Hydrocarbon Processing - June 2022 - GP-9

SPECIAL FOCUS: PIPELINES & TRANSPORT
Engineering assessments in support of pipeline
safety: Emerging trends and approaches-Part 1
B. MITTELSTADT, Dynamic Risk, Houston, Texas;
and D. WILLIAMS, Dynamic Risk, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Engineering assessments will increasingly
be applied in the pipeline industry
to demonstrate related fitness-for-service
and appropriate safety margins to stakeholders,
including industry, regulatory
agencies and the public.
From a U.S. perspective, driving factors
include the release of Part 1 of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration's (PHMSA's) Gas Mega
Rulea
in October of 2019 (effective July 1,
2020), along with pending rulemaking on
class location designation changes (this
proposed rule would add an alternative set
of requirements that operators could use,
based on implementing integrity management
principles and pipe eligibility criteria,
to manage certain pipeline segments
where the class location has changed from
a Class 1 location to a Class 3 location);
and Part 2 of the Gas Mega Rule, which
focuses on repair requirements for highconsequence
areas (HCAs) and nonHCAs.
In lieu of replacing or re-testing
pipelines, operators have the option of
applying engineering critical assessments
and advanced fitness-for-service solutions
for validating and reconfirming maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP),
supporting special permitting for class
location changes, and varying from prescriptive
response and repair
requirements.
From
a Canadian perspective, operators
will continue to be guided by the Canadian
Standards Association (CSA) Z662
requirements to apply engineering assessments
for
demonstrating safe pipeline
operations. The application of risk acceptance
criteria, such as those proposed for
the CSA Z662:23 standard1
work for improving pipeline safety and
the use of risk assessment results (i.e., in
or those considered
in PHMSA's " Paper study on risk
tolerance, " 2
will support a strategic framecomparison
to acceptable risk thresholds)
within an engineering assessment.
Compliance is only part of the picture,
as changes in corporate governance and
public expectations demand improved
safety and reliability. Without advanced
engineering assessments, compliance efforts
may lead to the replacement of pipe
that is otherwise fit-for-service, resulting
in missed opportunities to truly improve
pipeline reliability and safety.
This article presents an overview of
driving factors and trends for engineering
assessments and code-related considerations.
Practical data integration,
approaches and application strategies, as
well as a framework for developing and
applying effective engineering assessments
are provided. Approaches for integrating
the data collected from continuously
improving inline inspection (ILI)
technologies into the engineering assessments
are demonstrated.
Key factors. The increased application
of robust engineering assessments and
fitness-for-service evaluations is expected
to play out in several key ways, such as:
* Increasing pipeline safety and
reliability performance: This
boils down to achieving the next
level of safety through focused
engineering work, along with
the development and application
of technology, to enhance data
gathering and integration,
assessment techniques and the
associated workflows.
* Addressing the new and emerging
regulatory landscape designed
to help achieve improved safety
and reliability performance:
Without the insight and analyses
from engineering assessments,
compliance may result in pipe
replacement, pressure reductions
and pressure testing (and other
material actions) on pipe that is
otherwise fit-for-service.
* Engineering assessments provide
an effective performance-based
pathway forward: Detailed
engineering and fitness-for-service
evaluations will provide the best
pathways forward to obtain the
greatest yield from resources in
terms of increasing pipeline safety
and reliability and providing the
biggest return on investment.
This article is focused on the following
key topic areas as they pertain to engineering
assessments and engineering
critical assessments:
* Driving factors and trends
* Code-related considerations
* Data integration
* Framework strategies
* Application.
Background. It is important to start out
by reviewing definitions related to engineering
assessments and engineering
critical assessments. There are also some
interesting differences worth mentioning
in how these are considered in the CSA
standard vs. in the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).
The engineering assessment and the
engineering critical assessment are both
defined in the CSA Z662 standard. The
CSA Z662 definitions distinguish engineering
assessments and engineering
critical assessments from each other:
* Engineering assessment: A
documented assessment of the effect
of relevant variables upon fitness
for service or integrity of a pipeline
system, using engineering principles,
conducted by or under the direct
supervision of a competent person
Gas Processing & LNG | MAY/JUNE 2022 9
Hydrocarbon Processing - June 2022

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