HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources December 7 19991
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
December 7, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Vice -Chair Tom
Brown in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter Connie Hoag
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE FROM THE PORTAGE BAY SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT
(AB99 -217)
Chris Woodward, Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee Project Manager, stated the advisory committee just completed six
meetings to discuss everything including stormwater, dairy management, city
planning and the Critical Areas Ordinance. The advisory committee is well informed
of all Portage Bay issues. The last meeting in October was to set priorities. They
are now prioritizing the priorities. There is a meeting the next day to deal with the
Lummi sewage treatment plant. Most of the information in the progress report
comes from the matrix. The only issue that they are dealing with is to get a more
coordinated effort between Planning, the state Department of Ecology (DOE), and
the Northwest Indian College (NWIC) to work on the hot spots they are coming up
with. Jim Thompson, County Planning, was to act on these hot spots, but that has
not been accomplished.
Brown questioned why. Woodward stated they are still having high counts.
Brown questioned whether the Planning staff is going out there and
observing the situation or if there is a problem getting the information from the
people who are taking the tests.
Sutter questioned whether they are having trouble pinpointing the source.
Woodward stated Planning staff is not going out in a timely manner. Also,
they've made some requests in light of the Lummi treatment incident. She has a
letter from the Lummi Nation regarding the issue out there. There was no large
amount of fecal matter released into the bay, so they are doing a lot of work with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to correct the issues and the problems.
According to the information they received, it could have come from a passing boat.
It is unlikely to get large chunks of matter come out into the bay because of the
way the diffusers work and the way matter is treated. The district is asking that
the Lummi Nation join the advisory committee.
Brown asked for a copy of that letter. Woodward stated she asked the
Lummi Nation if it is okay for her to present the letter. She has to wait for their
response. It went to the Dairy Nutrient Advisory Committee. She assumed it
would have gone to the County Council. They are working very hard on these
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
issues. They've developed a border monitoring plan that encompasses 21 more
sites that have been added to the Northwest Indian College (NWIC) sites. They've
only been able to go out three times so far, but the information indicates that the
amount coming from across the border is insignificant compared to readings in
Whatcom County. That information is on page 31 of the progress report. Those
are the EPA contract results. The contract stations are listed on page 33 of the
report. Map four on page 29 is a physical location of all the new sites. Those are
the 21 new sites they are picking up. They are being tested twice monthly by
NWIC. They are setting up cross - boundary testing with Canada. They are working
at getting that set up more. They want to do some same -day monitoring. They
are working on getting that information.
Sutter stated she was pleased with the way it is coming along and the report
is clear. On task 1.3, she questioned whether they have any idea about the
number of small farms out there. Woodward stated she would get that information
from the Conservation District (CD). The CD is working on five small farm plans.
Sutter questioned task 1.1 and 1.2, regarding dairy farms and manure
management plans. She questioned how they tie in with task 1.5 and the
conservation plans. Both places talk about dairies. She understood that all they
have to have is the conservation plan that complies with 6161. She questioned
why they are still doing CAO conservation plans if all they have to do 6161 farm
plans. Woodward stated the County planning staff would have to answer that
question.
Sutter stated she didn't want to waste resources by doing overlapping work.
She questioned task 2.1 regarding regulatory review and asked if that has been
completed. Woodward stated it has been done.
Sutter asked about task 3.2 regarding on -site sewage (OSS) grant funding.
She asked if anyone has been looking for other sources of funding.
Chris Chesson, Environmental Health On -site Sewage Supervisor, stated
grant funding is specifically delegated by the legislature. There is no state grant
funding at this time. They are pursuing Centennial Clean Water Funds to assist in
funding. He has not been pursuing any additional grant funding.
Sutter suggested he look into federal funding. She questioned the
recommendations, after task 4.3, regarding monitoring plan development. She
questioned about the projection of when that will be completed. Woodward stated
Hirsch would present that information.
Brown stated that if it is true that part of this sewage treatment plant
problem was not the Lummi treatment plant, but a passing ship, then that suggests
maybe this is not an isolated incident, but that the ships are pumping before they
come in or leave. He questioned whether there is a way in the future to track that
information down and see if there is a waste discharge activities for possible
contamination in that area. Woodward stated there should be a lot of information
and pump out stations for the boaters to use.
Brown stated he was more concerned with the larger ships. Smaller boats
don't put out that much effluent. Woodward stated she didn't believe the larger
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
ships come in through Hales Passage. They may come in through a different route
to Bellingham Bay.
