Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Committee for a Study on Propane Gas Pipeline Facilities A Consensus Study Report of TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD SPECIAL REPORT 327 Safety Regulation for Small LPG Distribution Systems PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
Transportation Research Board Special Report 327 Subscriber Categories Pipelines; policy; safety and human factors; energy Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www. TRB.org or nationalacademies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organi- zational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transporta- tion Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu). Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America This publication was reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine. This study was sponsored by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admin- istration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/XXXXX Library of Congress Control Number: XXXXXXXXXX PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institu- tion to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary con- tributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engi neering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transpor- tation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other trans- portation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org. PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engi neering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the studyâs statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typi- cally include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committeeâs deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs v COMMITTEE FOR A STUDY ON PROPANE GAS PIPELINE FACILITIES Craig E. Philip (NAE), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, Chair Samuel T. Ariaratnam, Arizona State University, Tempe Bruce Benson, Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, Hartford, Connecticut Robert J. Chipkevich, Chipkevich Safety Consulting Group, Nashville, Tennessee Sara R. Gosman, University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville Stephanie A. King, Risk Management Solutions, Inc., Newark, California Philip J. Oakes, National Association of State Fire Marshals, Maitland, Florida April Richardson, Railroad Commission of Texas, Austin Ross T. Warnell, The Propane Doctor, Smithville, Missouri Transportation Research Board Staff Micah D. Himmel, Study Director Thomas R. Menzies, Jr., Acting Director of Consensus and Advisory Studies Anusha Jayasinghe, Senior Program Assistant Claudia Sauls, Program Coordinator Amelia Mathis, Senior Program Assistant (through December 2017)
PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs vii Preface In Section 26 of the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhanc- ing Safety Act of 2016 (PIPES Act of 2016), Congress called for a study on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pipeline facilities to examine the safety of pipeline facilities that transport or store only petro- leum gas, or mixtures of petroleum gas and air, for service to 100 or fewer customers. It will examine (a) federal, state, and local regulatory requirements applicable to these pipeline facilities; (b) techniques and best practices relating to their safe design, installation, operation, and mainte- nance; and (c) the costs and benefits, including safety benefits, associated with the regulatory requirements and use of the techniques and best prac- tices. Informed by its review, and as appropriate, the committee may make recommendations concerning these regulations, techniques, and practices. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) contracted with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) to conduct the study. The study charge is presented in full and discussed in detail in Chapter 1. To conduct the study, the National Academies convened a nine-member committee of experts whose disciplines cover LPG pipeline operations and safety regulation, transportation safety, subsurface utility engineering, law, public policy, risk analysis, and emergency response, led by Craig E. Philip, Research Professor and Vanderbilt Center for Transportation and Opera- tional Resiliency (VECTOR) Director, Vanderbilt University. The content and findings of the report represent the consensus effort of the members,
viii PREFACE PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs who served uncompensated in the public interest. Committee member bio- graphical information is provided at the end of the report. Committee members convened four times from June 2017 to February 2018. These data-gathering sessions were open to the public and included briefings by PHMSA officials, state pipeline regulators, LPG industry rep- resentatives, LPG pipeline installers and operators, and engineers engaged in relevant work. Extensive data collection also occurred between meetings. Appendix D includes the agendas of the meetings. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The committee thanks the many individuals and organizations who con- tributed to its work. The PHMSA liaison for the study was Robert W. Smith, who provided contract oversight and handled information requests from the committee. Alan Mayberry, PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety Associate Administrator, briefed the committee on the study charge. The committee was briefed by the following representatives of U.S. federal and state pipeline safety regula- tory agencies: Gary McDonald and Piyali Talukdar, PHMSA; Neil Pascual, Nevada Public Utilities Commission. The committee appreciates McDonald returning for a second presentation and also recognizes support for the study from Blaine Keener and Donald Murphy, PHMSA. The committee invited speakers from the LPG industry to deliver pre- sentations on matters relevant to the study: Leslie Anderson, Propane Gas Association of New England; Michael Caldarera, National Pro- pane Gas Asso ciation; Gregory Dahl, ARB, Inc.; Kim LaPierre and John Minchew, Suburban Propane; Lyndon Rickards, Eastern Propane Gas Asso ciation; Ken Teague, Primoris (a division of ARB, Inc.); Christopher Wagner, AmeriGas; and Rufus Youngblood, Ferrellgas. Experts in engineering, utilities, and fire prevention standards also provided briefings and presentations to the committee: James Anspach, American Society of Civil Engineers; Thomas Crane, Crane Engineering; O. John Jacobus, Jacobus and Associates; and Laura Moreno, National Fire Protection Association. Finally, the committee thanks the following individuals who were other- wise helpful in identifying issues and providing data and other informa- tion: Marty Ahrens, National Fire Protection Association; Robert Clarillos, National Association for Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR); John J. Clementson II, Maryland Public Service Commission; Jim Heeschen, National Fire Data Center; Jean McDowell, McDowell Owens; Michael Schaffer, Pooreâs Propane; and Joe Subsits, Washington Utilities and Trans- portation Commission. The committee appreciates the expertise shared by
PREFACE ix PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs Ahrens and Heeschen in reviewing the National Fire Incident Reporting System database and the tour for staff of LPG facilities by Clementson and Schaffer. The committee particularly values Clarillosâs administration of the state pipeline regulator questionnaire to the NAPSR membership. Micah D. Himmel managed the study and drafted the report under the guidance of the committee and with the assistance and supervision of Thomas R. Menzies, Jr., Director, Consensus and Advisory Studies, Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies. Anusha Jayasinghe, Amelia Mathis, and Claudia Sauls provided extensive sup- port to the committee in arranging its meetings and in managing docu- ments. Karen Febey managed the report review. Alexandra Briseno, Senior Librarian, TRB, provided general support. This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this indepen- dent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectiv- ity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: Norm Abrahamson, University of California, Berkeley; Norm Abramson, Southwest Research Institute (retired), San Antonio, TX; Michael Bronzini, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA; James Hotinger, Southern Company Gas, Richmond, VA; Jean McDowell, McDowell Owens, Houston, TX; Gregory Noll, GGN Technical Resources, LLC, Lancaster, PA; Ian Savage, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL; Jan Schilling, Advanced Products General Electric Aviation (retired), Liberty Township, OH; and Richard Williams, Suburban Propane (retired), Syracuse, NY. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Chris T. Hendrickson (National Academy of Engineering), Carnegie Mellon University ( emeritus); and Chris G. Whipple (National Academy of Engineering), Lafayette, California. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the stan- dards of the National Academies and that all review comments were care- fully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the author ing committee and the National Academies.
PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs xi Contents Summary 1 1 Introduction and Background 9 Comparative Use and Hazard Characteristics of LPG and Natural Gas, 11 Study Scope and Issues, 14 Study Focus, 17 Study Approach, 18 Report Organization, 19 2 Basic Configurations and Uses of LPG Pipeline Distribution 21 Systems System Uses and Configurations, 21 Key System Components, 23 System Supply and Operations, 27 Summary, 28 3 Hazard Characteristics and Safety Performance 30 LPG Properties and Hazard Characteristics, 31 Notable LPG Pipeline Incidents, 33 Review of Incident Statistics, 36 Summary Assessment, 48 Annex, 50
xii CONTENTS PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs 4 Safety Regulation and Its Applicability to Small LPG 54 Distribution Systems State and Local Roles in Regulating and Enforcing LPG Pipeline Safety Regulations, 55 Jurisdictional LPG Pipeline Systems by State, 56 Coverage and Applicability of the Regulations, 62 Summary Assessment, 76 5 Summary Review and Advice 81 Key Points and Findings, 82 Recommendations, 87 Concluding Comments, 89 Appendixes A Questionnaire to State Pipeline Safety Program Managers on 91 the Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Distribution Systems B Interpretation Letters Regarding the Definition of a âPublic 93 Placeâ C NFPA 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code, Adoption in the 101 United States D Agendas 104 Study Committee Biographical Information 107