 15 20 10 10 5 0 THIRD PARTY 40 50 ’01 0 40 50 ’01 ‘08 0 30 20 ’01 ‘08 OPERATOR/OPER'N 10 0 30 ’01 ‘08 MAT'L/SEAM/WELD 25 20 15 10 ’01 ‘08 5 0 ’01 ‘08 Excavation damage prevention • Causes 7% of all incidents • Leading cause of injuries and deaths • Exemptions have seemed to surprise Congress • Common message among stakeholders • Great starts in PHMSA ANPRM and S. 3856 (Lautenberg-Rockefeller) Telephonic reporting • Rigid National Response Center rules create a conflict between the need to report and the need to estimate – Operators must estimate release volume – Operators cannot revise a report • Options to make immediate reporting more practicable – Allow revisions of estimates – Estimate ranges initially, not specific amounts • A possible common goal for work together Ways we can work together • PIPA promotion • Damage prevention – States, PHMSA, Congress • Notification process reforms • Continued discussion of leading indicators and concerns • Continued discussion of perspectives Thank you Andy Black President and CEO Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL) 202 292 4500 phone [email protected] www.aopl.org