Carol Parker (Placitas, NM) Board Member, Pipeline Safety Trust pstrust
12
1 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
description
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. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Carol Parker (Placitas, NM) Board Member, Pipeline Safety Trust pstrust
1
PHMSA Pipeline Incident and IM Data:What They Do and Do Not Tell Us
Pipeline 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
4
Note: Significant incidents include all serious incidents.
New Mexico All Pipeline Systems: 1998-2008 YTD
Year Number Fatalities Injuries Property Damage Gross Barrels Lost Net Barrels Lost
1998 6 0 1 $352,903 728 637
1999 11 0 1 $1,541,307 6,504 1,086
2000 3 12 0 $1,733,597 2,537 2,250
2001 6 0 5 $413,664 130 2
2002 8 0 0 $314,804 2,540 2,274
2003 7 1 1 $837,777 4,200 1,170
2004 6 0 2 $352,333 1,983 1,927
2005 6 0 1 $463,444 2,794 2,694
2006 5 0 3 $687,747 1,956 791
2007 6 2 0 $995,329 0 0
2008 YTD 6 0 2 $726,623 4,653 4,605
Totals 70 15 16 $8,419,533 28,025 17,436
3 Year Average (2005-2007)
6 1 1 $715,507 1,583 1,162
5 Year Average (2003-2007)
6 1 1 $667,327 2,187 1,316
10 Year Average (1998-2007)
6 2 1 $769,291 2,337 1,283
5
6
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)
7
8
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
9
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
10
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
11
NG Pipelines Short-Term Results
12
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?
