Transcript PHMSA`s Proposals: An Outsider`s Perspective

PHMSA’s Proposals:
An Outsider’s Perspective
Pipeliners Association of Houston
November 4, 2013
JOHN A. JACOBI, P.E., J.D.
Client Services
2
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 costeffective 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.
2
General Outline
5
• New Secretary of
Transportation
• Sequestration
• Gas Transmission NPRM
• New Central Region Director
• Public Awareness Results
• New Penalties Final Rule
• IVP (next page)
Integrity Verification Outline
6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IVP Meeting Info
Advisory Bulletins
NTSB Recommendations
Longhorn FONSI
Recommended Presentations
Draft IVP Chart
Personal Observations
Questions
New Secretary of Transportation
7
Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx was sworn in as the
nation’s 17th Secretary of Transportation Tuesday,
July 2, 2013.
Sequestration
8
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 NPRM
9
ANPRM Published 8/25/2011
Major 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 ANPRM
10
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 Region
11
Dave Barrett stepped down and, effective June 21,
2013, Linda Daugherty assumed those
responsibilities.
Public Awareness Results
12
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 Process
13
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/MtgHo
me.mtg?mtg=91&nocache=9447
Docket Number: PHMSA-2013-0119
Access at www.regulations.gov
Advisory Bulletins
15
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 Bulletins
16
•
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 2012-10
17
“[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 2012-10
18
“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 Recommendations
19
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 Recommendations
20
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 Recommendations
21
NTSB P-11-15 (Seam Stability)- “. . .
manufacturing- and constructionrelated 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 Recommendations
22
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 EA
23
• 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 EA
24
• 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 EA
25
• 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 Presentations
26
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)
27
Personal Observations
28
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.
Personal Observations
29
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.
Personal Observations
30
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/TTO
06_SpikeHydrostaticTestEvaluation_FinalRepo
rt_July2004.pdf
(or e-mail me if you want a copy)
Personal Observations
31
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.
Personal Observations
32
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).
Personal Observations
33
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.
Personal Observations
34
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 Comments
35
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.
Questions
36
John Jacobi
[email protected]
(713) 260-4039 (Office)
(832) 712-3098 (Mobile)
Thank YOU!!