Sutter asked about objective five regarding education outreach. It seems the
bulk is concentrated on agricultural issues. She questioned whether things were
being done for other areas, such as on -site sewage.
Chesson stated the operations and maintenance (O &M) program targets
shellfish protection districts as a higher priority. They will target sensitive area
sites. They have increased the level of education to people in these areas.
Woodward stated they also worked with the CD to develop a public
involvement and education (PIE) grant that was sent off specifically for shellfish
protection districts. Lake Whatcom has the Pledge Program. The grant was
rejected. There will be an informational meeting so they will know what to do
better next time. There was great support from all agencies and both shellfish
protection districts.
Julie Hirsch, Hirsch Consulting Services and Data Manager for the Shellfish
Implementation Project, stated the coordinated water - monitoring plan was a task
that was identified in the initial response plan as being something that was needed.
They formed a data management work group, made up of members from each
agency that collects water quality data within the shellfish protection district. This
would include the Department of Health (DOH), NWIC, the wastewater treatment
plant staff, and others. This group was formed and met in October. Input from
the group was collected in a brainstorming session and evaluated and rated as
input for the strategies used in the coordinated water - monitoring plan that she
prepared. It went out to the group for comment on November 12. It is in the
process of final revisions and then will be submitted to the County Health and
Human Services Department before Christmas. Some of the cornerstones will be a
recommendation for a memorandum of understanding for data sharing among all
the different agencies. One of the other primary goals is to track progress toward
the total maximum daily load (TMDL) reduction goals. In addition, there is a
recommended quality assurance strategy for all the agencies. She referred to the
handout and page 27 of the report. The data represents Department of Ecology
(DOE) sample collection efforts in Portage Bay. She gets their raw data sheets and
updates the information. This has been updated since February 1999, which was
the last day used for the draft sanitary survey. This represents an update from
then until November 1999. It is very recent. The shaded block of data is the data
that exceed the standards for the estimated 90th percentile. These are the same
sites that were identified for the proposed restriction. The map needs to be
updated from the proposed restriction to the finalized restriction. Site #10 appears
to be approaching the 90th percentile threshold.
Dawson questioned whether there are any farms from this part of the
peninsula. Hirsch stated there aren't.
Dawson questioned whether the cause might be from the sewer outflow.
Hirsch stated she didn't want to speculate on the cause. August had high amounts
for all sites, which increased the data point.
Dawson asked about the Lummi sewer problem. Hirsch stated there are
some reasons to believe that there is not a lot of hydrological mixing in these areas.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 3
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brown asked how often the tests are conducted. Hirsch stated monthly.
Brown questioned whether they would be able to see a decrease over the
next six months if the treatment plant problem has been resolved, if it is a problem.
Hirsch stated possibly. In the 90 h percentile estimate, they only need one high
number to throw off the data set. Station number nine amounts have decreased,
but she was not certain exactly where that is in relation to the outfall.
Hirsch questioned whether there are many septics in that area.
Chesson stated he believed it was all sewer.
Brown stated they've been told it is a circulation pattern.
Hirsch stated the salinity related to that site is intermediate, which would
indicate fresh water is being pushed around.
Sutter asked about that the draft data collection matrix. Several sites have
testing overlap. More than one agency is doing the testing. She questioned
whether it was necessary to have more than one agency doing the testing. Hirsch
stated all of the DOE TMDL sites are not currently being tested. It is a past data
set. Since it is so important to this effort, that information was included. There is
some overlap between NWIC and DOH on a couple of sites. Some of this is for
quality assurance and quality control reasons. It is necessary to test some sites on
more than one occasion. They are working on coordination.
Michael Cochran, Northwest Indian College, stated that the fourth quarter
report goes to mid - November. They have taken samples since then, but the
numbers are a little higher because there was a storm event on December 5.
Brown questioned whether they are still getting higher readings during storm
events. Cochran stated they are, but they weren't as high as he expected. These
counts are really low, considering it is fall and it is wet. The bottom line for this
quarter is that the counts are down substantially. Scott Ditch and Fish Trap Creek
didn't go down as far as the others did. The addition of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) contract sampling covers Fish Trap Creek, Bertrand Creek,
and Duffner Ditch. They are included as a place marker for future results. They
only have three rounds of the upper watershed information. That is not much with
which to isolate trends. Duffner Ditch is a tributary to Bertrand, below the location
where he samples and above the location where Bertrand comes into the river. It
has been getting higher counts at the mouth, but not higher up on the river. There
is an array of sampling along many of the roads to decide which area is contributing
the most. They have only done three samples, but it seems that the Bender Road
area is the location of most of the high fecal counts. Fish Trap Creek had fewer
counts at the mouth than last quarter, which is good. Counts are down for Ten Mile
and Bertrand creeks. They are looking at both sides of Double Ditch to determine
which side is contributing the most. Based on three samples, the east side of
Double Ditch is twice as contaminated. Three samples are not a definite answer,
though. When it comes down to Marietta, it got marginally worse this quarter.
Most of it was caused by higher counts, not more counts. There were spikes. This
is a preliminary draft because this quarter isn't done until December. There were
eight counts in the fourth quarter. There is the same amount of samples. It is
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
interesting that the percent of counts greater than 100 in the third quarter were
only 29 percent. In the fourth quarter, it went up to 63 percent of the counts they
got. The counts were larger, for instance 300 or 400. In the third quarter, the
water coming down was snowmelt and there was dilution. In the fourth quarter
there was rain runoff, not snow melt, so it wasn't as diluted. Regarding Portage
Bay, the information in his report is not DOE data. They are from the same
stations, but are different samples. He and DOE compare samples and are
routinely within 95% of each other.
Dawson asked why someone from the Coast Guard followed up on the
sewage overflow. Cochrane stated they are in Portage Bay, not in Hale Passage.
He doesn't have anything to do with sewer plant or its sampling. The DOH sample
station nine, which is in Hale Passage, is close to where the outfall is.
Dawson asked what is causing the high spikes. Cochrane stated that the
entire bay had high counts in August. In August, the Nooksack River input
influenced Portage Bay, which is a larger part of the 901h percentile.
Brown stated snowmelt was diluting the river during the third quarter, yet
once it gets to the bay, the counts go way up. He questioned how that could
happen. Cochrane stated a low count for the river is under 100. One hundred in
Portage Bay is very high. A count of 43 is the threshold in marine waters. The bay
is still four times as bad as it could be for legal shellfish harvesting. It is getting
better, but there are still high counts coming through.
Dawson asked if he was familiar with any other problems with the sewer that
might be affecting the water. Cochrane stated if they postulate the sewer upset in
Hales Passage, the count from the sewer down to Portage Bay would be between
six and twenty.
Dawson stated they have major effluent along Sandy Point. At Sandy Point
Heights, there is a problem because the odor was offensive. She wondered if there
are areas that need to be looked at. Woodward invited Dawson and all
councilmembers to the advisory committee meeting being held the next day. The
Lummi representatives will give a presentation. It is at the Ferndale Library from
10:00 a.m. to noon. It would give a lot of information to unanswered questions.
The EPA will also be there.
Dawson stated there needs to be state
for that could be made in the Federal Consent
advisory group write a letter to the EPA.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
oversight on the sewer. An argument
Decree. They asked that the
Sutter stated the map on page 27 makes it seem that the problems are
concentrated and the restricted areas are in one spot, which appears to be isolated
due to the lay of the land around it. There is a narrow passage. She questioned
whether all the water in the bay ends up at this spot. Cochrane stated the question
is how many times that happens. He hasn't been able to track salinity flows from
the Nooksack. He has looked at drift and tidal patterns. It is hard to look at the
surface flow from the Nooksack River and the retention time for fecal coliform.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Sutter asked if there is any indication they are picking up water from other
areas of Bellingham Bay and would indicate a potential problem elsewhere.
Cochrane stated no, the only water coming from Bellingham is from the south end
of Portage Bay.
Brown questioned whether there are other test spots in the Bay where they
are testing for fecal. Cochrane stated they are not.
Sutter stated they are only testing the locations of the shellfish beds.
Cochrane stated the Nooksack River is contributing fecal coliform to Bellingham
Bay, rather than the other way around. That is why the counts in Portage Bay were
low in the summertime, except for August. Most of the time, based on salinity
values, Nooksack was going into Bellingham Bay when it was hot rather than going
into Portage Bay.
Hirsch stated the DOE has an ambient monitoring site in Bellingham Bay that
shows elevated levels of fecal coliform. It is located east of the map in the
document.
Brown stated fourth quarter sampling of the Nooksack main stem in Lynden
showed a substantial decrease in fecal coliform concentration compared to the
upstream station at Everson and to the third quarter. That is on page twelve. He
questioned whether Lynden was doing better. Cochrane stated they can't tell the
effect of Lynden from the sampling they are doing.
Woodward stated they have a website that they are putting the meeting
minutes on. The address is www.whatcomshellfish.com.
