You are on page 1of 10

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

IPC2012-90531

INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS INTO PIPELINE INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS


Patricia Taylor TERA Environmental Consultants Calgary, Alberta, Canada Jeff Wielki TERA Environmental Consultants Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Troina Shea TERA Environmental Consultants Calgary, Alberta, Canada enhancing environmental stewardship and corporate social responsibility. Including environmental setting considerations, identifying regulatory requirements and conducting stakeholder engagement during the earliest stages and throughout the IMP is essential to ensure the sustainability of the Program. This paper describes an integrated management system which incorporates environmental considerations throughout the overall IMP and a strategic approach to information management. INTRODUCTION Pipelines are the safest, most efficient and reliable means for transporting hydrocarbons over long distances. Canadas extensive pipeline grid can be traced back to the 1950s when major crude oil and natural gas finds in western Canada led to the construction of large pipeline systems. Canadas crude oil and natural gas pipeline network extends over 700,000 km throughout Canada with the exception of Prince Edward Island and Nunavut [2]. The majority of pipelines in Canada are located in the prairie provinces (Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan). Most of Canadas crude oil is collected at Edmonton, AB and transported on three major pipeline systems: Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Trans Mountain Pipeline and Express Pipeline. The latter two companies are operated by Kinder Morgan Canada. Both liquids and natural gas networks encompass pipelines that have been in operation for over 60 years. However, aging pipelines can continue to operate safely and reliably if effective

ABSTRACT Canadas extensive pipeline grid can be traced back to the 1950s when major crude oil and natural gas finds in western Canada led to the construction of large pipeline systems [1]. Some of the currently operating pipelines in Canada have been operating for over 60 years. With the objective of ensuring that pipelines are suitable for continued reliable, safe and environmentally responsible service, the National Energy Board (NEB) issued the Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR) in 1999 (OPR-99) mandating pipeline companies to develop and implement Integrity Management Programs (IMPs). The OPR-99 allows pipeline companies to tailor the content of the IMPs to particular circumstances. From a life cycle perspective, the majority of pipeline IMPs involve inspection and testing, data management and interpretation, risk assessment, integrity or engineering assessment and pipeline repairs. Despite the evident benefits of implementing IMPs, conducting pipeline repairs can also trigger environmental concerns and permitting requirements. Developing effective Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) and obtaining federal and provincial environmental permitting in sensitive areas can be time consuming and costly. If these factors and costs are not incorporated to the planning process they can create subsequent delays and financial burdens. Additionally, implementing environmental management practices throughout the life cycle of IMPs will aid pipeline companies in managing environmental issues systematically and effectively while

Copyright 2012 by ASME

maintenance programs are implemented. Recent pipeline incidents have increased awareness on the impacts of pipeline ruptures and have reiterated the need for pipeline operators to implement efficient pipeline IMPs. Nonetheless, conducting pipeline repairs can have similar environmental impacts as pipeline construction. Construction repair techniques have evolved over the years as a response to heightened awareness of the impacts of pipeline construction on sensitive environments [3]. This paper focuses on the implementation of an Environmental Management System (EMS) for IMPs to systematically identify and mitigate potential environmental impacts and address regulatory requirements of conducting integrity digs in the prairie provinces. It aims to improve the efficiency of the IMPs as well as to enhance the environmental stewardship of the organization. As part of an effective EMS, this paper also presents a strategic approach to environmental information management and integration with the use of GIS technology. PIPELINE INTEGRITY OVERVIEW According to the NEB, there have been 34 listed ruptures on federally-regulated oil and gas pipelines in Canada from 1992 to 2011. All of these incidents resulted in the release of hydrocarbons to the environment that in some instances resulted in ignition. The dominant causes of rupture have been attributed to cracking and metal losses (e.g., corrosion) that have occurred due to the continual degradation of pipeline material over time. In Canada, all the federally-regulated pipeline ruptures registered over the past 20 years occurred in pipelines that have been in operation for over 60 years [4]. No ruptures have been registered in NEB-regulated pipelines that have been in operation for less than 30 years [4]. This fact can be attributed to a number of factors including the quality of pipe and coating materials, construction methods and more effective testing procedures. To ensure that aging pipelines are suitable for continued reliable, safe and environmentally responsible service, the NEB issued the OPR-99 mandating pipeline companies to implement effective pipeline IMPs. The OPR-99 allows pipeline companies to tailor the content of their IMPs according to particular circumstances such as the length of the pipeline, its operating environment and the commodity being transported. However, according to the OPR-99, IMPs should contain the following main components: a management system; a records management system; condition monitoring including internal inspections and engineering assessments; and a mitigation program [5]. There are many procedures associated with effectively managing the integrity of pipelines systems. Such procedures shall include a description of the operating company commitment and responsibilities, quantifiable objectives and methods for: assessing current potential risks; identifying risk reduction approaches and corrective actions; implementing the IMP; and monitoring results. The Canadian Standards

