Presentation on theme: "Water Crossing Survey of Montana Petroleum Pipelines"— Presentation transcript:
1PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety Montana Governor’s Task Force 11/15/2011
2Water Crossing Survey of Montana Petroleum Pipelines Reason for Study: As a result of the July 2, 2011 crude oil spill into the Yellowstone River, ensure the integrity of petroleum pipelines at major water crossings that affect rivers in Montana.Primary Purpose: Collaborate with State of Montana to compile an inventory of petroleum pipelines at water crossings and determine if they are currently safe.
3Other Purposes of Survey Determine if additional steps are required before Spring 2012 run off.Determine adequacy of pipeline operators’ patrolling methods and remedial actions at water crossingsDevelop recommendations regarding:Enhance PHMSA inspection guidance to ensure operators are meeting all aspects of regulations, particularly with respect to protecting their pipelines from water-related damage.Identify possible regulatory changes to PHMSA leadership expanding the requirements for water crossings.
4ScopeExamined petroleum pipelines crossing streams and rivers affecting the upper Missouri River Basin. Focus on Montana and Northern Wyoming rivers flowing into Montana.Collected pipeline information from operators regarding major (greater than 100 feet) river crossings.Conducted field validation of submitted information.Performed numerous right-of-way visits on pipelines where they crossed lesser streams to document the extent of flood damage.
5Limitations Utilized Operator’s depth of cover survey information. Could not visit all ROW areas either due to inaccessibility or lack of time.Did not address numerous above ground spans where continued erosion may have increased the length of unsupported spans.
6Heightened AwarenessRecent Exxon Mobil spill and increased PHMSA focus on water crossings resulted in Operator’s assessing the conditions of the Right of Way.Numerous mitigative actions are complete or underway.
7Information Collected (example) Pipeline specificationsInstallation datesMajor water crossing locationsInstallation method (trench, bored)CommodityDate of latest hydrotestILI datesLatest depth of cover survey
8Examples of what our inspectors looked for in field Focusing on the potential for pipe exposuresEvidence of upstream obstructionsIndications of channel deepening or localized scourWhat type of channel, e.g. meandering, straight, braided?Visible erosion of stream banks associated with crossing.Stream stability issues known by landowners, Montana DNRC, local conservation district, concerned citizens.
9Basic Pipeline Statistics OperatorMilesMajor River CrossingsExxonMobil704CHS5919Conoco Phillips135048Plains711Marathon250 (WY)6Kinder Morgan31010ONEOKTrue1933* Note: Montana Refining less than 5 miles with no water crossings
10Type of Construction at River Crossings Percentage that are HDD versus open trench82 Crossings (23 HDD vs 58 open trench w 1 unknown)Number by year of crossing construction1940 to1961 to1981 toPost 2001 – 4TBD – 17 (mostly reported as idled)
11Planned or Completed Improvements of Major River Crossings ExxonMobilYellowstone River (Laurel) HDD completed (9/11)HDD scheduled for Rock Creek and Clark’s Fork (start late November and complete by late January 2012)CHSHDD planned for Musselshell River (12/11)Tongue River -TBDConocoPhillips - Survey received 11/11/11 (Exposures)Completed Belt Creek remediation over Glacier P/L (8/11)Judith (enhanced cover over Glacier P/L by 12/11)Missouri (Glacier) and Gallatin (YPL) - TBD
12Other Exposed Pipeline Crossing Remediation Efforts (Preliminary) CHS – Canyon Creek Span(Billings) and 3 small tributaries of Yellowstone (Lignite - HDD, O’Fallon-Lowering, and Diamond Ring Ranch - Relocation) – All by next springExxonMobil – Canyon Creek Span (Billings)ConocoPhillips – Belt Creek, Beauvais Creek (Lodge Grass), Beaver Creek (Winston), Beaver Creek (York), - All will be completed by end of yearOther recently revealed exposures on Conoco Phillips-_YPL Hauser, Seminoe Bitter Creek – Action TBDFinal Survey Results need to be reviewed in depth to identify other areas requiring remediation
13What concerns us most before next runoff season What are PHMSA’s Immediate ConcernsCompletion of Exxon’s Silvertip’s Rock Creek and Clarks Fork crossings.CHS HDD – Musselshell RiverConoco Phillips – Missouri and Gallatin RiversFinal Review of depth of cover surveys – Just coming inReview IMP Plans to see whether cover is sufficientControl Room Management Inspections (Eff. 10/2011)
14Next Steps Aggregate data Complete review of 2011 river crossing inspectionsDevelop enforcement actions for operator’s not addressing known risksInspect new pipeline construction atwater crossingsImprove coordination with State, including the need for safety enhancements at water crossings