2. PRESENTATION BY JOE BROPHY REGARDING PIPELINE SAFETY
(AB99 -462)
Bob Hughes, 6895 South Pass Road, Maple Falls, stated this is an
informational meeting and is not anything about Olympic Pipeline. This meeting will
look toward the future and what can be done. U.S. Representative Jack Metcalf has
a bill introduced in Congress. It seems that the state may have some jurisdiction.
It is likely the people in Whatcom County are going to be a sounding board of
citizens who will have things to say. For that reason, they felt it would be helpful to
get some information. The two gentlemen here are Joe Brophy and Joe Galbreath.
He gave background information on both speakers.
Joe Brophy, Profile Technologies Inc., presented information on how to
structure a pipe inspection and integrity assessment program. Any successful
inspection system requires knowledge of the failure modes. One needs to match
the appropriate inspection method to expect failure modes and get a balanced
response. There is no one inspection technology that solves all the problems.
Generally it takes a combination of technologies or at least knowledge of what
failure modes are likely to make a balanced response to the entire safety issue of a
pipe. One needs to know the failure methods, match inspection technology to
failure methods, and plan a global assessment program. Global assessment is
being able to assess the overall integrity of the entire line and to localize areas that
will be potential problem areas. One needs to locate areas of quantitative testing.
Most global assessment is going to be qualitative. It will identify where the
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
potential problems exist. To do a safety assessment, one needs quantitative
information about the remaining pipe wall, called the through wall dimension. That
will determine if the pipe can be safely operated. One has to perform fitness for
service testing. That determines if the pipe can be safely operated at the pressures
and with the product in the pipe, based on the condition of the pipe. The last thing
is to determine the appropriate inspection intervals. Every place has different
corrosion rates based on local conditions, the service of the pipe, and the product
the pipe carries. One of the key factors is determining the appropriate inspection
interval so one doesn't go from sub - critical to failure. That often gets pushed to the
side in the entire process. There is a great deal of differences between above -
grade pipe and below grade, or buried, pipe. It is easier to test above -grade pipe.
There is easier access. There are more methods available that can be easily
applied. He believes that pipes of concern in this area of the country are buried
pipes. Unfortunately, several things are working against buried pipes. One thing is
that access is limited. Generally, most techniques require one to dig a hole and
look at a small area. That leaves the problem of fewer inspection options. The
most quantitative and least expensive options can't be applied to buried pipe. Also,
soil consideration and construction history are major considerations. Those will
influence the corrosion rates and other things that can damage a pipe. One has to
assess all these things as a group to determine what it will do to the inspection
method and intervals.
Brown questioned whether the reason for putting a pipe above ground or
below ground is based on the company's desire or local regulations. Brophy stated
it is a combination. For instance, the Alaska production fields put the pipes above
ground because of the frozen tundra. In most residential areas, they want the
pipes to be below ground because it will be less likely that a car will damage it.
Local requirements will make the determination. It is less expensive to bury a pipe
than to put one on stilts above the ground. A pipe that is above ground can also be
exposed to other elemental conditions that can impact it. There is always a trade-
off.
Brophy continued to state that the key issue is to determine the failure
mechanisms and /or modes they have to find. Typically, they will be classified as
inside diameter failures, or external outside diameter failures. These depend on
many factors such as whether the pipe has a coating, if the produce is such that it
can corrode the pipe, local soil and groundwater conditions, design construction,
and pipe material. The inspection technologies must fine the kinds of defects that
lead to failure. For instance, if the product is such that there is zero chance that
the pipe would fail from the inside, then one would concentrate efforts and
resources on devices that would detect corrosion from the outside. If there is a
high probability of failure from either direction, one needs a different strategy. One
wants to have an inspection technology that identifies current critical locations and
potential problem areas. One needs to have a probability detection limit. One also
wants to pinpoint areas in danger of imminent failure, so a technology that can
determine these things, as well as provide the location, is needed.
Brown questioned whether the technologies are available. Brophy stated
they are. There are various degrees of solving the problems.
Brophy continued to state that quantitative evaluation of the pipe is the next
step. Once potential at -risk areas are located, follow -up on those areas is required.
There are various industry codes that determine how the safety factors for pipe are
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
calculated, based on existing damage. All these things are logged in to determine
the safety margins.
Part of the process includes a pipe system review after the failure
mechanisms are defined. One would be interested in any historical information on
past failures and now the pipe system is constructed. One thing that is overlooked
is if the pipe problems are localized or random. Localized problems mean there is a
specific condition at a pipe bend or compression station that is likely to cause a
failure just because of the way it is constructed. A random problem can be
anywhere along the system and caused by factors. There is a difference in
inspection programs if one knows the problems are localized or random.
Brown stated Intalco has a corrosion problem due to electrical current in the
area. He questioned how that would be classified. Brophy stated he would call that
random, because there may be different electrical potential along the line that could
cause an attack.
Brown questioned whether geographical hazard areas, such as ground
movement areas are random. Brophy stated those are also random, because it is
hard to predict where the attack would occur.
Brenner stated one knows where the geo- hazardous areas are located. An
inspection wouldn't be on the entire line, just on those areas. She questioned
whether that would make it less random. Brophy stated it does make it less
random. When he talks about localized problems in the inspection business, they
are talking about areas measured by feet or a specific geometry. Geographic
hazard areas are measured by miles. Anything within that mile range is random.
One can't predict where the specific defect might occur.
Brophy continued to state that one would pay attention to where the critical
failure locations are. Some areas won't be as dangerous as others for a failure.
That would come from an assessment of the physical characteristics of the pipe
system. For instance, one would allocate resources to areas that would likely have
more property damage than other areas.
He discussed accepted inspection technology on buried pipes. One has many
variations of several basic technologies. One group is called ground potential. This
is a simple measurement of electrical differences in voltage between the pipe and
the ground. It is a monitoring technique. Another technique is pressure testing,
which puts pressure on a given portion of pipeline. If it can pass that test, they
know there is no immediate and critical defects in the area. It won't indicate
potential defects. The most comprehensive one is called pigging or smart - pigging.
These are devices that go down the inside of the pipe. This will provide the best
and most information. Unfortunately, the pipeline must be designed to handle pigs.
If it is not designed for it, it can't be used.
Brenner questioned whether that means the pipe has to be a certain width.
Brophy stated there are different sizes of pigs, but there has to be some way to
insert the pig in the pipeline, and then retrieve it. There have to be chambers in
which to insert the pig. There has to be the right kinds of valves so it can go
through the valves when they are open.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Brenner asked how recently the pigs were invented and if they can go into
old lines. Brophy stated they can go into old lines. Old lines can sometimes be
retrofitted to handle the modern generation of pigs. Pigs became commonly used
in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Brown stated valves have been retrofitted to accommodate pig inspection in
the line. Brophy stated valves are the single biggest problem. Valves were
generally welded in. There wasn't concern about the undercut on the weld, so one
can have metallic stalagmites that obstruct the pig.
Brown questioned whether a pit can negotiate where a pipe curves under a
river. Brophy stated the pigs can negotiate it, but there is a bend radius that it can
pass through. Depending on the construction, certain kinds of pigs will be able to
go through tighter bends than other kinds of pigs. They try to make the pigs
flexible. The pigs have internal joints that they can bend. They can also
accommodate a certain amount of change in the diameter of the pipe. The best
feature of the pig is that it can go for miles and collect very good, high - quality data
about the quantitative condition of the pipe and the location of defects in the pipe.
There are a lot of restrictions on what kind of pigs can be used and how viable they
will be, based on how the pipe is constructed.
Brenner questioned whether there is some way to check for metallic
stalagmites before putting a $1 million pig in the pipe. Brophy stated there is no
good way. The industry has been trying to develop devices to clean it out.
Unfortunately, that hasn't been built yet.
Brenner questioned whether there is any way to back a pig up if it gets
stuck. Brophy stated that if the pipeline has provisions for pressure caps to reverse
the flow of the product in the pipe. The pig depends on the product flowing in the
pipe to move it. Many pipelines are not designed to have pressure caps at
convenient locations.
Joe Galbreath, Profile Technologies Inc., stated that when a pig gets stuck, it
really is stuck and generally doesn't come out. Most pipelines do not have a
reversible flow.
Brophy stated pigging is an ideal solution. Unfortunately, there are too many
practical limitations that can limit its usage. There are emerging technologies that
have been put into usage and are attacking some of these problems with pigging
and pressure. Electromagnetic waves and ultrasonic (UT) guided waves are
alternatives.
Brenner questioned whether those things could be used to break down the
potential for metal stalagmites. Brophy stated these don't depend on the
construction details of the pipe. They are in use. There is a distinction between
emerging technologies. The way people handle their legal affairs for pipelines is
that they have required minimum standards they have to inspect to. These are
called code - accepted standards. These are things such as ultrasonics, x -ray, and
visual. They have been around long enough that people can run a comprehensive
procedure and certification method. There are other technologies that are optional
and have been used for special applications or are in development. If they are
certified, they can be used in the safety aspect. Electromagnetic waves and UT
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
guide waves are certified, but not codified. They haven't got the 20, 30, or 40 year
history of operation to become codified.
Brenner stated it seems like ultrasound is used for all kinds of things. She
questioned whether there is something that could vibrate the metallic stalagmites
out of the pipes. Brophy stated they generally have to be ground out. That is why
it becomes a problem.
Dawson asked about the technology identified in the newspaper. Brophy
stated that goes under the category of electromagnetic waves.
The ground potential method is a simple and rapid technique to apply.
However, it is very unspecific. One has to have gross condition changes in large
areas of the pipe. The specific location of where things are being damaged is not
identified. It is a relatively inexpensive way to assess whether something is going
on between two locations. That is all it can do. It would be a first level of defense.
It is often coupled with cathodic protection systems. These are electrical systems
put on the pipe to protect it. A sacrificial anode will be installed. The anode will get
eaten away by the electrical differences rather than the pipe wall itself.
Sutter questioned whether they have to be replaced periodically. Brophy
stated they do.
Brophy stated pressure testing, or hydro testing, is increasing the operating
pressure in the pipe to a value higher than the safe operating value. If the pipe
survives that without leakage, there are no imminent critical defects in the area.
Brown stated adding pressure may create pressures that didn't exist prior to
testing, which would increase the possibility of a problem. Brophy stated that is
one of the dangers of pressure testing. The single biggest concern is knowing
where the failure is located.
Sutter questioned whether the spots that have been blown out by the testing
would have been spots that would have likely failed while the product flowed
through them. Brophy stated that often times these pressure tests are done with
the material. They simply up the pressure. One wants to be very careful. Pressure
testing could cause increased cracking and increase the likelihood of failure.
Galbreath stated, from a material standpoint, hydro testing is a disaster
waiting to happen. It only proves that, at that very moment at time, that pipe is
good to hold the increased pressure. If the corrosion mechanism is failing, the pipe
could soon fail at a much lower pressure.
Brophy stated pressure testing is a common technique because it is easy to
do and identifies the places that are imminent danger. It can cause problems and it
can also mislead someone into thinking there is a higher safety margin than really
exists.
Galbreath stated pressure testing has a place in the construction of a line to
indicate that the line was build correctly. However, hydro testing isn't a good
technology to use for servicing a line.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner questioned whether that is what people are mostly using. Brophy
stated they are not mostly. It is a common technique, but it is not the only
technique.
Brophy discussed internal pigging. This is the most comprehensive method if
the pipeline is amenable to it. It finds inside and outside defects, gives good
location data, and gives good quantitative data. It is expensive to use because the
device is very expensive. $1 million for a pig is not uncommon. If the pipeline can
support it, pigging can provide the most comprehensive information.
Brenner questioned why the companies aren't standardizing their pipes over
the last 30 years to allow for the pigs, so they are interchangeable. Brophy stated
part of the issue depends on different local construction codes.
Brenner questioned why this isn't under federal jurisdiction. Brophy stated
the American Petroleum Institute and the American Society for Mechanical
Engineers Construction Code specify the minimum requirements. Many people will
make variations. As long as there are minimum requirements, jurisdictions are free
to make improvements, which leads to a lot of variety.
Galbreath stated he used to work as a materials engineer trying to assure
the safety and integrity of the equipment that was built. He always fought the
projects people within his own company. The projects people are charged with the
requirement of getting a project built under budget and on time. They don't care
that, five years down the road, there is going to be a nightmare. That is not their
problem. They are often gone on another project. The pipelines in Alaska are not
piggable because the projects people determined they could save about five
percent.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Galbreath stated pigging was an accepted technology in the 1960's and
1970's. It was a sad story from a materials engineering standpoint. The
capabilities for the lines were purchased, but it was decided that a trivial savings
could be realized by not installing the capabilities. If he was in the position to issue
regulations concerning the safety and operation of pipelines, that is the one thing
he would do. If it was done, they would be in a new world. Then, the problems
would be minimal in the operation of that line over the future. However, these
companies look at it as a way to avoid spending money up front.
Brown stated some state agencies put the building costs above the
operations cost. Galbreath agreed. Generally operations gets stuck with whatever
the problem is created. They can get nightmare configurations that were cheap to
build, but are not cannot be inspected.
Brenner suggested they lobby the federal government to require
standardized, piggable lines. Galbreath stated it is not complicated to do that.
They have to insure that the elbows have a bend radius above a certain minimum.
That minimum is a sweeping turn. They are a little more expensive than a 90-
degree turning elbow. That is fairly simple. Another common problem is making
sure branch connections have bars across the branch so the pig can be stopped
from going down the wrong branch. Full- opening valves is another requirement.
These are all simple things.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brophy stated most of the infrastructure for piping was built in the 1950's
and 1960's before a lot of the codes became even mandatory to the minimum level.
A great deal of the inspection technology development has been about how to
handle the older lines that may have more difficult access than what is currently
being done. Many times, the projects people and operations people have a brick
wall between them.
Brenner stated it is obscene to hear that people are cutting corners to save a
buck. Galbreath stated it depends on the motives of the various players in the
field. An oil company's motive is to get the oil to market as cheaply as possible.
Brenner stated another motive should be about the safest way to get it to
market.
Brophy stated the next technology is the electromagnetic wave inspection.
This is an emerging technology. It is being used extensively in the Alaska oilfields.
The Prudoe oilfields have been some of the most progressive in implementing a lot
of the newer technologies. They've had a lot of concern about how they would
maintain production. The environmental constraints they are under have put on a
lot of requirements to do things better, faster, and cheaper. It is also being used in
the lower 48. It can be applied to buried, insulated and /or coated pipe. Most pipe
that is buried, but not all, has a coating on it to protect it from the local conditions.
Many times, that coating will fail for various reasons, which results in local random
attacks. Sometimes all it takes is someone nicking the coating as they are putting
it in the ground. Many inspection techniques for aboveground piping cannot deal
with coatings. A lot of the inspection technologies are inapplicable because of the
coating.
Brenner questioned whether there is a way to empty the pipes and re -coat
them rather than replace all the pipes. Brophy stated the coating is on the outside.
Most coatings have a limited lifetime. When they build a pipeline, they will build it
for a 20, 30, or 40 year estimated lifetime. Mostly, it is based on how long the
coating will last.
Brenner stated someone from an oil company testified to them that the
coatings should last 100 years or more. Brophy stated that person is being very
optimistic.
Sutter questioned whether the pipes are replaced when the coatings fail or
when the pipes themselves fail. Brophy stated it is very difficult to inspect the
difficult the integrity of the pipe wall. It is far more difficult to determine the
integrity of the coating. At this point in time there are few good methods to
determine the coating integrity.
Sutter questioned whether they have to wait for a pipe failure. Brophy
stated they wait for a failure or until enough corrosion has built up on the pipe itself
that it can be detected. The electromagnetic waves have not been conclusively
established. There is data that shows it will be sensitive to local coating failure.
Galbreath stated there are many techniques available, many pioneered in
Canada, to re -coat pipelines. The way that it is successfully done is to pull a new
pipe inside of the old pipe.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brown questioned whether that is recommended for a pipeline. Galbreath
stated a difficult problem with the lining technologies is how to get them around the
elbows and phase from the new pipe to the old pipe. The major pipeline
transportation company in Alaska has experimented with many pipe remediation
programs. Every one of them has failed.
Brophy stated the electromagnetic wave inspection is able to detect
anomalies outside of the pipe. It can't say if there is a failure on the inside of the
pipe. It is good for long- distance, global assessment to locate potential failures.
Brophy stated the last of the techniques is the UT guided waves. This is also
an emerging technology being used extensively in refineries, process plants, and
pipelines in the lower 48. Reliability of information is dependent on the kind of
product in the pipe. Results will vary depending on the product. It will detect
defects on both the inside and outside of the pipe. It does require access to the
pipe's surface. The electromagnetic wave technique only has to have a small hole
to put the sensor on. The guided wave technique requires a hole excavated that is
big enough to put in a circling sensor around the pipe to generate and receive these
ultrasonic waves. They are traveling waves that travel down the pipe. When they
encounter an anomaly, they will reflect back a signal.
Sutter asked if this could be installed at construction. Brophy stated there is
a lot of activity in that area. No one knows how long the sensors would last if they
were installed during construction. The electromagnetic wave sensor would
probably last a lot longer.
Brenner questioned the distance in which they work. Brophy stated the
electromagnetic wave works at distances of 200 to 500 feet from a given location.
As time goes on, that should improve. The guided waves depend more on the pipe
diameter and the product in the pipe. For buried pipe, the range is only 50 to 150
feet. However, that can go in both directions. The cost of the technology is pretty
high. One would do periodic inspections rather than permanent monitoring.
