pipeline advisory committee

U.S. Department of TransportationPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

- 1 -

Pipeline Advisory CommitteePipeline Advisory Committee

Groundhog Day

Jeff Wiese – OPSJuly 11, 2012


Outline• Opening Comments• Groundhog Day?• Perspective on Past Performance• How Did We Get To “Here”• The Fallout• PHMSA Pipeline Priorities for 2012 & Beyond• Upcoming Events


Opening CommentsOpening Comments• We Have Made Good Progress – Together – Over the Years• It’s Been A Tragic and Tough Couple of Years• Clearly We Have Work to Do• Your Advice and Counsel is More Important Now Than Ever• We Can Wrest Control of Our Own Future, or Cede it to Others• Resistance if Futile, Not to Mention an Expensive Time Waster• Themes are Emerging That We Can’t Ignore

– Some are fundamental – risk assessment, records, tools, QA/QC, emergency response preparedness, etc.

– Some are finish work, but essential components – executive engagement, employee involvement,

- 3 -


Groundhog Day??Groundhog Day??• The more things change, the more they stay the same…• We have a solid regulatory framework that still has many flexible,

performance-based requirements, we make progress then…• Numerous operator failures to rigorously implement this

framework raise serious questions regarding need for additional prescription, as well as adding lots of work to do for both of us as a direct result of the backlash – once again, the agenda is driven by others

• 2012 ends the baseline period of transmission Integrity Management, and 2013 will bring serious reconsideration of the IMP framework and seek to identify/fill gaps and soft spots

- 4 -


Perspective on Past Perspective on Past PerformancePerformance

- 5 -


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Chan

ge fr

om 1

988

(Ind

ex =

1)

Pipeline Safety: Context Measures (1988-2011)

U.S.population

Energyconsumption

PipelineMileage

All Pipelineton-miles

Incidentsw/death orinjury

Data Sources: Census Bureau, Energy Information Administration, PHMSA Annual Report Data, BTS ton-mile estimates, PHMSA Incident Data - as of Jan. 18, 2012


y = 89.103e-0.034x

(3.4% decline/yr.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Pipeline Incidents w/Death or Injury (1986-2011)

Data source: DOT-PHMSA Incident data (as of Jan. 18, 2012)


y = 176.92e-0.048x

(4.8% decline/yr.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Pipeline Major Injuries (1986-2011)

↑1,971

in 1994



- 9 -

y = 23.102e-0.019x

(1.9% decline/yr.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Pipeline Fatalities (1986-2011)



y = 306.99e-0.044x

(4.4% decline/yr.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Liquid Pipeline Spills w/Envir. Consquences (1986-2011)



Significant Accidents – All Significant Accidents – All SystemsSystems

Total Number Fatalities2 Injuries2

2010 256 19 10420111 280 15 63

3 Year Average (2009-2011) 269 16 77

5 Year Average (2007-2011) 271 14 68

10 Year Average (2002-2011) 282 15 60

- 11 -1 Data as

of 03/05/201

2

2 Roughly 70% of fatalities and injuries are members of the public


Significant Accident Significant Accident BreakdownBreakdown

Total by Type (Fatalities)Total by Type (Fatalities)Total for All Types1

Hazardous Liquid

Gas Transmission

Gas Distribution

2010 256 (19) 121 (1) 77 (10) 53 (8)20112 280 (15) 136 (1) 79 (0) 62 (14)3 Year

Average (2009-2011)

269 (16) 121 (2) 76 (3) 65 (10)

5 Year Average

(2007-2011)271 (14) 118 (2) 75 (2) 68 (9)

10 Year Average

(2002-2011)282 (15) 122 (2) 75 (2) 75 (11)

- 12 -1 Does not include gathering lines - totals may not add – excludes “fire first” incidents;

2 data as of 03/05/2012


How Did We Get To “Here”How Did We Get To “Here”• Flashback to January 2010

– “Window” was open, and our performance had been good• What happened next

– DWH and fallout– A polarized political environment, and a media frenzy– A spate of tragic and highly visible accidents in 2010:

Marshall, San Bruno, Allentown, Philadelphia, Yellowstone River, GA-TX-ND, etc.

