E xternal C orrosion D irect A ssessment NACE 2005 Northern Area Western Conference by Gord Parker, C.E.T. Radiodetection Ltd.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mitigation of AC Induced Voltage On Buried Metallic Pipelines
Advertisements

Accident and Incident Investigation
Understanding Above Ground Tools ACCA and ACVG
The Evolution of Non-Intrusive eXternal Line Inspection
Corrosion and Cathodic Protection
Joe Killins & Associates, LLC Pipelines & Risk Based Management How Safe is Safe?
ECDA Process for Cased Gas Transmission Pipelines
NACE Direct Assessment Standards Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) Public Meeting November 4, 2003.
Pipeline Operator Qualification Regulations 49CFR Part 192, Subpart N (Gas)49CFR Part 192, Subpart N (Gas) 49CFR Part 195, Subpart G (Liquid)49CFR Part.
Government Industry R&D Forum March 2005 Pipeline Design & Construction Near Term Focus Future Gaps & Opportunities.
Integrity Management Program Special Permits (IMP-SP) Draft Administrative Plan 12/5/2007.
TransCanada Corporation (TSX/NYSE: TRP)
SWS for PIPELINES L. Trichtchenko Geomagnetic Laboratory Natural Resources Canada SPACE WEATHER SERVICE FOR PIPELINE OPERATIONS.
U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety Kenneth Y. Lee Engineering & Research.
High Consequence Areas & Pipeline Assessment Intervals –Is there a need for change? Terry Boss Sr. VP Environment Safety and Operations Interstate Natural.
BASIC CONCEPTS IN PIPELINE INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT
Overview of Key Rule Features
Copyright © 2007 Advantica Inc. (USA Only) and Advantica Ltd. (Outside USA). All rights reserved by the respective owner. Benefits of an Integrated Compliance.
Coatings – Directional Boring Tim Jenkins. Coatings – Directional Boring Design Considerations (data collection) Design Considerations (data collection)
Direct Assessment Basics
PIPELINE ENGINEERING COURSES DISTANCE LEARNING 12 WEEKS DR. ESAM AM AL-MATOUQ.
Pipeline Corrosion Management NACE Houston Section April 9, 2013 Drew Hevle - Manager, Corrosion Control Kinder Morgan Natural Gas Pipeline.
Stress Corrosion Cracking Overview & Introduction David Johnson December 2, 2003.
OH&S Management System
1 Philip Sher Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Gas Pipeline Safety Unit RepresentingNAPSR National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives.
SCC DA Program Stress-corrosion-cracking direct assessment (SCCDA) is a structured process that contributes to pipeline company’s efforts to improve.
Integrity Management Inspection Process Don Moore, OPS Central Region.
Western Regional Gas Conference August 25, 2009 Distribution Integrity Management Programs (DIMP) & SHRIMP.
U. S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
CIS Case History NACE Eastern Area Conference
Western Regional Gas Conference August 24, 2010 Distribution Integrity Management Programs (DIMP) Rule.
Current Inspection Process for Operators of Hazardous Liquids Pipelines Rod Seeley OPS SW Region Director May 18, 2005.
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS Stephanie Weidman Austin Regional Manager Oversight and Safety Division Pipeline Safety September 2015.
U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Regulatory and Compliance Landscape Western Region Gas Conference.
Pipeline Safety Trust Fort Worth Natural Gas Production Issues John W. Pepper Project Manager Office of Pipeline Safety Southwest Region, Houston, Texas.
Distribution Integrity Management – What To Expect John Erickson, PE American Public Gas Association Western Regional Gas Conference.
Integrity Management Continuous Improvement Fitness For Service and Management of Pre-Regulation Pipe Chad Zamarin Chief Operating Officer NiSource Midstream.
OPS - SCC Workshop R&D Past and Present December 2, 2003 Jerry Rau - Panhandle Energy.
ICDA of Gas Transmission, Gathering & Storage Systems GOAL: Develop a protocol for Validation of dry gas ICDA method: –Identify data needs –Develop procedures.
Chapter 37 Pipeline Construction. Objectives After reading the chapter and reviewing the materials presented the students will be able to: Explain the.
Managing Stress Corrosion Cracking Williams Gas Pipeline Transco – Ron Scrivner Northwest Pipeline – Dave Katz.
INGAA Direct Assessment Industry Workgroups Drew Hevle El Paso Corporation.
ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION Darin Burk Manager – Pipeline Safety 1.
HCAs & Pipeline Assessment Intervals Is There a Need for Change? Richard B. Kuprewicz President, Accufacts Inc. For Pipeline Safety Trust New Orleans Conference.
Consequence Analysis: A More Comprehensive Proposed Regulatory Approach Western Regional Gas Conference Tempe, Arizona Daron Moore August 19, 2014.
Ensuring Success in Integrity Management Marty Matheson American Petroleum Institute July 24, 2002.
Analysis & Presentation of Integrity Management Audit Results Western Regional Gas Conference August 21, 2007 Gary R. White.
A Framework for Your Pipeline Integrity Program. 2 A Few Thoughts Before Beginning l This rule is new to the pipeline industry although many of the concepts.
1. 2 Industry Integrity Efforts Have Reduced Incidents in Key Areas  Corrosion incidents are down 76% –Enhanced “smart pig” ILIs –Strengthened corrosion.
Enbridge SCC Management Program SCC Workshop Houston - December 2, 2003 Walter Kresic Enbridge Pipelines Inc. SCC Workshop Houston - December 2, 2003 Walter.
U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline Standards and Rulemaking Division: Current Rulemakings.
Pipeline Performance Measures Alan Mayberry New Orleans, Louisiana Pipeline Safety Trust Annual Conference
How Old is too Old? Who Makes that Decision? Alan Mayberry New Orleans, Louisiana Pipeline Safety Trust Annual Conference
Lessons Learned from Integrity Management Inspections Byron Coy – OPS Eastern Region Derick Turner – OPS Southern Region May 17, 2005.
OPS Observations, Expectations, and Concerns Zach Barrett (OPS) Direct Assessment Workshop November 4, 2003.
Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators WESTERN REGIONAL GAS CONFERENCE August 21, 2007 Presented by: Ross Reineke.
MICHAEL BAKER Jr., Inc. Stress Corrosion Cracking SCC Workshop December 2, 2003 Engineering & Energy.
SCC Management 16” Camas to Eugene 26” Sumas to Washougal.
Office of Pipeline Safety Remedial Action Review Protocol Integrity Management Workshop July 23-24, 2002.
The Pipeline Safety Trust “Restoring Trust In Pipeline Safety” New Orleans, LA November 2-3, 2006 Nate Muehl Damage Prevention & ROW Relations Manager.
Gas Pipeline Safety Federal Regulatory Update Pete Chace Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Gas Pipeline Safety Program Manager.
U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline Standards and Rulemaking Division: Current Rulemakings.
Integrity Management Continuous Improvement Project Status and Implementation Process Presentation for: PHMSA Advisory Committees July 11, 2012.
CHAPTER 2 Pipeline Coatings.
Utility Technologies International
Federal Regulatory Update
AGA MAOP Document Review / PODS Implementation
Excavation.
Ballot Idea#: 2817 Identifying Coating Faults and Their Severity through Electrolyte Resistivity Measurements Eric Pozniak (PureHM Edmonton Canada) PRCI.
Pipeline Integrity Management Programs
Presentation transcript:

E xternal C orrosion D irect A ssessment NACE 2005 Northern Area Western Conference by Gord Parker, C.E.T. Radiodetection Ltd.

Background (USA) The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 signed into law on December 17, 2002 applies to natural gas transmission (dist. coming) must identify "high consequence areas (HCA)" conduct risk analyses of these areas perform baseline integrity assessments of each pipeline segment inspect the entire pipeline system according to a prescribed schedule and using prescribed methods

Other provisions of the law include (US) The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 Participation in one-call notification programs Increased penalties “ Whistle-blower" protection Qualification programs for employees O.Q. Government mapping of the pipeline system Other Housekeeping Stuff

BUT … Some pipes have serious limitations to inspection Not Pigable (small valves/openings, 90° fittings) No redundant loops – had to stay in service Hence, no hydro-testing either Best Quote I ’ ve heard this year … “ Congress is a little leery of engineering because you can ’ t barter, you can ’ t negotiate with it. ”

Direct Assessment came along It seems to have been accepted & implemented fast There are 3 types of DA (for 3 types of threats) External Corrosion (ECDA) Internal Corrosion (ICDA) Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCCDA) ECDA is the most mature of them. RP O502 – 2002 is the defining NACE document

ECDA is a 4 Step Process Pre-assessment Most important step Indirect Inspections Above-ground Tools Direct Examinations Verification Digs AND Mitigation Post-assessment Define Reassessment Period (US: 7 yr typ. max) Assess Overall Effectiveness

Important Definitions ECDA Region – Section(s) of pipeline with similar physical characteristics and history in which the same indirect inspection tools are used Segment – A portion of pipeline assessed using ECDA. Consists of one or more regions. HCA – High Consequence Area (higher population density, limited mobility, gathering places, etc.)