Association Standard Z662-11 Annex N provides guidelines for developing, documenting and implementing pipeline IMPs [6]. Pipeline integrity is maintained through proper design and construction, monitoring and inspections and maintenance protocols. As an integral component of IMPs, operating companies are to conduct periodic inspections to monitor the integrity of pipelines systems. Such inspections are mainly done through running in-line inspections tools such as smart pigs which detect conditions such as internal and external corrosion, dents and cracks that can lead to failures in pipelines systems. Data collected from in-line inspections is analyzed and assessed by conducting risk assessment protocols. When inspection results indicate the presence of conditions or imperfections that might lead to failure or damage incidents with significant consequences an engineering assessment is to be completed to assess the need for repairs. Sections of pipe that need to be repaired are determined according to factors such as the location of the pipe; known conditions, damage or imperfections; and the potential for growth for such damage or imperfections. To conduct repairs, sections of pipe are exposed by excavating a trench; this process is known as integrity digs. Pipelines are to be repaired according to the acceptable repair methods outlined in Clause 10 of CSA Standard Z662-11[6]. Integrity digs are prioritized according to the location of the pipeline (e.g. adjacent to populated areas); the severity of the damage (e.g. corrosion levels or dent shape and size); service history and loading; anticipated service conditions; material properties; and regulatory requirements amongst others. In the past, conducting operations and maintenance activities on pipeline rights-of-way were thought to result in minor disturbances unworthy of environmental review. However, pipeline repairs involve conducting a series of construction activities such as brushing, topsoil salvage, grading, excavating, sandblasting, grinding and welding that can cause impacts to soils, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish, land use and public safety if they are not properly managed. Additionally, conducting operation and maintenance activities in environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) can be a costly and time consuming process that can cause delays and burdens if not considered at the earliest stages of the planning process. The nature of integrity digs is such that they do not allow for flexibility in terms of construction techniques and locations. An example could be a corrosion feature detected in sections of pipe located within a wetland or watercourse crossing. In these cases an isolation or open cut technique will have to be implemented to repair the pipeline. These environmental features might have been avoided during construction using trenchless construction techniques but they will be disturbed when conducting integrity digs since a trench will have to be excavated to expose the existing pipeline and conduct repairs. Consequently, the timing of construction, mitigation and reclamation techniques will become critical to reduce the environmental impacts of conducting integrity digs.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

In the case of aging pipelines, ensuring environmental compliance during operation and maintenance activities can become a complex process since environmental regulations and best management practices have become more stringent than when pipelines were routed and constructed. Thus, implementing effective environmental mitigation plans and

obtaining additional permits can become challenging. A selection of federal and provincial regulatory requirements commonly applicable to integrity digs in the prairie provinces are outlined in Table 1. Additional municipal bylaws or regulations may also apply.

TABLE 1 SELECTED FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL PERMITS/NOTIFICATIONS RELATED TO INTEGRITY DIGS IN THE PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Permit/Notification FEDERAL Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Authorization for the harmful alternation disruption or destruction (HADD) of Fish Habitat DFO Letter of Advice DFO Operational Statement Notifications Applies to any instream work where HADD of fish habitat was deemed to occur. Applies to any instream work where HADD is not anticipated to occur. Applies to any instream work for watercourses >5 m bankfull width and vehicle crossings. They are province-specific. Applies to ground disturbance using power-operated equipment within 30 m of a wetland or a waterbody. Applies to work affecting navigable watercourses. Up to 6 months Permit/Notification Estimated Timelines for Permit Approval/Notification Periods