• A prescription for damage from weak links / poor performers and tragic, outlier events

- 13 -


The Fallout – Thru 2011The Fallout – Thru 2011• Administration and Many Others Believe A Fix is Needed

– Secretary LaHood’s Call to Action to ALL Parties– Push for regulatory framework fortification (prescription?)– Demand for stronger oversight at all levels– Case made for pipeline infrastructure reinvestment– Emergence of the economic regulator’s role

• NTSB has delivered their investigation findings and recommendations for both San Bruno

• Congress reauthorized US, with a ton of new mandates, little time, and no to few new resources – late before we begin

- 14 -


Four More Years!Four More Years!• Pipeline Safety Laws Just Reauthorized – only 15 hearings!• What’s the Congress Calling For – A LOT! (more on how in a minute)

– Stronger enforcement with due process protections – for basics (x2), restoring spill plan authority, and for excavation damage (exemptions)

– MAOP Confirmation (grandfather clause), valves, leak detection, EFV’s, depth of cover, damage prevention (grants), emergency notification

– Transparency: cast iron, oil spill plans, basic data– Studies galore: valves, leak detection, expansion of IMP, gathering lines, risks of

dilbit transport, nonpetroleum hazardous liquid pipelines, new construction permit process (State and Federal - GAO)

– Limitation on use of national consensus standards• Flat funding for both Federal and State programs from Congress

– But not from the Administration - FY 2013 Request to Congress

- 15 -


Fallout – Continues in 2012Fallout – Continues in 2012• NTSB has now weighed in on the Marshall, MI failure, and is

expected soon to deliver its reports on Illinois and Florida• IG to has weighed in on their views on integrity

management for HL pipelines, and is actively auditing our State programs

- 16 -


2012 & Beyond2012 & Beyond Pipeline Safety Priorities Pipeline Safety Priorities

- 17 -


Agency Priorities for 2012Agency Priorities for 2012• Continue the cleanup we began in 2011• Focus on legislative mandates & NTSB recommendations

– Regulatory (next)– Workshops (coming up)– Studies (transparent process)

• Deal with a variety of new audits – IG & GAO• Operationally – CRM, DIMP, PA, move to II, new construction,

and risk assessment/records verification, damage prevention, PIPA, etc.

• Follow through on QMS issues, fitness for service- 18 -


2012 Regulatory Priorities2012 Regulatory Priorities• Major Priorities

– Federal enforcement on excavation damage NPRM– Hazardous Liquid rule – through final phase– Pipeline Enforcement rulemaking – through final phase– Gas rulemaking – through proposed rule phase

• Likely to pick up most Congressional/NTSB items– MAOP verification in class 3 & 4 + HCA’s (and beyond?)

• Associated issues of records inadequacies, reporting exceedences, and material testing requirements

- 19 -


2012 Regulatory Priorities2012 Regulatory Priorities• Capacity Permitting

– Gathering lines – data collection and report to Hill– Larger application EFV’s– Miscellaneous rulemaking: Seismicity, accident/incident

notification, consensus standards updates– Cost recovery for “design reviews”– Incorporation of consensus standards – transparency– CO2 (gaseous) and biofuel pipeline fixes– Risk management and class location dilemma– Mapping – accuracy and HCA updates + awareness

- 20 -


2012 Studies2012 Studies• Valves for New/Rehabilitated Gas Pipes

– GAO to look at application to existing pipelines• Leak Detection – Hazardous Liquid and Natural Gas• Cover Over Inland Water Crossings – Hazardous Liquid• Cast Iron Inventory and Replacement/Rehabilitation• Dilbit Transportation Risks• Excavation Damage and Role of Exemptions• R&D Results and Plan

- 21 -


Upcoming EventsUpcoming Events

- 22 -

pipeline advisory committee

Documents