The internal team in charge of obtaining the required information from the crosser often did not have a technical background nor the required expertise to ensure the data requested were accurate. Once the crosser replied with the required data, the land administrator would report back to the engineering team. In addition, if the operator’s engineering team were missing information, previously, they would have had to inform their land administrator who would have had to contact the crosser to obtain the required data. The key objective was to work together as partners with the analysis and documentation used to facilitate informed decision-making for an efficient and effective approval process. If the existing depth of cover was higher than the minimum, the recommendation was to maintain it. The operator’s engineering team kicked off development by taking a different, proactive approach in which the teams used the CEPA Calculator to do the loading calculations and determine what depth of cover they would need to “pass” the calculation.įurthermore, the depth of cover requirement was removed, and it was advised that the minimum depth of cover is required if the existing depth of cover was less than what is calculated as a minimum. “Dynamic Risk has direct access to our pipeline integrity data, which allows them to better understand the pipeline condition and risks.” “As we worked through developing this new process, it went very smoothly given our alignment on researching industry best practices, performing technical analyses to remove unnecessary conservatism, using critical thinking to find alternative options, and streamlining our workflows,” the operator’s engineering supervisor said. The discussions centered around taking their existing process to the next level by adding in a new layer of analysis and strategic thought to advance the approval process and reduce turn-around time. At the end of March 2020, the operator engaged in discussions with Dynamic Risk with respect to the current projects they were working on to include the development of a new, innovative process to complete their third-party crossing applications. The end goal was to elevate critical thinking with being more proactive to support a robust process, as well as reduce the approval process time and achieve a “pass” on first submission. The operator’s key objective was to develop and implement a more strategic application approval process as opposed to just punching numbers into a calculator and obtaining a pass or fail response. These were mostly caused by many safety factor redundancies in their existing process, which hindered them in being able to obtain a “pass” on a request for vehicles to cross their pipeline. The operator identified a need to improve their internal review process since they continued to endure a lengthy approval cycle and many instances where vehicle crossings were determined to exceed allowable stress on the pipeline. The use of the minimum depth of cover, along with other conservative approaches, caused redundant conservatism that resulted in many crossing requests being denied. If it were a fail, the operator would deny approval for the crossing request and it would result in an undesirable circumstance such as needing to relocate, installing an air bridge, or remediating the site. The provider then would issue a response of either a pass or fail. The service provider would use the CEPA Calculator, which is the industry standard surface loading evaluation tool, to determine if the reported existing depth of cover, with a minimum of 4.5 feet (1.4 meters), was sufficient. The operator used the support of a third-party service provider to conduct the necessary surface loading assessments. These activities included new construction, new roadways, digging, etc. A major North American transmission pipeline operator historically had its engineering team work with its Lands Department when third-party service providers submitted a request for approval if the request included completing any activities that involved vehicles crossing a pipeline.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |