EGIG. European Gas Pipeline Incident data Group. Dick van den Brand Co-ordinator (external) safety Gasunie, the Netherlands Projectmanager EGIG

Transcription

1 European Gas Pipeline Incident data Group EGIG Dick van den Brand Co-ordinator (external) safety Gasunie, the Netherlands Projectmanager EGIG IGU, AMSTERDAM June 6th,

2 Contents of this presentation What is EGIG? EGIG: input EGIG: output Analyses EGIG figures Conclusions 2

3 What is EGIG? 3

4 12 operators organize incident statistics European operators of gas transmission pipeline systems Belgium Czech republic Denmark Germany Finland France Italy Netherlands Portugal Spain Switzerland UK Covering and exposure km ,8 milion km. yr Report > Every 3 years > 6th report is placed on the internet ( 4

5 Objectives of EGIG To communicate about the safety performance Provide a reliable and realistic picture of incident frequencies Basis for statistical use To analyse the causes of incidents To improve safety performance 5

6 Evolution of the exposure Year [-] 6 Exposure [km.yr]

7 EGIG: The input 7

8 Defined System and defined incidents System Transport of gas > Steel transmission pipelines >15 bar > Outside the fences of installations > Onshore Incidents Incidents with unintentional release 8

9 Annual number of incidents Year [-] N u m b e r o f in c id e n ts [-]

10 Public Patrol Contractor Unknow n D istribution com panies Com pany staff Landow ner O ther Client O n line inspection Detection of incidents Type of detection Pinhole-crack Hole Rupture Percentage of incidents [% ]

11 The EGIG parameters System Incidents Diameter Pressure Year of construction Type of coating Cover Grade of material Wall thickness How detected Leaksize Cause of incident Ignition Consequences A free text 11

12 EGIG: The output 12

13 The EGIG figures output Failure frequencies, distributions and/or probabilities Calculated from total exposure and 5 year moving average to observe trends and also to observe the distribution of incidents and leaksize per cause. Calculated from partial exposure to observe influence of design parameters on the causes and consequences of incidents. 13

14 General Incident failure frequencies Period [year] Number of Incidents [-] System Exposure [km.year] Failure frequency [per km.year] , , , ,

15 Evolution of the primary failure frequencies 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0, Frequency per 1000 km yr Year [-] Entire period Last 5 years

16 Estimated probabilities per leak size Size of leak Pinhole or crack Hole Rupture < = 16 Rupture > 16 ignition probability 0,03 0, ,30 16

17 Using these figures for risk analysis Decisions on future developments depend on historical statistical data EGIG statistics are used together with other parameters which are based on poor or even no knowledge Ignition probability, Probability of being exposed, effect-consequence relations Etc Not everything (measure or situation) can be quantified Used as an additional method in certain countries: Shall give different national demands Misused for far-reaching decisionmaking: because QRA has significant limitations. 17

18 Pipelines compared to other transportmodes A pipeline is safer (per ton.km) if: ca 5000 tankcars ca 2000 railroad tankcars ca 1000 inland waterway vessels are needed to transport a flammable gas A pipeline: safest transportmode for continuous mass transport of gas 18

19 19

20 Analysis EGIG figures 20

21 Relation cause-size of leak Frequency per 1,000.km.yr 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 External Interference! Construction defect./ Material failure Corrosion Ground movement Hot-tap made by error Other and Unknown Cause Pinhole-crack Hole Rupture 21

22 Primary failure frequencies per cause (5-years moving average) 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0, Year [-] Construction/material Corrosion External interference Ground movement Hot-tap by error Other/unknown Frequency per1,000.km yr

23 23

24 External interference: diameter class and size of leak Fre q u e n cy p e r 1,0 0 0.km yr 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0, Diameter class [inches] Pinhole-crack Hole Rupture 24

25 External interference: Depth of cover class and size of leak Frequency per 1,0 0 0.km.yr 0,2 0,18 0,16 0,14 0,12 0,1 0,08 0,06 0,04 0, Cover class [cm] Pinhole-crack Hole Rupture 25

26 External interference: wall thickness class and size of leak Frequency per 1,000.km.yr 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0, Wall thickness class [mm] Pinhole-crack Hole Rupture 26

27 Construction: Year of construction and size of leak Frequency per 1,000.km yr 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 < >1984 Year of construction Pinhole-crack Hole Rupture 27

28 Corrosion: year of construction and size of leak Fre q u e n cy p e r 1,0 0 0.km.yr 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 < Year of construction Pinhole-crack Hole Rupture 28

29 Corrosion: Coating and size of leak 0,12 Frequency per 1,000.km.yr 0,1 0,08 0,06 0,04 0,02 0 Unknown Coaltar Bitumen Polyeth Epoxy Other Type of coating Pinhole-crack Hole Rupture 29

30 Corrosion: wall thickness class and size of leak Frequency per 1,000.km.yr 0,14 0,12 0,1 0,08 0,06 0,04 0, Wall thickness class [mm] Pinhole-crack Hole Rupture 30

31 Analysis of these figures External interference 75% of serious incidents And 90% of these incidents: <10mm wall th. <28 diam. Ground movement 10 % of serious incidents And 90% of these incidents: <10mm wall th. <1975 Construction 10% of all incidents And 90% of these incidents: <1983 Corrosion 1 % of serious incidents And 90% of these incidents: <

32 Conclusions & Recommendations 32

33 Conclusions and recommendations Pipelines: a safe transportmode most recent overall incident frequency 0,00017 [per km. year] the failure frequency seems to stabilize. A safe alternative in the case of mass transport Integrity 10-20% of all serious incidents international standards, primarily a responsibility of the operator pipelines must be treated as transport External interference > 75 % of all serious incidents We have still a job to improve. As traffic safety also a responsibility of authorities 33

34 34

35 Questions? 35