1 / 12

Carol Parker (Placitas, NM) Board Member, Pipeline Safety Trust pstrust

PHMSA Pipeline Incident and IM Data: What They Do and Do Not Tell Us Pipeline Safety Trust Conference November 20, 2008 New Orleans, LA. Carol Parker (Placitas, NM) Board Member, Pipeline Safety Trust www.pstrust.org Lois Epstein, P.E. (Anchorage, AK) President, LNE Engineering and Policy.

honora
Download Presentation

Carol Parker (Placitas, NM) Board Member, Pipeline Safety Trust pstrust

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PHMSA Pipeline Incident and IM Data:What They Do and Do Not Tell UsPipeline Safety Trust ConferenceNovember 20, 2008New Orleans, LA Carol Parker (Placitas, NM) Board Member, Pipeline Safety Trust www.pstrust.org Lois Epstein, P.E. (Anchorage, AK) President, LNE Engineering and Policy

  2. What’s Happened with Incident Reporting Since 2000? • More analysis within and outside of PHMSA to detect incident causes and trends • State-level incident data on PHMSA’s website • Reporting of gross, not just net releases; graphics show incident trends (more accurate than volume trends) • PHMSA’s mapping system offers the opportunity for geographic analysis of data

  3. Note: Significant incidents include all serious incidents. New Mexico All Pipeline Systems: 1998-2008 YTD

  4. What Incident Data Problems Persist? • Environmental consequences ignored: “significant” and “serious” incident analyses focus on injuries, fatalities, and property damage • Incident data do not include reports from pipelines not regulated by PHMSA (exempt pipelines, certain offshore pipelines) • Too many unknown incident causes reported (see graphics)

  5. What Incident Data Problems Persist (continued)? • Incident reports do not track releases that “could affect,” versus those that “did affect,” High Consequence Areas (proposed change) • Incident reports do not distinguish 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party damage (proposed change) • No reporting of mileage of HCA pipe versus non-HCA pipe in each state and nationally – this would allow comparison of accident rates and a measurement of effectiveness of HCA measures

  6. Solutions to Incident Data Problems • Track environmental damages • Analyze and present annual data • Report HCA mileage versus total mileage of each type of pipeline for both state and national data • Unregulated pipelines should be required to report incidents and mileage to PHMSA • “Unknown” category should be zero or near zero; audit reports and fine operators for inadequate reports • PHMSA accepting comments on revised incident forms through December 12

  7. IM Performance Measure Reporting • These are relatively new data posted on PHMSA’s website for hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines • Performance measures differ for HL and NG pipelines, with all NG pipeline operators reporting incidents, leaks, and failures in High Consequence Areas

  8. NG Pipelines Short-Term Results

  9. IM Performance Measure Reporting: Observations • Reporting incidents, leaks, and failures in HCAs enhances effectiveness of IM; this performance measure should be extended to HL pipelines • Does not evaluate 1st & 2nd party excavation damage • No unknown incident causes in HCAs?

More Related