Pipeline Safety Regulation in Canada

Transcription

1 Pipeline Safety Regulation in Canada November 20, 2009 Ken Paulson, P. Eng. Chief Engineer and Deputy Commissioner British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission

2 Purpose This presentation will: Identify differences in Canadian regulation and standards as they apply to pipelines; Provide an update on damage prevention regulation in Canada; and Review a pipeline failure from the city of Burnaby, British Columbia in 2007.

3 Pipelines in Canada

4 Pipelines in Canada

5 British Columbia Quick Facts 3.9 million residents Larger than any US State (except Alaska); Borders on Washington State, Province of Alberta, Yukon Territory and Alaska State; Second only to Alberta in hydrocarbon production; Primary source of new gas has shifted to unconventional production from tight shale's;

6 Pipelines in British Columbia Within British Columbia there are more than 21,000 wells feeding a network of gathering and transmission pipelines that is approximately 50,000 km in length (and activity is increasing).

7 Canadian Regulations Each province has their own regulations for pipelines and facilities; Federal regulations apply only to pipelines that cross provincial or national boundaries; There are at least 7 different pipeline regulations in Canada (NEB, BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia); and All of the Standards adopt CSA Z662 by reference.

8 CSA Z662 A consensus standard under the Canadian Standards Association; Originally based on ASME B31.4, ASME B31.8 and API 1104; Covers full pipeline lifecycle (Design through Abandonment); Incorporates managements system principles; and First pipeline standard to mandate integrity management programs and to allow the use of reliability based design methods.

9 Regulations versus Standards Acts Regulations Standards, Recommended Practices

10 Regulatory Diversity Consider Right of Way Patrol requirements for gas pipelines: All gas pipelines in Canada are required to comply with CSA Z662 which requires that: Operating companies shall periodically patrol their pipelines in order to observe conditions and activities on and adjacent to their rights-of-way that can affect the safety and operation of the pipelines. Particular attention shall be given to the following: (a) construction activity; (b) dredging operations; (c) erosion; (d) ice effects; (e) scour; (f) seismic activity; (g) soil slides; (h) subsidence; (i) loss of cover; and ( j) evidence of leaks.

11 Regulatory Diversity Within Alberta, there are additional requirements for pipeline patrol: 43(1) The licensee of a pipeline that crosses water or unstable ground shall at least once annually inspect the pipeline right of way to assess (a) the surface conditions on and adjacent to the right of way, (b) indications of any leak in the pipeline, (c) any construction activity performed by others, (d) any encroachment or development near the pipeline right of way, or (e) any other condition affecting the operation of the pipeline. 43(2) The licensee of a pipeline other than one referred to in subsection (1) shall inspect the pipeline right of way in accordance with that subsection at least once annually or in accordance with the inspection intervals determined in the integrity management component of the licensee s manual or manuals referred to in section 7. (3) The licensee shall conduct the inspections required under subsections (1) and (2) (a) at times of the year judged by the licensee to be the most appropriate to achieve a satisfactory inspection, and (b) so as to reasonably minimize disturbance or damage to affected surface property.

12 Regulatory Diversity In addition, in Alberta: 44(1) Notwithstanding the frequency of inspections required by section 43, a licensee shall carry out additional inspections in accordance with section 43(1)(a) to (e) as follows: (a) monthly for any CSA Z662 Class 1 LVP product gathering segments; (b) once every 2 weeks for any Class 1 LVP product transmission segments, Class 1 HVP product segments or Class 2 segments conveying gas containing more than 10 moles of hydrogen sulphide gas per kilomole of natural gas; (c) once every week for any Class 2, 3 or 4 LVP product gathering or transmission segments, Class 2, 3 or 4 HVP product segments, or Class 3 or 4 segments conveying gas containing more than 10 moles of hydrogen sulphide gas per kilomole of natural gas. (2) For the purposes of this section and section 45, LVP product does not include multiphase fluids or oilfield water.

13 Regulatory Diversity Now consider federally regulated pipelines in Canada: 39. A company shall develop a surveillance and monitoring program for the protection of the pipeline, the public and the environment.

14 Regulatory Diversity And in the US..: Transmission lines: Patrolling. (a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation. (b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the operating pressures, the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors, but intervals between patrols may not be longer than prescribed in the following table: ( c) Methods of patrolling include walking, driving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.

15 Regulatory Diversity Why the differences? In 2008, a report entitled a Comparison of US and Canadian Transmission Pipeline Consensus Standards was completed and published. The executive summary of that report concludes that: A coordinated effort between the pipeline regulatory entities in the United States and Canada is paramount for reducing energy congestion across the border. The interconnected nature of the pipeline infrastructure in North America and the growing demand for energy in the US are clear drivers for cross border coordination and collaboration.

16 Class Locations CSA Z662 utilizes class location assessment areas for all pipelines (gas and oil).

17 Class Locations Class location dictates allowable operating pressure and stress:

18 Class Locations

19 What About Changes? When development occurs that changes the class location of an area, the pipeline must be upgraded to meet the design requirements of the new class location:

20 Land Use Near Pipelines In Canada, there is a non-consensus standard entitled Plus Land Use Planning for Pipelines: A Guideline for Local Authorities, Developers, and Pipeline Operators The purpose of this Guideline is to increase awareness and encourage communication among key stakeholders when considering changes to existing land use or new land use developments near to or surrounding existing pipelines.

21 Managing the Right of Way The pipeline company is responsible for obtaining and maintaining their rights of way.

22 Managing the Right of Way The pipeline company is responsible for obtaining and maintaining their rights of way.

23 Managing the Right of Way The pipeline company is responsible for obtaining and maintaining their rights of way.

24 Managing the Right of Way Some companies have begun reclaiming their rights of way and have also implemented a zero tolerance for encroachments.

25 Managing the Right of Way Increasingly, Regulator s are relying on a systematic approach for right of way management and damage prevention. The NEB s draft Damage Prevention Regulations set out the basic content requirements for these programs: Damage prevention programs are intended to reduce the frequency of preventable damage and should include elements pertaining to: (a) awareness; (b) continuing education and liaison; ( c) monitoring and surveillance; and (d) ongoing assessment of land use and ownership.

26 Managing the Right of Way Damage prevention programs should: Establish the goals, objectives and measurement indicators for damage prevention within companies; Set out the responsibilities and competencies for responsible and accountable persons; Encompass existing activities such as locates, public awareness and continuing education/liaison programs; and Include elements fro self assessment and continual improvement.

27 Case Study on Third Party Damage At 12:31 Pacific daylight time on 24 July 2007, a 610-millimetre crude oil pipeline was struck and punctured by a track-hoe while constructing a new sewer pipeline in Burnaby, British Columbia.

28 Case Study on Third Party Damage Some interesting facts: The pipeline had been located at some locations; The contractor knew the pipeline was nearby; The company was aware the work was underway; The consultant did not communicate the requirements from the crossing and proximity agreements; The pipeline did not have leak detection in place; The area is a densely populated urban environment;

29 Case Study on Third Party Damage Some interesting observations: The existing regulations should have prevented this occurrence; Blame was immediately placed on the pipeline company; and Emergency response was initially undertaken by separate entities (the City and the Company);

30 Conclusions The goals of regulators are consistent the assurance that pipelines operate safely and in a manner that protects people and the environment; North American pipeline regulation would benefit from increased cooperation, collaborative regulatory development and standardization; Damage prevention programs provide a consistent and auditable framework to ensure that all reasonable steps to prevent damage to pipelines; Regulation by itself is not the answer the protection of Pipelines is everyone s responsibility.

31 Questions?