Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90238

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF AN EFFECTIVE SCC DIRECT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

S C Rapp Spectra Energy Houston, Tx, USA F H Martinez El Paso Pipeline Group Houston, Tx, USA G Vervake Spectra Energy Houston, Tx, USA J E Marr TransCanada Pipelines Calgary, Alberta, Canada A D Batte Macaw Engineering Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

ABSTRACT Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Direct Assessment in accordance with the guidance set out in NACE SP0204 is an accepted method for assessing the threat of SCC in High Consequence Areas in the US, as prescribed for gas transmission pipelines by CFR 192 Sub-part O. Although operators have used excavations as part of their integrity management strategies for SCC for many years, the formalized method for gathering, interpretation and application of information that is set out in NACE SP0204 has only been applied for less than ten years. During a recent Joint Industry Project involving eight major North American natural gas transmission operators, the current status and application of SCC Direct Assessment has been reviewed. Several of these operators have developed in-house procedures incorporating the relevant guidance from NACE, CEPA and ASME, and over 160 SCC Direct Assessment excavations in accordance with the requirements of NACE SP0204 have been undertaken during the last five years. This paper reviews the development of the procedures, their in-field application and the use of the interpreted data to further refine the SCC Direct Assessment processes. BACKGROUND Inspection of the exposed pipe surface for evidence of SCC has been used since the first occurrences of SCC in the mid 1960s. Initially such excavations were randomly located or opportunistic (looking for SCC when the pipe is exposed for

other operational reasons, such as corrosion, tie-ins or repairs), but as understanding of the factors determining SCC susceptibility improved, models were developed directing excavations to high-likelihood locations. Such models incorporated factors such as soil type, groundwater composition, coating type and other system attributes, as well as prior experience of SCC in the locality. Following the experience of SCC in Canadian oil and gas pipelines in the 1980s [1], the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) initiated a program to collect SCC-related information during pipeline excavations. A total of over 60 miles of pipe was exposed and inspected, and over 13,000 colonies were found. Overall, only around 10% of the colonies exceeded 10% of the wall thickness in depth. CEPA undertook trending studies [2] to examine the relationships between pipeline attributes (operating stress, coating type, soil type and water chemistry etc) and SCC occurrence. Information from the trending studies was used to refine and improve the SCC susceptibility models. During the first Phase of a Joint Industry Project [3] on Integrity Management of SCC in High Consequence Areas (HCAs), the participating operators provided information regarding approximately 5000 excavations relating to high pH SCC and nearly 9000 excavations relating to near-neutral pH SCC. Some of the excavation programs were targeted based on a site selection model, whereas others were opportunistic. In some instances where there was a substantial history of SCC almost 100% of the targeted excavations revealed cracking. In other situations where there was a lower expectation of SCC,

Copyright 2012 by ASME

70-50% of the targeted excavations revealed cracking. For opportunistic excavation programs sometimes less than 5% of the excavations revealed cracking. Similar to the findings of CEPA, the great majority (70-90%) of the colonies and cracks were less than 10% deep. Following the development and implementation of direct assessment methodologies for external corrosion, the opportunity was seen to develop a direct assessment methodology for SCC. The methodology developed by NACE [4] incorporates the experience of SCC in North America and elsewhere within a structured process for gathering and interpreting all the relevant information. The document was originally published in 2004, and updated in 2009. NACE SP0204 provides the basis whereby excavation programs can be used as an alternative to hydrostatic testing and in-line inspection (ILI) to manage the integrity of pipelines, in accordance with the guidance in ASME B31.8S [5]. Eight pipeline companies have been participating in a second phase of the JIP on SCC Integrity Management. Collectively they are responsible for operating a total of over 160,000 miles of high pressure natural gas transmission pipelines in North America. All eight companies have experienced SCC in their systems, ranging from a few shallow cracks to ten or more inservice failures occurring between the mid-1960s and the present day. All eight companies have addressed the threat of SCC, usually by utilizing hydrostatic testing, excavations, inline inspection (ILI) or a combination of all three. All the companies have taken steps to formalise their approaches within the context of their Integrity Management Programs. During the course of these activities the companies have amassed a considerable body of expertise and experience on all aspects of SCC threat management. This report focuses on the experience gained in the last five years concerning the implementation and application of SCC DA. DEVELOPMENT OF PROCEDURES As has been indicated above, for many years most of the JIP Phase II participants have used excavations as a means of extending the scope of their SCC threat management strategies, particularly for those segments and lines that have not experienced in-service or hydrostatic test failures. Several thousand excavations have been completed, either as opportunistic excavations when the pipe has been exposed for other operational reasons, or as targeted excavations supported by soil/attribute/experience models. Most operators continue to use excavations on this basis. With the development of the NACE procedure for SCC Direct Assessment and its incorporation alongside hydrostatic testing and ILI as an accepted method for SCC threat management,