Up to 6 months 10 working days notification period

Notice under the Regulation of Operations and Maintenance Activities on Pipelines Under the NEB Act Approval under Navigable Waters Protection Act (Subsection 5 (2)) ALBERTA Notice under the Code of Practice (COP) for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body to Alberta Environment and Water (AEW) Notice under the COP for Watercourse Crossings to AEW Fish Research License from Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) Historical Resources Act clearance from Alberta Culture and Community Services Temporary Field Authorization from ASRD

10 working days notification period

From 6 months to 1 year

Applies to instream work at watercourses and wetlands. Applies to vehicle crossing installation at watercourses. Applies to instream work in watercourses where fish salvage is required. May apply if temporary workspace or new lands are required. May apply if temporary workspace or new lands are required on provincial Crown lands beyond the previously disturbed easement. Applies to instream work in watercourses and Class III and higher wetlands. Applies to instream work in watercourses where fish or other selected wildlife salvage is required. May apply if temporary workspace or new lands are required. Applies to instream work in watercourses where fish salvage is required. May apply if temporary workspace or new lands are required.

14 calendar days notification period

14 calendar days notification period Up to 10 working days Up to 4 weeks Variable, 1 to 5 days

SASKATCHEWAN Aquatic Habitat Protection Permit from Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment (SME) Scientific Research Permits from SME Heritage Property Act clearance from Saskatchewan Culture and Heritage Branch MANITOBA Live Fish Handling Permit from Manitoba Water Stewardship Heritage Resources Act clearance from Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism Up to 10 working days Up to 10 working days Up to 4 weeks

Up to 10 working days Up to 4 weeks

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FOR INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

PIPELINE

Incorporating environmental planning at the earliest stages and throughout the IMP is essential to ensure the efficacy and sustainability of the program. Implementing environmental management practices throughout the life cycle of the IMPs will aid pipeline companies to manage environmental issues

systematically, effectively and efficiently. An EMS is designed to improve environmental performance by setting goals and objectives through a strategic planning process; ensuring capability and operational control; assessing risks and setting priorities; and auditing and monitoring performance. An EMS should be an integral part of the overall management system and should be compatible with the corporate culture of the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

company to avoid conflict for both environmental planners and the company itself [7]. Implementing an EMS for IMPs can increase the overall efficiency of the program as well as enhance the companys environmental stewardship and social responsibility, ensuring regulatory compliance, reducing costs, improving data management and interpretation, reducing environmental risks and improving stakeholder relationships. Effective EMS

include four key elements to ensure continuous improvement of the program: (1) environmental planning (Plan), (2) implementation and operation (Do), (3) monitoring and auditing (Check) and (4) revise, learn and improve (Act). A model for incorporating EMS into pipeline IMPs is presented in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTO PIPELINE INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Environmental Planning Pipeline operators will benefit by including their in-house Environment Departments or engaging environmental consultants at the earliest stages of the planning process. Environmental planning should commence as soon as the data management and interpretation process is completed to identify and anticipate any potential environmental and social impacts, regulatory requirements, establish objectives and targets and other requirements (see Figure 1). In addition, conducting preconstruction screenings to identify environmental and human safety concerns is an essential part of IMPs in North America. As part of the United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), rules on pipeline integrity management dictate that pipeline companies must provide for the identification of pipelines located in high consequence areas (HCA). Distribution pipelines located in HCAs must be assessed to determine current condition, threats and consequences should an incident occur. Pipeline operators must then develop specific risk management plans to address the identified threats [8]. HCAs are defined by PHMSA as (1) high population urbanized areas, or other areas with a concentrated population, (2) unusually sensitive areas (USAs) including usually sensitive drinking water and ecological resources and (3) commercially navigable waterways [9]. PHMSA made maps depicting these areas available to pipeline companies. However, operators are responsible for independently evaluating information about the area around their pipeline to identify changes in circumstance that could result in new areas becoming HCAs [8]. In Canada, areas of concern are designated according to the principles outlined in Clause 4 of CSA Standard Z662.1-11. The standard is based on designating class locations (Class 1 to 4) according to class location assessment areas (400 m wide by 1.6 km long) and the buildings, dwelling units, places of public assembly and industrial installations contained therein. Class location designations are used in pipeline design to incorporate population density and other criteria into pipeline design and maximum operating pressure. The class designation system is based on the premise that as the number of people near the pipeline increases, the probability of personal injury and property damage increases [6]. Environmental risk is not incorporated into these principles. The premises used to designate HCAs and Class locations are targeted to natural gas distribution systems. However, these principles can be applied to both transmission and distribution pipelines since the early identification of areas of concern and calculating potential risks will increase the overall efficiency of the IMP. Additionally to identifying areas of concern based on population density, the IMP would be benefited in identifying ESAs along the pipeline route. ESAs are defined herein as waterbodies, wetlands, native vegetation and areas with known

occurrences of species of concern. The environmental degradation from a pipeline incident in an ESA can cause severe damage that can trigger legal, economic and social consequences. The timing for scheduling pipeline repairs is also a key factor that can have an effect on environmental impacts. Conducting environmental pre-screening at the earliest stages of the IMP is essential to determine the preferred timing for scheduling pipeline repairs. Often there is no clear construction season which accommodates all the preferred construction timings for the various environmental resources. Consequently, the construction schedule must be weighed given the location of the project and associated environmental concerns. There may not be an optimal construction season and the timing of construction is often a result of a series of trade-offs amongst the various factors. From an environmental perspective, the goal then becomes optimizing the construction season so that impacts on the environment are avoided or reduced to the extent practical. For example, from a soils perspective, construction activities on agricultural lands are generally preferred during non-frozen conditions; however, landowners may disagree as this may interfere with crops or livestock. Conversely, limiting impacts on native vegetation (e.g., native prairie) by reducing sod disturbance can be achieved by conducting activities during frozen soil conditions. However, in such areas it would be important to identify and mitigate for rare plants during the growing season prior to construction as the plants may not be identifiable during frozen ground conditions. Generally, construction activities in fish-bearing watercourses or areas with wildlife potential should be scheduled to avoid specified restricted activity periods (RAPs). To reduce the impacts on wetland function, construction activities are recommended to occur during frozen conditions. In planning ahead and developing a preferred construction schedule, potential resource impacts can be identified and mitigated and regulatory approvals can be acquired in a timely manner so as to not delay maintenance activities [3]. In addition to conducting environmental pre-screenings, identifying and characterizing stakeholders is a key element in the implementation of IMPs. Conducting public consultation with landowners, government agencies and non-government organizations is both a strategic approach to implementing IMP and a regulatory requirement. The NEB Regulation of Operations and Maintenance Activities on Pipelines under the NEB Act, requires companies to conduct public consultation with parties whose rights or interests may be affected prior to undertaking operations and maintenance activities. Stakeholder identification and consultation should begin at the earliest stages of the planning process to secure land access and agreements are in place prior to the commencement of pipeline repair activities. Conducting meaningful public consultation

Copyright 2012 by ASME

will heighten corporate social responsibility and the companys public image. Implementation and Operation At this stage, environmental managers should ensure that all requirements and capabilities are in place prior to the commencement of pipeline repairs. The key components for the efficient implementation of the EMS are: outline roles, responsibilities and expectations for all personnel; train and educate staff (including management, construction personnel, Environmental Inspectors (EI), consultants and contractors) required to develop and execute the pipeline IMP; develop an efficient communication strategy; and develop an efficient information management system. After outlining roles and responsibilities, special emphasis should be put towards education and training since they are essential tools for the effective implementation of EMS. Providing adequate training to staff will reduce the risk for environmental liabilities, ensure due diligence, allow for continual improvement and maintain credibility with external and internal stakeholders. All employees and contractors must be educated about the companys environmental policy, the impacts of pipeline integrity digs, procedures on how to mitigate these impacts and the applicable regulatory requirements. Additionally, employees and contractors should receive relevant training related to the techniques or technologies required to perform specific tasks in an environmentally responsible manner. Procedures for the implementation of the EMS should be standardized to ensure the success and sustainability of the IMP. By implementing standard processes for environmental issue identification and mitigation, pipeline integrity programs will ensure sound environmental protection, commitment to the companys environmental policy and compliance with regulatory requirements. In this regard, many pipeline companies in Canada have developed in-house EPPs with the objective of implementing best management practices and standardized environmental mitigative measures for pipeline construction activities. Some of these practices can be applied to pipeline operations and maintenance activities but IMPs will benefit from developing EPPs targeted specifically for integrity operations. An effective EPP for IMP should outline environmental mitigative measures for each stage of conducting pipeline repairs in a language that can be easily interpreted by all users. Standardized procedures need to be implemented beyond construction activities. Streamlining procedures throughout the EMS will reduce inefficiencies in the implementation of the integrity program. However, it is important to note that due to

