Pipelines: A deeper look

[player]

folks:
Well... now that we are "officially" in mediation, I figured this is a good time for me to share my
understanding of what the pipelines mean to MVHS safety. Arch has done a tremendous amount
of work and research on this, so here's an independent look. Let me apologize up front for the
length of these posts - I'll do this as a 5- part post for ease of reading and responding.

As per the Kinder Morgan response, there are 3 pipelines, 2 36" pipelines and 1 20" pipeline
carrying natural gas that go through the MVHS parcel. The pressure of LNG in these pipelnes has
a maximum of 687 psig to 780 psig. One of the 36" pipelines is 57 years old, so it was installed
circa 1951.

Much has been written on pipeline risk, and I strongly encourage readers to check out the
book-report "Transmission Pipelines and Land Use: A Risk-informed Approach" at
www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11046 which you can read for free online.

My questions were:
1. Can the pipelines that run through the property explode? I mean, have they actually been seen to
explode, not just in a theoretical sense? If so, what were the circumstances?
2. How likely is it that this particular pipeline section will explode? Can I quantify the consequences
of this explosion? What factors would contribute to such an explosion? What would be the human
consequences of such an explosion?
3. How are communities dealing with this? Are there guidelines (not just "its a bad idea to build
near pipelines" - which is too vague for me)? How do these risks compare to data-to-day risks that
are inherent in life? Are there risk mitigation strategies that we as a community should be looking at
to reduce this risk?

My research into these questions led me to organizations like National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) at the USDOT Pipeline ad Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA). There are excellent statistics and technical data these providers maintain
and will be happy to post links to these if people want to pursue this further.

One work of caution: Much of the material can be cherry-picked to produce sections that support
arguments from both supporters and opponents of building MVHS at Eola. The temptation is great
to only read that which supports ones stance - human nature. The material needs to be looked at
holistically - in its totality.

[End of Post 1/5]

[player]

So can such pipelines explode? Absolutely, yes!

On May 13 2005, a part of the Gulf Coast Mainline Pipeline System that extends from Chicago to the
Gulf (yes, the very same pipeline that goes under the Eola site) exploded around 2:00 am in
Harrison County, Texas. The reference below gives details.

ops.dot.gov/regions/southwest/2005/cpf_420051011H.htm

The operator was Kinder Morgan, and the pipeline is question was a 36" underground section that
was around 41 years old. The most likely cause of the explosion was Stress Corrosion Cracking
(SCC). No lives were lost as this was in an isolated area, but an Entergy power plant was
destroyed and two employees were injured.

The section that blew up was a 160 ft section. Valves were closed and the gas was allowed to
burn out. The other two 20" pipelines were reduced to 80% pressure.The maximum pressure
allowable was 858 psig and at the time of the explosion it was 824 psig.

These are very similar characteristics for the pipelines under MVHS, so in my mind this established
that the 36" pipelines can have ruptures and explosions.

As I have said before, it is very tempting to say "Thanks player. Case closed - that proves Eola is a
turd". Please read on. This proves that a pipeline like this can explode, and makes no statement on
Eola. Which is like saying that meteorites can hit earth and and volcanos can explode and obliterate
major chunks of the earth.

Risk has other aspects to it. Please resist cherry-picking!

[End of post 2/5]

[player]

There are 1.9 million miles of pipeline in the US. The NTSB has a classification for the kind of events
that are associated with pipeline malfunction. The PHMSA classifies events into "Serious", which
involves fatality or in-patient hospitalization, and "Significant" which includes Serious and other
consequences like loss of property etc. Statistics on these can be found at:

primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SerPSI.html

We are primarily concerned here with Gas Transmission Onshore events, and ones that involve
loss of life or hospitalization from a child safety perspective. From 1988-2007 there were a total of
144 Gas Transmission Onshore "Serious" incidents in the U.S. The maximum and minimum in a year
are 12 and 2 respectively. The average per year is about 6.

So I set about estimating the probability of such an incident happening when a child was at the
Eola site. Eola has a border with is roughly 1/3 of a mile with the pipeline. The probablity/year that
this section will have an Serious incident can be estimated by:

P= 1/3*6/1.9million or roughly 1 in a million.

If the child is at school 80 hrs a week, this becomes 1 in 2 million.
I'd prefer to use Significant as opposed to Serious, as Serious incidents do not take population
density around the pipeline into account. The number of Significant incidents for Transmission are
1041 in 20 years, or about 52/year so the probability of something significant happening is more
like 1 in 100,000, and of something while a child is in the school is 1 in 200,000 (roughly).

[End of Post 3/5]

[player]

What this means is that once in 200,000 years we can expect to see a significant event when a
child is present in the school. Lets compare this to some risks we live with in daily life.

Risk of Heart Disease - 1 in 350
Risk of Cancer - 1 in 510
All Accidents - 1 in 2,560
Motor Vehicles - 1 in 5,030
Homicides - 1 in 11,500
Drowning - 1 in 47,600
Fires/Burns - 1 in 51,600
Civil Aviation accident - 1 in 192,300
Significant MVHS - 1 in 200,000
pipeline incident
Lightning strike - 1 in 2,454,000

So would I pull my kids out of swimming class? Or would I deny my pre-teen her driving rights
when she becomes 16 years old? Or stop flying? No. So from a pure risk perspective pipeline
events are very rare indeed.

The arguments I have heard are that this risk is avoidable by chosing BB instead of Eola. True. But
deceptive. Every site has specific risks which are unavoidable - we live with these all the time. No
pipeline is better that any pipeline at all - no question about that. But I find characterizing this
pipeline risk as extreme hard to understand, as this is one of the many many risks humans face. If I
really felt that 0 risk was the only tolerable option, I would not let my kids get their drivers licence till
they were 25 (and risk having them disown me ) before I would not send them the MVHS.

The other point is one of liability of the School District in case of such an event, rare as it may be.
True - there could be liability. This is why all organizations perform Phase I analyses as the judicial
system looks on this as "due diligence" that mitigates culpability. I say mitigate, not eliminate, as I am
sure there will be tons of litigation of an event occurs. I worry about litigation from drunk school
bus drivers a lot more than pipeline bursts. Do we make driver take breathalyzers before they pick
up our kids? I don't think so. So we as a District have culpablity in many, many aspects of school
activities.

Now if a "Significant" event occurs, what is then the chance that it affects a human being on the
site? This is where the idea of Potential Impact Radius (PIR) comes in. You have to be "near" the
pipeline to be hurt by it. This also implies that there is no sheilding like for exampole being inside a
building.

The PIR is defined as the 1% fatality radius for a pipeline explosion. This means that if you are
within this distance from the pipeline, there is a 1 in 100 chance that you will die.

This can be calculated as a function of pipe diameter and operating pressure - Arch has given the
calculation before - for the 36" pipeline, its around 700 ft. For the 20" pipeline its 365 ft. The cause
for concern is that the High School building itself is 220 ft from the pipeline, and there are some
baseball diamonds and a stadium entrance within this distance as well.

So if a child is outside the building within a 700 ft distance from the pipeline and the 1 in 200,000
event occurs then the child faces a 1 in 100 possibility that he/she will die. So one chance in 20
million or a 5x10^-8 probablilty of fatality/year/mile.

[End of post 4/5]

[player]

How do communities deal with this across the US? What is "acceptable risk"? Many on these
boards have stated that 0 is the only acceptable risk. I respect their right to that opinion. My search
was for what communities felt was acceptable, not individuals, as there are all varieties of
opinions among individuals.

Many have no choice except to build near pipelines, landfills, etc. Sadly, very few real community
quantitake guidelines exist for "acceptable risk". The best I could find for a community standard is
from the County of Santa Barbara. A pipeline risk analysis was performed for a pipeline network,
referenced in

www.questconsult.com/wahsatch.html

The metric to quantify human impact is the so called f/N curve, or fatalities/year vs probability curve.
The curve below shows how the Wahsatch risk analysis compared to Santa Barbara guidelines
for "acceptable" risk.



The De Minimis region here is deemed as acceptable. For reference, where I place MVHS for an
N=1 (1 fatality) is somewhere in the 10^-7 to 10^-8 range, which appears to be in the De Minimis
region. Even at 10^-5 (1 in 100,000) it is considered "acceptable risk". One can question the Santa
Barbara guidelines, the methodology, my calculations,... all we like. But I don't believe I'm too far off
the mark, if at all.

The f/N curve for Department of Transportation data for (note: this is fatalities/year/mile, not fatalities/year - which is why the difference in scale) is shown below.





Here my estimate is 5x10^-8 for 1 fatality on this curve for MVHS.

I am not saying this makes Eola "safe", all I am saying is that the "acceptable risk" is in line with what a) communities are using as guidelines and b) DOT statistics for such incidents.

Now, the final question is, what can be done to reduce this even further. MVHS at Eola would make the site a so-called Class 3 or Class 4 site - i.e. 20 or more people could be affected in case we have an incident. This automatically means that the statutory regulatios for pipeline safety management kick in, requiring more testing and safety measures that Kinder Morgan would have to do. This includes both surface scans, as well as pipeline integrity checking using internal methods, which I won't go into now. These should improve overall safety.

Education is clearly a key aspect. School personnel and kids should be trained to recognize and react to the onset of pipeline leaks and integrity compromises, such as vegetation effects and odor from LNG.

Arch's suggestions about a) adding automatic control valves (ACVs) to cordon of the pipeline section around the school, and possibly changing the pipelines are awesome and excellent. Pipeline age is a factor for pipelines installed earlier than 1950 according to the PHMSA. Our oldest pipeline is right on the cusp - installed in 1951 or so. Changing it would be highly desirable. Just installing ACVs on both sides of the Eola site could make a difference of almost a factor of 40 in the probabilities, as Arch has pointed out.

Lobbying with Kinder Morgan through legislative pressure and community pressure should be pursued, IMHO. Kinder Morgan is running integrity checks in 2008 on the 36" pipelines - golden opportunity to make these changes!

In conclusion - the topic is varied and complex. The aim is to help parents by to make decisions by providing information. As I have said before, both sides will find things here they like, and they don't like as far as support for their cause. The answers are not black and white. Let the data speak. I for one, would be comfortable sending my kids to MVHS at Eola, if thats where its going to be built, based on the data I have seen - but thats just me! I respect your right to differ.

Cheers.

[End of post 5/5]

[macy]

Player,

Thank you for the information. Quite thorough in such a short time frame.

I have one question for you. Are you on the district's payroll?

[rural]

May 3, 2008 12:13:13 GMT -6 macy said:

Player,

Thank you for the information. Quite thorough in such a short time frame.

I have one question for you. Are you on the district's payroll?

I don't know, but I do know they should at least send him/her a nice bouquet of flowers. ;D

[rural]

Honestly, though, I must say it is a very unbiased approach to the issue.

ETA: Arch is still right that no line is best. However, this information points out that the difference between the two may not be as large a gap as originally presented.

[macy]

I mean no disrespect to Player at all. I'm just a tad bit curious at this point. I have a gut feeling that I can't seem to shake.

[player]

May 3, 2008 12:13:13 GMT -6 macy said:

Player,

Thank you for the information. Quite thorough in such a short time frame.

I have one question for you. Are you on the district's payroll?

I knew that was coming! ;D

Emphatically, no! I am a private citizen just like you, a parent, and have concerns about my kids future. I work in the private sector in the high-tech industry, but was a scientist in my younger wilder days. I have no connection with the district, school, SB, NSFOC, anti-NSFOC, whatever else.

I am sure that will do nothing to change peoples minds that I am yet another mindless robot spewing out support for the SB, but as I have said before, at my age, I really dont give a crap of what people think of me.

Cheers.

[macy]

Thanks for the reply Player.

One other question if you don't mind.

Why jump on this board with all this data so late into the game?

[player]

May 3, 2008 12:22:57 GMT -6 macy said:

Thanks for the reply Player.

One other question if you don't mind.

Why jump on this board with all this data so late into the game?

Honestly, I was unaware of this board till about 2 months ago. And I lurked for a good bit before I screwed up enough guts to post. I was irked by some of the misinformation that I found, so I started with EMF, which is a topic I have studied as a physicist, and kind of got drawn into the rest of it. My pipeline knowledge, really, was sparked by some guidance from Arch on where to get the equations for calculating PIR. That took a life of its own over the past week, and this is what I found. I am by no means an expert on pipelines - but I do know how to do research and am a quick study.

Does that help?

Cheers.

[macy]

Yes, it does provide a little more insight into you! Thanks.

Many of us, including myself, have become pretty skeptical lately.

It's hard not to be considering the climate in this district.

One more question, do you mind letting us know which part of the district you live in? Most of us on this board have been quite candid about where we reside.

I would completely understand if you do not want to share that information.

Thanks again for your candidness.

[player]

May 3, 2008 12:31:46 GMT -6 macy said:

Yes, it does provide a little more insight into you! Thanks.

Many of us, including myself, have become pretty skeptical lately.

It's hard not to be considering the climate in this district.

One more question, do you mind letting us know which part of the district you live in? Most of us on this board have been quite candid about where we reside.

I would completely understand if you do not want to share that information.

Thanks again for your candidness.

macy: Sure.
Eola would be the closest site for my kids as the crow flies, which is why I am very interested in understanding the risks with this site. From a schoolbus perspective, BB or Eola for MVHS would be about the same.

My kids would go the WVHS if BB was the site. I believe WVHS is an excellent school, and was quite happy with BB for MVHS as long as the overcrowding at WVHS was alleviated. So my stance really is I don't care where you build it with acceptable safety, as long as you do, in a fiscally responsible fashion and a timely fashion. We can debate that on a different thread.

I am sure many will read more into my location, than is pertinent - well, so be it. I have nothing to hide.

Cheers.

[macy]

Player,

Thanks again. I won't read anything into your post.

Have a good weekend, despite the crummy weather.