Brophy stated the real crux of the matter to determine if the pipe is safe to
operate is the through -wall dimension (TWD), or how much of the pipe wall remains
at a given location that is at -risk. All the safety and operating criteria are based on
that. If they quickly identify the areas that are at -risk. They still need to do a
quantitative follow -up and make this determination before assessing the safety
issues with that particular piece of pipe.
Brenner stated there must be data on where the accidents generally occur.
She questioned whether many accidents occur at the wall or the welding spot.
Brophy stated it depends on conditions and the product in the pipe. Most of the
external corrosion occurs in the weld packs because the insulation is not properly
applied. In many cases, pipes that are attacked internally will be caused from
change in flow direction. If there is buried pipe, they have to identify the location
accurately and then apply the quantitative methods. Some of the more common
methods are pit gauges, x -rays, and ultrasonic thickness gauges. The global
inspection techniques first tell one where to look. The process involves evaluating
the kind of defects, how to detect the defects, locate the defects, and quantify them
before the safety analysis is produced.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Inspection interval is a factor that often gets overlooked. One would need to
know the corrosion rates, whether there are localized or random failure locations,
and some indication of the pipe material and coating characteristics. There are a
lot of methods to identify those factors. It takes some work and knowledge about
the conditions.
Lastly, in any inspection technology, one has to know how it will fail before
they can apply the right technology. Now magic bullet will find everything. One
can reduce the number and kinds of inspections if the kinds of failures are known.
One should know how often to inspect the lines, and have the appropriate methods
to quantify the damage and determine pipe integrity. That is the entire program
for pipeline safety.
Sutter asked what is being done in the field of technology to solve the
problems before the pipe is construction, such as new materials and methodologies.
Brophy stated there are active code committees for the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, who developed most of the construction code methods.
There is activity to determine how to make things easy to inspect and maintainable.
Unfortunately, it takes a while for things to become common. Many of the more
progressive companies have taken development on themselves because they
realize the operation costs are such an issue. It may be worthwhile to have up-
front cost to reduce operational cost.
Brenner questioned whether Brophy has been involved with Congress.
Brophy stated the message is getting out. Generally, in the past, inspection has
come under operations budgets. Operations are bottom line driven like the projects
people.
Brenner questioned whether Congress is listening. Brophy stated most
pipeline safety and refinery and process plant safety comes under the Department
of Transportation (DOT) guidelines and OSHA 119 guidelines. These guidelines are
minimum standards. There is a range of activity from people who will do the
minimum to people who realize that the minimum is not cost effective.
Brenner questioned whether the guidelines are voluntary. Brophy stated
they are minimum requirements. There are guidelines on how to meet the
minimum requirements. There are also a lot of voluntary industry standards on
such things as pipe inspection.
Brenner stated this is a different presentation with very different information
from what she heard from the pipeline companies.
Brown asked Brophy what one thing he would implement or cause to happen.
Brophy stated he would require people to design pipelines and facilities that can be
inspected. Before construction begins, design will be reviewed to evaluate whether
or not it can be inspected.
Gale Burnett, 9191 Northwood Road, Lynden, stated most failures that occur
on pipelines occur from things that could have been prevented by either personnel
or equipment. The worst kinds of failures are the ones that don't happen there.
The worst kind of failures are those that are not statistically predictable. The
industry is moving in the direction of not relying totally on one technology or the
other, and moving into risk management. They talk about pigs, x -ray, ultrasonics,
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
and all the technologies. There are improvements in the field, but what is being
done now to prevent problems in the future is not going to do a lot for the millions
of miles of pipelines that are buried in this country. Every technology has its
strengths and weaknesses. He designed and built the first smart pig that was ever
used in the industry. He is familiar with the problems and strengths that exist.
Pigs have their strengths and weaknesses. Pigs do miss problems and locations,
but they have a high hit ration. X -ray would be great if one could get to it, but it
has to be right on top of a defect, so one would have to know where a defect is
before it can be x- rayed. There are many technologies that are out there. Internal
pipeline problems are statistically predictable. External conditions and problems
are one of the biggest nemeses that the pipeline industry has today. Outside
problems are the highest probability for failure and misses for pigs. They are
getting better. The emerging technologies are trying to fit in with risk
management. They need to make sure that they are looking at, not only existing
technologies, but new technologies as well. They need to look at the total risk
management program and use a combination of technologies. Pressure testing has
some real risks on old pipes. It has its place in the construction industry. It has
some drawbacks on new pipe. They need to make sure that they look closely and
assess the risk management program to ensure those areas of testing are covered
that can't predict failure.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Tom Brown, Committee Vice -Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/99, Page 15