the nature of IMPs, pipeline companies are recommended to have a practical approach to urgent pipeline repairs and operational failures to ensure that any response minimizes the effect on the environment, public safety, reputation and business of a pipeline company. When time is a constraint, to ensure rapid and well-informed decision-making, more discipline, structure and leadership should be applied. Key areas of focus are employing competent and experienced staff and contractors, commitment from senior management, rapid internal and external stakeholder involvement and effective and timely communication [10]. Monitoring and Auditing Monitoring is needed to evaluate the environmental performance of the integrity program and the success, or lack thereof, of the EMS. In addition, monitoring and measurement are needed to document the companys due diligence in addressing environmental issues and may be required as part of regulatory processes and obligations. Procedures for environmental monitoring and data collection should also be standardized. Collecting and documenting field data is a milestone in the implementation of IMPs. Creating forms/templates, checklists, procedures and/or schedules for the collection, documentation and analysis of environmental data could help environmental managers in collecting relevant information. A strategic information management tool is presented in the following section. While conducting pipeline repairs within or in proximity to ESAs onsite environmental inspection is strongly recommended. EIs advise construction personnel on best practices to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts according to the operating environment and nature of the pipeline repairs. In addition, EIs are to ensure that construction personnel comply with the companys EPP, applicable regulatory requirements and any specific commitments made to regulators or other stakeholders. EIs must record and document all relevant information and communicate it to all pertinent company personnel and when warranted, regulatory agencies. Environmental monitoring is also recommended to occur in disturbed lands such as cultivated, industrial and urban areas to avoid, reduce or mitigate soil, erosion and contamination issues that can lead to environmental and socioeconomic impacts. In addition to monitoring pipeline repairs, implementing environmental audits to determine the degree of compliance with environmental protection measures and regulatory requirements is strongly encouraged. Environmental managers or planners are to determine the scope, the audit criteria, arrange the logistics, select the audit team and communicate the results to all relevant internal stakeholders. If any non-compliances are identified during the audit process a plan to implement corrective actions is to be implemented.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Revise, Learn and Improve Upon completion of pipeline repairs, an assessment of the final clean-up is to be conducted to ensure that excavations are not left open and unattended and that debris removal has occurred. In particular instances, an As-Built report may be prepared to document the maintenance activities and identify mitigative measures that were implemented beyond the scope of the EPP. Environmental managers should implement Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring (PCEM) programs to test impact predictions and the effectiveness of mitigation and reclamation measures. Follow-up programs are essential to ensure that the environmental management plans developed for the integrity programs were effectively implemented. Reclamation activities aim to return the land to its former productive use. Indicators of a successful reclamation plan should be targeted according to the landowner agreements, operating environment and pipeline repair activities. During PCEM programs, qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the dig areas are to be conducted to determine the success of the EMS on protecting environmental sensitivities and to identify areas that may require remedial work. Examples of indicators are subsidence, evidence of wind and/or water erosion, vegetation re-establishment, wildlife presence, occurrences of weeds and pest infestations, soil conditions and the state of banks and slopes adjacent to watercourses. The preparation of a PCEM report is strongly recommended for due diligence purposes and since it can be a regulatory requirement in some jurisdictions. PCEM is a useful tool in environmental management, not only to test the effectiveness of environmental mitigative measures, but also to determine which processes, practices or techniques need improvement in order to comply with regulatory requirements and the companys environmental policy. A management review of the results obtained from the As-Built and PCEM reports can help to identify areas for improvement. To ensure continuous improvement, it is strongly recommended that these results are incorporated in the goals and objectives for the following cycle. A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FOR PIPELINE INTEGRITY Methods for collecting, analyzing and documenting information are evolving as pipeline operators seek more effective ways of managing information for pipeline IMPs. Data management is vital in determining the success of a pipeline integrity program. Record keeping, documentation and data integration have been identified as one of the key milestones in the implementation of IMPs [11]. Pipeline integrity systems manage a variety of complex information that is used by pipeline operators to diagnose the integrity of a pipeline and determine which areas need to be repaired. In