several operators included SCC DA in their formalized Integrity Management Plans. It is therefore appropriate to examine the manner in which SCC DA has been applied and the experience that has resulted. Six US-based operators made their SCC Direct Assessment Procedure documents available to the JIP Phase II Project Team. Comparing the six documents, the following observations can be made: All the documents have been developed and/or revised in the last six years The documents vary considerably in the amount of detail included, up to 60 pages in length. Most are stand-alone documents, and call up other in-house procedures to address specific tasks. Most of the documents make specific reference to the requirements of 49 CFR 192 Subpart O [6] and the PHMSA Protocol for Gas Pipeline Integrity Management [7], and make extensive use of the NACE, CEPA and ASME guidance. Most documents address the roles, responsibilities and qualifications of the staff involved. All the documents explicitly adopt the four-step process in NACE RP0204 as the basis of their approach With very few exceptions, all the documents specifically include all the requirements for preassessment. Most documents identify the type and extent of information required for Indirect Inspection and how it should be analysed. All the documents clearly define the processes for field site verification, excavation, data gathering before and after coating removal, analysis of crack type and severity. There are variations in the scope of Post Assessment activities. Some documents terminate after reporting the excavation results and determining the reassessment interval for SCC DA, whereas others describe the procedures for discrete and general mitigation (including hydrostatic testing, ILI and replacement), and one document addresses SCC Condition Monitoring. There are variations in the scope of reporting, review and follow-up of the threat management process. Some documents include only cursory mention of these activities, whereas others address several aspects; review of outcomes, internal and external reporting, feedback and continuous improvement.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

APPLICATION ASME STP-PT-011 [3] includes guidance concerning the excavation locations for SCC DA, based on collective industry knowledge and up-to-date operational experience. The principal intent of site selection for SCC assessment is to identify the locations where the likelihood of finding SCC is highest. The selection process gathers as much relevant information as possible along the length of the segment being assessed, and applies a site selection protocol based on NACE SP0204 [4] and/or CEPA Recommended Practice [8]. A key principle is that a site selected for excavation should be representative of a known length of pipeline with similar attributes, that is, a segment, and should be the location with the highest relative SCC likelihood within that segment. Hence it follows that if a single segment contains several HCAs that require assessment, an excavation site within the segment but outside the boundary of the HCA will be used for its assessment if the site selection ranking shows a higher likelihood of finding SCC at that location. ASME STP-PT-011 also provides guidance on the number of excavations required to complete an assessment. The guidelines assume that the first excavation is at the location in the segment where the probability of finding SCC is judged to be highest, hence maximising the chance of finding one of the most severe cracks. However, because there is a distinct possibility of missing the largest crack, extra caution is added for SCC DA compared to hydrostatic testing or ILI; that conservatism involves assuming the existence of larger cracks than are found. If an excavation reveals cracking, the severity category1 is determined from the crack dimensions and predicted failure pressure. If inconsequential (Category 0) cracks are found, further excavations should be conducted until no larger cracks are found and the response should then be based on one Category more severe than the largest crack found. If Category 1 or 2 cracks are found, the response is based on the assumption that Category 2 or 3 cracks respectively are present elsewhere in the segment. If Category 3 or 4 cracking is found, there is a possibility of imminent failure and pressure reduction followed by an assessment that covers 100% of the segment (hydrostatic testing, ILI) is required. If no cracks are found at the location that is expected to be most susceptible, no further excavations are needed before the next assessment. This is based on the conservative assumption that a Category 1 crack may be present, and that this will not grow to a critical size within 10 years. ASME STP-PT-011 also gives guidance on the appropriate interval before the next assessment. If a segment is assessed as
1

having Category I SCC (that is, Category 0 cracking has been found by SCC DA), or if no cracking is present, the next assessment should be conducted after seven years. If a segment is assessed as having Category 2 SCC (that is, a Category 1 crack has been found by SCC DA), the next assessment should be conducted after three years. If a segment has Category 3 or 4 cracking, then subsequent assessments will involve hydrostatic testing and/or ILI. This approach to the application of SCC DA, including the approach to excavation site selection, assessment of crack severity and the conservatively-based response, has been incorporated in the latest revision of ASME B31.8S Appendix A-3. FIELD EXPERIENCE SCC DA in accordance with NACE SP0204 has only been applied in the field for less than ten years. Three of the participating operators provided information on their SCC DA experience to the JIP: One operator started using SCC DA in 2004, on segments with low relative likelihood of SCC. 76 excavations have now been completed; two of which revealed cracks, which were assessed as Category 1 and Category 0 respectively. A second operator started using SCC DA in 2006, on segments with no prior history of SCC. 34 excavations have now been completed; one Category 2 crack and five Category 1 cracks have been found. A third operator started using SCC DA in 2006, on segments with a prior history of low-level SCC (some cracking, but no hydrostatic-test-failing flaws, had been found previously). 58 excavations have now been completed; four found Category 1 SCC and four found Category 0.

COMMENTARY The experiences summarized above illustrate that the direct assessment processes for SCC that are set out in NACE SP0204 can be transcribed into workable procedures and incorporated into operators Integrity Management Plans, alongside hydrostatic testing and ILI, in the same way that the DA method has been accepted for corrosion. However the in-field application of SCC DA is still comparatively recent and the experience is not widespread Nevertheless the early signs are encouraging; the processes themselves have proved applicable in practice, cracks have been found and the integrity of over 100 segments has been assessed.

Crack severity Categories are defined in ASME STP-PT-011 [3]

Copyright 2012 by ASME

At the time of writing this paper there are no instances where a segment that has been assessed using SCC DA and has subsequently revealed more substantial SCC. However it should be noted that there have been no direct comparisons, for example between SCC DA and ILI or hydrostatic testing. Additionally, all the operators have concentrated their use of SCC DA on segments with relatively low likelihood of finding SCC according to their risk rankings. Hence it is not surprising that, overall, only about 10% of the SCC DA excavations have revealed cracking and only one has been been more severe than Category 1. This cautious approach to the adoption of SCC DA is very understandable, particularly in view of the manner in which the decisions regarding the number of excavations undertaken, and the interpretation of cracking found, lead to an assessment of segment condition and the determination of the interval before the next assessment. This conservative, pragmatic approach regarding the size distribution of cracking is underpinned by experience-based judgment [1, 2, 3] rather than probabilistic analysis, and the outcomes will need to be reviewed as experience is gained over the years ahead. The experience to date confirms the value of utilizing SCC DA as a method alongside hydrostatic testing and ILI for overall SCC threat management. This has particularly proved to be the case for HCAs that have a low likelihood of SCC according to the ranking criteria. To have undertaken hydrostatic testing in all these locations would have proved extremely difficult operationally due to service disruption, and the results from SCC DA show such an approach to have been unnecessary. SCC DA clearly has a role in such situations. For many years SCC threat management has rightly concentrated on those pipeline segments that have the highest likelihood of SCC. Information from monitoring and surveillance techniques such as CP and coating surveys, drainage and land usage reviews, within a formalized SCC Condition Monitoring process that looks for changes that might affect SCC susceptibility ranking, when combined with feedback from opportunistic excavations, could form the basis of a further SCC assessment method alongside SCC DA, applicable to those segments for which SCC assessment is a regulatory requirement but the likelihood of SCC is known to be very low. Such a process is outlined in [3]. Based on the experience gained so far, the key elements of an effective SCC DA program can be identified as follows: A well-structured company procedure that explicitly incorporates all the elements of NACE SP0204, combined with other guidance from CEPA and ASME. A good protocol for excavation site selection to maximise the likelihood of finding any SCC that exists in a segment

A clear understanding of how the responses (more excavations or use of hydrostatic testing, ILI) depend on what is found. A well-trained field crew equipped to discriminate reliably between SCC and other surface features In the course of time, a well-established procedure for reviewing the excavation results and using them to improve the processes, particularly the key decisionmaking algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS The experiences of several US-based gas pipeline operators regarding the implementation and application of SCC DA in accordance with NACE SP0204 have been reviewed. Field use of SCC DA started around 2004 and over 160 excavations have been completed. All the operators have developed in-house procedures closely following NACE SP0204, combined with guidance from CEPA and ASME. These include decision-making regarding excavation site selection, and response depending on what is found. The initial use of SCC DA has largely been to assess segments with a perceived low likelihood of SCC. About 10% of the excavations have revealed cracking, and only one has been more severe than Category 1. The operators consider SCC DA to be an established method for SCC threat management, alongside hydrostatic testing and in-line inspection, focused particularly on segments with low susceptibility. They are confident that, as experience builds up, the decision-making algorithms will be refined and reinforced. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Joint Industry Project is sponsored by Centerpoint, El Paso Pipeline Group, Kinder Morgan, NiSource, Panhandle Energy, Spectra Energy, TransCanada Pipelines and Williams Pipeline. The authors wish to thank their colleagues on the Project Steering Committee for their considerable contributions to the work, and to thank the sponsoring companies for permission to publish this paper. REFERENCES 1. Stress Corrosion Cracking on Canadian Oil and Gas Pipelines. Canadian National Energy Board Report MH-2-95, November 1996.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

CEPA Stress Corrosion Cracking Database: First Trending Report, submitted to NEB, January 1998. Canadian Energy Pipelines Association, Calgary, Alberta (www.cepa.com). Integrity Management of Stress Corrosion Cracking in High Consequence Areas. R R Fessler, A D Batte and M Hereth, ASME STP-PT-011 (ASME, October 2008). National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard Recommended Practice SP0204-08, Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Direct Assessment Methodology (NACE, 2008). ASME/ANSI B31.8 Gas Transmission and Piping Systems, Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines: Supplement ASME B31.8S (ASME, 2010). Code of Federal Regulations 49 CFR Part 192 Subpart O, Pipeline Safety Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines); Final Rule (DOT) Gas Integrity Management Inspection Manual and Protocol. Department of Transportation, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. (DOT PHMSA, 2008). CEPA Stress Corrosion Cracking Recommended Practices, Second Edition, 2007. Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, Calgary, Alberta (www.cepa.com).

Copyright 2012 by ASME