# Presentation: 010668

## On 
Pipeline Safety

**On **
**Pipeline Safety**

**Inslee**I s s u eF o r u m

## Never AgainOlympic Pipeline Explosion June 10, 1999

## Pipeline Transportation of Fuel Can Be The Safest Option

- Without the pipeline to carry fuel to customers in Seattle and Portland, transporting it would require the equivalent of 1,800 tanker trucks a day on Interstate 5. That’s approximately one truck every minute.

## Yet, Failures Do OccurTypes of Failures

- Bellingham Explosion, June 1999
- Seam Failure During Hydrostatic Test, September 1999

**Notes:**
In the past 15 years, there have been over 6,000 accidents in liquid and gas pipelines across the county, resulting in over 400 fatalities.

## Rupture Along Pipe BodyBellingham, June 1999

**Potential Causes**
- Corrosion
- Third party damage
**Methods to Detect Problems**
- Magnetic Flux Smart Pig
- Deformation (Caliper) Smart Pig
- Ultrasonic Smart Pig
- Hydrostatic Test

**Notes:**
There are different types of pipe failures.

This picture of the explosion in Bellingham shows a rupture along the body of the pipe.

## Longitudinal Seam FailureHydrostatic Test, September, 1999

**Potential Causes**
- Manufacturing defects (hook cracks)
**Methods to Detect Problems**
- Hydrostatic Test
- New Generation of Smart Pigs

**Notes:**
On ERW pipe:

Low-frequency ERW pipe mostly found in pre-1970 pipe.
US Steel pipe in King County is high-frequency ERW.
No more than 5% of Olympic pipeline is low-frequency ERW pipe  

According to OPS’ own regulation (CRF 195.303(d)), “All pre-1970 ERW pipe and lapwelded pipe is deemed susceptible to longitudinal seam failures...”

## Current Generation of Smart Pig Devices

- Effective in Identifying
- Metal Loss (Magnetic Flux Tool)
- Roundness of Pipe (Deformation Tool)
- Not Effective in Identifying
- Longitudinal Seam Problems
- Some Third Party Damage
- Some Stress Cracks

**Notes:**
Mention that these pigs run inside the pipe, when product is running at 2-5 MPH.

## New Generation of Smart Pig DevicesTransverse Field Inspection Tools

- TFI Tools Designed to Identify Longitudinal Seam Failures
- Emerging Technology
- Used once under OPS review
- Lack of track record in analyzing data

**Notes:**
Used in the Marathon Platt pipeline in Wyoming, a low-frequency ERW pipe from the 1950s.

It has not been used on high-frequency ERW pipe.

## Why Not Hydro Test?

**Issue**
- Hydrostatic Tests are Destructive
- Last year in California, 89% of all intrastate pipeline tests were hydrostatic tests, according to the California State Fire Marshall.
**Issue**
- High-Frequency ERW Pipe Does Not Have a History of Seam Failure
- Data indicates otherwise.

**Notes:**
Note that the information  from California was confirmed yesterday.  132 lines were hydrostatically tested.

According to Equilon in 1999
“Hydrostatic proof testing is a widely used and accepted method to determine the structural integrity of pipelines...the [test] reveals any harmful manufacturing, fabrication or time dependent defects that could cause service failures”

According to GAO in 1993
“Therefore neither technique [pigs or hydrotesting] can be substituted for the other because each produces information unique within its own scope.”

## ERW Seam Failure Incidents

- Most incidents occur in low-frequency ERW pipe.
- My research shows, however, that from the available OPS data, 17% of seam failure incidents occurred in high-frequency ERW pipe from 1970-1984.

**Notes:**
1970-1984 OPS data on gas pipeline incidents.
Of the 37 in-service leaks, 25 were from pipelines manufactured through the Electrical-Resistance Weld (ERW) method.  Of these 25 leaks:
15 or 60% were from pipelines manufactured before 1960, and therefore must be low-frequency ERW pipe.
7 or 28% did not provide enough information for analysis.
3 or 12% were from pipelines manufactured with high-frequency ERW pipe.  Two of the three of these leaks were from U.S. Steel manufactured, high-frequency ERW pipe.
Therefore 3 of 18 leakes (17%) were from High-Frequency ERW Pipe

## Community Deserves a High Level of ConfidenceThe Same Level as Whatcom County

**Test**
- Use smart pigs to identify most corrosion and dents
- Use the emerging technology of smart pigs (TFI) to hopefully identify longitudinal seam failures
**But Verify**
- Use Hydrostatic tests to validate the data from the TFI
- Well known, well used, well understood technology
- Find other damage

## On 

**On **
**Pipeline Safety**

**Inslee**I s s u eF o r u m