General Notes There is some flexibility to chose suitable processes Continuous Improvement Process Compare successive applications to gauge effectiveness Primary Purpose – Preventing future problems RP0502 is for onshore, buried, ferrous pipelines Stand-alone or compliment other tests (ILI, hydro) Has limitations (like all asses ’ mts), use appropriately Use under the direction of ‘ competent persons ’

Step 1 – Pre-Assessment Determine if ECDA is feasible and applicable Collect ‘ Soft ’ Data (both current & historic) Construction, Operating, Maintenance, CP survey, Adjacent Land Use (and changes to), and more This is a big part – spend the time planning Define Regions Especially HCA Select Indirect Tools appropriate for those regions

Include each of these Data Elements Pipe-Related mat ’ l, diam.,thickness, year, seam type, coating Construction Related year, route, aerial photos, construction practices, valves, depth of cover, more Soils/Environmental soil, drainage, topography, use, frozen, wet Corrosion Control CP system, location, stray current, history, evaluation, coating Operational Data temperature, stress, fluctuations, excavations, accidents

Decide which tools are applicable Close-Interval Survey (CIS) AC Voltage Gradient DC Voltage Gradient Pearson Electromagnetic AC Current Attenuation Surveys Stray Current analysis Different regions may require different tools

Step 2 – Indirect Inspections Identify and Define the severity of coating faults, other anomalies, and areas where corrosion may be Requires at least two aboveground tools over the entire length of region Then align & compare the data More than 2 may be required

Gathering Indirect Data Quite expensive Do it right the first time Plan for traffic, access, problems, surveying Conduct & Analyze with accp ’ d Industry Practices Reading spacing must be suitably fine Different tool (passes) done close in time as well Precise Geographic References (GPS)

Compare Results If indirect tool results vary greatly, reexamine (directly if need be) Compare the results with Pre-Assessment

Step 3 – Direct Examinations Purpose: To determine which indirect indications are most severe and collect data to assess corrosion Requires pipe surface exposure & testing At least one dig is always required

Steps Included Prioritization of Indications Excavations & Data Collection Measurements of Coating Damage & Corrosion Remaining Strength Calculations Root Cause Analysis Process Evaluation

Prioritization (3) Immediate Action Required Ongoing corrosion likely Multiple Severe Indications Unresolved Discrepancies from Indirect Exams Scheduled Action Required Severe indications NOT in area of other severe Suitable for Monitoring Inactive or little likelihood of ongoing/prior corrosion

Measurements Used in Direct Exams Pipe-Soil potentials Soil Resistivity Water & Soil Samples (ph, etc.) Under film liquid ph Photographic Documentation Other Integrity Data MIC, SCC, etc..

Coating Measurements Type Condition Thickness Adhesion Degradation (blisters, disbondment, etc.) Corrosion products Mapping and photographic documentation

Mitigation Shall identify and undertake remediation Aim to mitigate and preclude future problems Assess Classification Criteria Reclassification & Reprioritization

Indications Encountered – 4 levels In each segment …. Immediate – dig all Scheduled – dig most severe If first use of ECDA, must dig 2 Monitored – dig most severe If first use of ECDA, must dig 2 No Indication – one excavation is required To validate Direct tests

Step 4 – Post Assessment Define re-assessment intervals Assess overall effectiveness of ECDA program Remaining life calculations Feedback & Continuous Improvement

ECDA Success Requires Expertise, skill, and experience in understanding and implementing the standard Detailed procedures for all steps Document all decisions made in process Assessment and integration and analysis of data during all steps of the DA process Data Management Understand what may limit DA effectiveness

Cost A properly done ECDA process will have very similar costs to ILI. Don ’ t expect it to be an order of magnitude cheaper.

Questions ? Thank You Gord Parker, Radiodetection Canada