Hydrocarbon Processing - June 2022 - GP-12

SPECIAL FOCUS: PIPELINES & TRANSPORT
some primary and specific conditions
and threats that must be addressed. In the
middle of the figure is where the technical
building blocks are improved or developed.
The far right of the figure shows
the programs that will be constituted by a
logical and pertinent arrangement of the
technical building blocks to best achieve
compliance and, most importantly, improve
safety and reliability performance.
These programs will be composed of consistent
and repeatable workflows.
Supporting the technical building
FIG. 1. Pipeline integrity transformation driven by the Gas Mega Rule and NPRM.
blocks and pathway toward effectively
demonstrating safe and reliable pipeline
operations is a well-structured engineering
assessment approach and document
design that provides reviewing stakeholders
with a logical flow of technical analysis
in support of the engineering assessment
conclusions as outlined in the basic example
in FIG. 3.
FIG. 2. Engineering assessment technical building blocks for effective solutions.
sion pipelines. Operators will be required
to reconfirm the MAOP of their pipelines
to ensure their safety, including pipelines
that had been exempted from previous
safety rulings. Part 2 of the Gas Mega
Rule contains new repair requirements
for HCAs and non-HCAs. Similar rulemakings
have been made or are underway
in the U.S. for liquids pipelines, gathering
pipelines and gas storage facilities.
Presented as a forward-looking case
study, an anticipated generational transformation
driven by the Gas Mega Rule
and NPRM activities is outlined as a phase
diagram in FIG. 1 for the approximately
300,000 mi of U.S. gas transmission
pipelines. Looking at the y-axis, integrity
management has largely been focused on
approximately 20,000 mi of pipelines in
HCAs, with that focus largely based on
inspection-based maintenance as illustrated
moving along the x-axis. The other
280,000 mi have been managed via design,
construction, and operating and maintenance
considerations, recognizing that
many operators have moved beyond this.
Going forward, the HCA miles will begin
12 MAY/JUNE 2022 | GasProcessingNews.com
the journey in transforming from inspection-based
maintenance to performancebased
integrity management. Pipelines in
Class Location Designation 3 or 4, moderate
consequence areas, and, most likely,
most of the remainder of pipelines will
enter inspection-based maintenance and
advanced fitness-for-service approaches.
Although it has some limitations, the
Gas Mega Rule has provided a strategic
framework for improving pipeline safety
and the use of engineering assessments,
represented by the center portion of the
phase diagram.
Detailed engineering and fitness-forservice
evaluations will provide the best
pathway forward to obtain the greatest
yield from resources in terms of increasing
pipeline safety and reliability and
providing the largest return on investment.
As outlined in FIG. 2, consistent and
repeatable approaches (technical building
blocks and programs) that can easily
integrate and aggregate into solutions for
more complex compliance and technical
circumstances will serve to best support
this pathway. On the left of the figure are
Code-related considerations. In the
Canadian standard, the requirements for
engineering assessments are provided in
clauses 3.4 and 10.1 of CSA Z662. Clause
3.4 establishes the structural requirements
for the engineering assessment, while
Clause 10.1 provides the detailed elements
that need consideration as applicable. It is
noted that there is an opportunity to focus
the engineering assessment as applicable
to a specific threat or circumstance, but
there is also a requirement to consider risk
assessment as part of the analysis.
With respect to the U.S. CFR and Gas
Mega Rule requirements, 49 CFR Part
192.632 (Engineering Critical Assessment
for Maximum Allowable Operating
Pressure Reconfirmation: Onshore Steel
Transmission Pipelines) requires that,
when operators conduct an MAOP reconfirmation
in accordance with 49 CFR Part
192.624(c)(3) Method 3, using an engineering
critical assessment to establish
the material strength and MAOP of the
pipeline segment, the engineering critical
assessment must assess the following:
threats; loadings and operational circumstances
relevant to those threats, including
along the pipeline right of way; outcomes of
the threat assessment; relevant mechanical
and fracture properties; in-service degradation
or failure processes; and initial and final
defect size relevance. The engineering critical
assessment must quantify the interacting effects
of threats on any defect in the pipeline.
Of particular interest, as it pertains
http://www.GasProcessingNews.com
Hydrocarbon Processing - June 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Hydrocarbon Processing - June 2022
