150 likes | 162 Vues
Pipelines study – final report. European Commission , DG Environment Industrial Emissions, Air quality & Noise Unit. Background. Recital 13 of Directive 96/82/EC requires EC to study need for action
E N D
Pipelines study – final report European Commission, DG Environment Industrial Emissions, Air quality & Noise Unit
Background Recital 13 of Directive 96/82/EC requires EC to study need for action JRC Study 1999 identified several gaps – Proposal for a Directive prepared but not materialized • Focus on transmission (not distribution) • SMS for all operators, including performance measures for monitoring the SMS • Prevention of third party interference through information system • Other Seveso type provisions
Background 2006 Study on "Safety of oil and gas pipelines (transport sector)" conclusions • Main cause of accidents is third party interference • Self-regulation is valuable • PIMS (Pipeline Integrity Management Systems) are essential • Need for regulatory controls of third party interference
Background • 2008 UNECE Safety Guidelines and Good Practices for Pipelines – Recommendations • System of permits and land use planning procedures • Regulatory framework to control third party interference • Pipelines designed, constructed and operated in accordance with recognized national and international standards/guidelines • Pipeline management system (PMS) • Other Seveso type recommendations
Objectives 2011 Study (COWI) • Assess current coverage of pipeline safety in national and/or EU legislation • Identify gaps • Propose policy options to close gaps • Assess impacts
Hazard potential • 1989 - former SU - sparks from two passing trains detonated gas leaking from LPG pipeline • 645 fatalities • 2004 - EU Belgium Gishlenghien accident 2004 • 24 fatalities • 132 injuries • 100 mio € damage costs
Review of accident/incident history • Decreasing incident rate = continued safety management improvements • Third party interference = main cause (for gas about 50 % and for oil about 30 %) - followed by construction defects and corrosion • Expected annual number of incidents 40-50 • Average damage per incident 0.39 mio €
Legislative benchmark study Prevention • Adequate distance to population concentrations • Inspection/maintenance to ensure mechanical integrity • Safe working requirements close to high pressure pipelines and availability of pipeline location GIS data • Restricted access to pipeline route in case of high-vulnerability surroundings Mitigation • Rapid leak detection capability and efficient means to stop flow • Emergency plans
Options for improvement Non legally binding options • Recommendations • limited costs/impact • Reporting and benchmarking • limited costs • Would allow better monitoring • Keep focus on safety
Options for improvement Legally binding options • Scope - all pipelines or exclude gas distribution • General safety provisions or specific technical safety measures • Modify Seveso III or Separate Directive
Conclusions • Legislative action could increase protection level and reduce incident frequency • Net benefits are however unlikely from a cost/benefits perspective • Incidents statistics is not sufficiently comprehensive (lacks info on i.e. severity and causes of incidents and the development over time) to conclude on whether actual level of protection is sufficient