terms of environmental data, many pipeline companies have developed software for the efficient and accurate identification and calculation of HCAs along pipeline routes [12]. In this regard, a tool designed to easily identify and document environmental sensitivities in Canada will benefit pipeline operators to satisfy government compliance and ensure environmental protection. Due to the large amount of pipeline infrastructure in Canada, an effective information management system with accurate and current data is a key element in the success of IMPs. A model is presented herein for pipeline operators and environmental professionals to aid in the efficient and accurate identification, documentation and integration of environmental sensitivities and other environmental related data throughout the life cycle of the EMS. Currently, major pipeline companies are implementing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) accessed through web-based interfaces to manage pipeline data. Following this trend the authors have developed a web mapping application that serves to identify environmental sensitivities along existing pipeline rights-of-way. The web mapping application was developed using ArcGIS technology and it presents an interactive display of geographic information as a series of identifiable data layers including hydrology, wetlands, species at risk, historical resources, wildlife sensitivity areas, parks and protected areas, Crown land, populated areas and transportation infrastructure among others. In addition, this tool includes information on applicable regulatory requirements associated with conducting integrity digs and descriptions of species at risk and RAP. The web mapping application also allows for recording project-specific information to aid environmental professionals in maintaining environmental records and ensuring environmental compliance and reporting. Environmental managers can record information on: current field surveys; status of pipeline repairs; land use; recommended seed mixes; status of permit applications; key environmental issues; mitigative measures; and environmental monitoring issues among others directly on the web application. Additionally, the status of stakeholder consultation can also be recorded in the management tool. The web mapping application has the flexibility to be adapted to each operator and project-specific requirements and circumstances. A screen capture of the web mapping application is displayed in Figure 2. The web mapping application allows for easy remote access to accurate and relevant environmental information in a centralized database allowing project managers to spend more time analyzing data than collecting it. In addition, it provides more accurate and consistent results than using traditional paper-based environmental alignment sheets. The use of GIS web mapping applications has proven its success in the routing process of linear developments. The advantages this management tool provides can be applied to pipeline integrity programs throughout the life cycle of the EMS.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 2: WEB MAPPING APPLICATION FOR PIPELINE INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Copyright 2012 by ASME

CONCLUSION Aging pipeline infrastructure in Canada can continue to provide a safe and reliable service with the successful implementation of IMPs. Pipeline integrity digs were traditionally thought to result in minor disturbances that normally would not require environmental review. However, pipeline repairs involve conducting a series of construction activities that can cause environmental damage and trigger provincial and federal regulatory requirements that can be time consuming and costly. Pipeline operators will benefit in incorporating an EMS as part of their IMPs to address environmental issues systematically and effectively. Key aspects to consider are efficient communication and training of all personnel on the environmental impacts of conducting integrity digs, the scope of work and the applicable regulatory requirements. Additionally, operating companies will benefit in developing standardized procedures to overcome some of the challenges of incorporating environmental considerations in their IMPs. The understanding of the environmental implications of conducting integrity digs will ensure a rapid and well-informed decision making should emergency repairs occur. Pipeline integrity management requires a multidisciplinary approach throughout all the stages of the management system to ensure the sustainability of the program. Environmental considerations have to be strategically incorporated into the program to procure environmental stewardship and meet regulatory requirements. For the last few years regulators, public and industry are increasingly focusing their attention on pipeline integrity due to recent pipeline incidents. A sustainable approach to pipeline integrity will increase the efficiency of the system and enhance the reputation of the pipeline industry with the public and regulators. The implementation of environmental management principles is a strategic approach to meet such goals. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Jacob Raymond for his valuable help with developing the web mapping application. Additionally, the authors wish to thank John Hayes for sharing his expertise and experience on current practices for pipeline integrity management in North America as well as Dean Mutrie for providing guidance and support in the development of the paper.

REFERENCES [1] Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, 2012, "History of Pipelines," Http://www.Cepa.com/pipelines-101/pipelinesoverview/history-of-Pipelines, 2012(February 9) . [2] Natural Resources Canada, 2009, "The Atlas of Canada - Pipeline Infrastructure," Http://atlas.Nrcan.Gc.ca/auth/english/maps/economic/transport ation/pm_pipelines/1, 2012(February 9) . [3] Petter, T. L., 2009, "Best Environmental Management Practices for Pipeline Construction: A Western Canadian Perspective," Http://www.Teraenv.com/_pdf/Tamara%20Petter_ROW%209% 20Symposium%20BEMP_WC%20w-Photos.Pdf, (February 9, 2012) . [4] National Energy Board, 2011, "Canadian Regulated Pipelines - Pipeline Ruptures," Http://www.Neb.Gc.ca/clfnsi/rsftyndthnvrnmnt/sfty/pplnrptrs/pplnrptrs-Eng.html#s_01, 2012(January 25) pp. 1. [5] National Energy Board, 2011, "Acts and Regulations Guidance Notes for the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999," Http://Www.Neb-One.Gc.Ca/ClfNsi/Rpblctn/Ctsndrgltn/Rrggnmgpnb/Nshrppln/Gdncntsfrthnshr pplnrgltn-Eng.Html, 2012(February 9). [6] Canadian Standards Association, 2011, "Standard Z662-11Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems," Reprinted January 2012. This reprint incorporates replacement pages issued as Update No. 1 (January 2012) into the original 2011 Standard. [7] Thompson, D., 2002, "Tools for Environmental Management," University of Calgary Press, Calgary, pp. 452. [8] Quarterman, C. L., 2010, "Hearing on Preventing Spills from Oil Pipelines through Integrity Management; Leak Detection; Shut-Off Valves; and Corrosion Prevention," Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, (Before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials United States House of Representatives) . [9] Department of Transportation, 2000, "49 CFR Part 195 Docket no. RSPA996355; Notice 3. Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas," Http://www.Phmsa.Dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/hrmpdfs/2000 %20hist%20rulemakings/65%20FR%2021695.Pdf, 2012(February 9) pp. 16. [10] Marsh, J., Duncan, P., and Richardson, M., 2009, "Pipeline Corrosion and Integrity Managment - Experience from the Forties Field," Corrosion Conference and Expo, Anonymous Nace International, Atlanta, GA, . [11] Selig, B. J., 2009, "Operating Conference Roundtable Focuses on Integrity Management," Pipeline & Gas Journal, 236(2) . [12] Li, Y., Tan, X., Zhou, L., 2009, "Applying APDM to Pipeline Integrity Management at PetroChina," Pipeline & Gas Journal, 236(3) .

Copyright 2012 by ASME

AUTHOR PROFILE Patricia Taylor, M.Sc. TERA Environmental Consultants, Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3P2, ptaylor@teraenv.com, 1-403-265-2885 Patricia Taylor has been an Environmental Planner with TERA Environmental Consultants since 2010. Her areas of expertise include technical report preparation, regulatory strategic planning and assistant project management. Mrs. Taylor has provided consulting services for Pipeline Integrity Programs in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Jeff Wielki GISP, B.Sc. TERA Environmental Consultants, Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3P2, jwielki@teraenv.com, 1-403-265-2885 Jeff Wielki has used GIS to support regulatory applications for the energy industry including cumulative effects assessments, least impact routing, site selection and evaluation, landcover change and classification, habitat suitability models, and 3D visual simulations. Mr. Wielki is the GIS Manager at TERA Environmental Consultants and has been mapping there since 2005. Troina Shea, M.Sc. TERA Environmental Consultants, Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3P2, tshea@teraenv.com, 1-403-265-2885 Troina Shea is an Environmental Planner with over five years of professional consulting experience. Ms. Shea has prepared many aspects of environmental impact assessment and environmental mitigation planning for provincially and federally regulated projects spanning British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Ms. Shea is the project manager for team of staff conducting environmental reviews and permitting of integrity dig locations in the prairie provinces.

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME