Regulatory
Update
David Johnson
November 13, 2014
Wait a minute . . .
As we go through this today, you’re gonna think,
Wait a minute, here.
Isn’t this the same stuff you talked about last year?
Did you just recycle the same presentation and
reorganize it to make it look different?
And where’s that fried turkey picture?
Well, it’s right here, and the oil is getting hotter -
2
And the reason this stuff
looks familiar is - - 3
There is a lot in the works,
but not moving very quickly
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gas transmission mega-rule
Valve and rupture detection rule
Miscellaneous amendments
State damage prevention enforcement
OQ, cost recovery, notifications
Safety of hazardous liquid pipelines
Excess flow valves
Standards Update
Plastic pipe
4
And not rules, yet
•
•
•
•
•
Class location requirements
GIS / NPMS information collection
Safety management systems
Midstream jurisdiction
Advisories
5
Gas Transmission
Mega-Rule
• Expanded HCA definition – PIR, MCA
• Additional IM requirements – in and out of
HCA/MCA
• Anomaly response & repair criteria
• More gathering lines included
• EC, IC, SCC requirements
• IVP – MAOP confirmation
• PHMSA schedule – NPRM 1-28-2015, 60-day
comment period
6
IVP
• MAOP confirmation
• A process that parallels 192.619 (a) (sort of) for
vintage and other lines
• Talked about it last year
• You remember the proposed flowchart
7
IVP Flowchart (real)
8
IVP Flowchart (published)
9
Valve and Rupture
Detection Rule
• Mandatory automated valves for HCA, Class 3 & 4
locations
• Rupture detection integrated into valve operation
• Goal is rapid mitigation and enunciation of large
release events
• Anticipated bias toward automatic rather than
remote operation
• SCADA and alarm impacts
• Likely based on two reports containing significant
misperceptions
• PHMSA schedule – NPRM 5-1-2015, 90-day comment
period
10
Miscellaneous
Amendments
• Rail shipment of pipe must be per API 5L1
• 1.5 x MAOP test for all ASME vessels
• Welder & welding operator definition and
requalification
• Individual cannot inspect own work
• Lateral definition impacting odorization
requirements
• PHMSA schedule – Final Rule 2-4-2015
11
State Damage Prevention
Enforcement
• Minimal impact to operators
• Primarily a PHMSA – State issue
• Allows PHMSA to enforce state laws if states
ineffective
• May also include one-call requirements differing
from current
• PHMSA schedule – Final Rule 2-4-2015
12
OQ, Cost Recovery,
Notifications
Expansion of OQ (new construction?)
Renewal process for special permits
More stringent incident reporting
Cost recovery for design reviews / construction
inspections
• PHMSA schedule – NPRM 1-28-2015, 90-day
comment period
•
•
•
•
13
Safety of Hazardous
Liquid Pipelines
• Expansion of HCA definition / assessments beyond
HCAs
• Response / repair criteria in and outside HCA
• Leak detection beyond HCAs
• Expanding regulation and reporting of currently
exempt lines – more and smaller gathering lines
• PHMSA schedule – NPRM 11-20-2014, 90-day
comment period
14
Excess Flow Valves
• EFVs on all new and renewed gas service lines
• EFVs on all practicable structures other than single
family dwellings
• Could cover farm taps or non-LDC direct-feed
customers
• PHMSA schedule – NPRM 11-3-2014, 90-day
comment period
15
Standards Update
Update IBR standards in 192, 193, 195
Addresses 22 of 60+ IBR standards
Must be available for free to the public
“On the internet” requirement eliminated
PHMSA to determine what constitutes “free to the
public”
• PHMSA schedule – NPRM 8-16-2013, FR stage
•
•
•
•
•
16
Plastic Pipe
• Authorized use of PA12
• AGA petition to raise D.F. from 0.32 to 0.40 for PE
pipe
• Enhanced Tracking and traceability
• Miscellaneous revisions for PE and PA11 pipelines
• Additional provisions for fittings used on plastic pipe
• PHMSA schedule – NPRM stage
17
Class Location
Requirements
• PLS Act requirement to study
• Do IMP actions reduce the need for class locations?
• Unlikely that class location requirements will
disappear
• Potential for significant reduction in class location
dependence on future pipelines
• However, extensive IM would be required
• PHMSA actions – Public meeting 4-16-2014
• Report to Congress under review
• No additional reports, publication or rulemaking
schedule
18
GIS / NPMS Information
Collection
• Increased positional accuracy in NPMS
• ± 5 ft in HCA, ± 50 ft elsewhere
• Collection of data on 31 attributes – OD, WT, Gr,
seam, age, MAOP, product, class location, HCA,
valves, leak detection, throughput, etc.
• Info to help – emergency responders, local officials,
risk assessments, maybe annual reports
• Extremely expensive
• PHMSA schedule – Workshop in November 17, 2014
Earliest effective date - 2016
19
Safety Management
Systems
• NTSB recommendation P-12-17 to API to develop standard
for safety management systems (arose from Enbridge failure)
• Draft API-RP-1173 balloted – 999 comments
• PHMSA heavily involved and highly supportive
• Structured around 10 elements
• What to do, but not how to do it
• Good concepts, but extremely prescriptive
• PHMSA says will not be in regulations, but it will be an
“expectation” & could be enforced through Safety Orders
• Several references to “regulation” at recent TPAG
• PHMSA schedule – none known
20
Midstream Jurisdiction
• Jurisdiction question raised about a year ago
• Ad hoc group from advisory committee studying
• Clarify PHMSA vs OSHA jurisdiction of facilities for:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Dehydration
NG processing
NGL liquids fractionation
Petrochemical operations
Storage
Terminal operations & transportation
• Goal – minimize regulatory gaps and overlaps
21
Advisories
• Program evaluation and metrics
• Conversion / reversal guidance
• Construction notification – 60 days before
“construction related activities”, include materials
purchasing, off site fabrication
• Enbridge lessons – deficiencies in IM, control center,
public awareness
• Recall of some TDW repair clamps
• Telephonic notification time limit – 1 hour
• Reporting MAOP exceedances
• Communication during emergency situations
• Verification of MAOP records
22
Metrics Guidance
• October 2014 – Program Evaluation & Meaningful
Metrics
• Rigorous program evaluation
o Leading and lagging indicators
o Plan – do – check – act
• Goals, metrics and more metrics
• 6 – 12 “meaningful” metrics – publicize
o Or maybe 100 or so
• Gas & Liquid teams developing
• Finalize enforcement metrics (?)
• Apparent close ties to SMS
23
Program Evaluation
Flowchart
24
Metrics Example
Leading ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Indicators‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Lagging
Failure Mechanism
Other Third Party Damage, including vandalism,
third‐party vehicle contact with facility, interferences
and other intentional or unintentional acts
Selected Process or Operational Activities for Threat
Prevention or Management
● ROW and patrolling program
● Line marking program
Deterioration Indicators
● No. of patrol reports that have not had
necessary follow‐up completed
● Training and OQ tasks
● Reports by law enforcement agencies and first
responder agencies
● Depth of Cover survey program
● No. of pig runs with indicated damage
● Use of Damage Information Reporting
Tool (DIRT) report data
● No. of sites lacking security fencing and /
or cameras or other features
● Public awareness program
● No. of susceptible sites lacking vehicle impact
barriers
● Physical protection of aboveground facilities
Failure or Direct Integrity Metrics
● Releases due to third‐party damage
● Releases due to prior excavation‐related damage
● Releases due to prior non‐excavation‐
related mechanical damage
● No. of aboveground facilities hit by vehicles
● No. of vandalism incidents without a release
● Incidents of damage due to underground inference
with adjacent structures, utilities, etc.
25
Conversion & Reversal
Guidance
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
September 2014 PHMSA Guidance doc issued
Covers conversions, reversals, product changes
Largely follows existing regulations
Helps point out factors & changes that need to be
considered
Pressure & temperature profile changes
HCA identification
Valve and leak detection requirements
Emergency response / spill considerations
26
PG&E San Bruno
• The CPUC has proposed a $1.4 billion fine – in addition to
what has already been spent on the system
• U.S. DOJ has issued a superseding indictment – 28 counts
• Indictment issues – Obstruction, records, threat
identification, baseline plan and assessment methods
• Estimated PG&E derived gains of $281 million and victims
suffered losses of $565 million
• No individual indictments – yet
• PG&E appealing fine, pleading not-guilty to indictment
27
Recent GAO Report
• DOT regulation has not kept pace with
transportation environment
• Large gathering lines, same risk as transmission,
remain outside regulations
• Recommend rulemaking to address gathering
pipeline safety
• PHMSA agrees and is developing proposed
regulations
28
Web Locations
• Advisory Bulletins
http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/advisory-bulletin
• Rulemakings
http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs
• Notices
http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/notices
• Final Rules
http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/rulemaking/final
• Regulatory Agenda
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain
29