[All] Line 9: Engineering concerns.

Louisette Lanteigne butterflybluelu at rogers.com
Wed Mar 12 00:03:44 EDT 2014


Hi folks

NEB delegate Darko Matovic, assistant prof of engineering from Queens University was a delegate at the Line 9 hearings by way of written submission. I wanted to relay to inform GREN of the engineering concerns behind Line 9. I is the most compelling argument in my view to help secure a provincial review. 

Here is a correspondence from Mr. Matovic below and in the attachments as well as a correspondence from Engineer Charles Rhodes

Lulu 
_______________________________________________________________


I went to the detailed line 9B map and colour coded it using the same colours 
that are in the spreadsheet. This can be very helpful in locating exact features 
and where the line wall is thicker. The untouched yellow sections are the 
default, 0.25" thickness. You will notice that the locations are very 
innacurate. Often the 0.5" wall sections that should be under the river, creek, 
etc. are shifted by 300 to 500 m! At one point the kilometer posts are reversed. 
I also attach a brief set of my own comments. They are just scratching the 
surface. I hope we all can put now the line to much closer scrutiny.  You can 
download coloured map from my Dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gz1j1ijlbwdiclt/Detailed%20Line9B%20route%20map%20-%20coloured.pdf

The spreadsheet is also available (I already sent the link before, but here it 
is again):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gl847vfl2c6mydk/LineDataColoured.xls

My notes are attached.

I also suggest that we include Dr. Charles Rhodes into this correspondence 
(included in the email here). While he didn't act as an intervenor, he was 
invaluable in providing Rick Munroe with sound engineering advice. Like myself, 
he is also a Professional Engineer, but unlike me, he has extensive experience 
in oil industry and can help us hone our arguments further.


___________________________________________________

Here is the letter from Dr. Charles Rhodes that Darko was referring to:

___________________________________________________

Hello All:
The simple truth is that the pipeline is an accident waiting to happen unless there is a hydro static test to 150% of maximum approved operating pressure ( MAOP).  If a pipe section is so cracked that it cannot withstand this test that section of pipe needs to be replaced now.  Enbridge can use pigs to  identify and replace most cracked sections before a hydro static test.  However, pigs are not 100% reliable, especially with respect to external cracks that are adjacent to welds.  Hence there is no substitute for a full scale hydro static test to 150% of MAOP.  Testing to 125% of MAOP, as contemplated in CSA Z662-11, is not good enough because it does not give an adequate working life to the pipe after the test.  A test to 125% of MAOP on a 0.25 inch wall pipe merely shows that there are 0..05 inches (1.27 mm) of safety margin.  Cracks are known to penetrate such pipe wall at rates in the range .15 mm / year to .40 mm/ year.

Hence under CSA Z662-11 the working life of the pipe after pressure testing until the next pressure test is in the range:
(1.27 mm / .4 mm) = 3.2 years to (1,27 mm / ,15 mm) = 8.5 years.  I highly doubt that we want to revisit this matter only three years hence.  Thus it is essential that everyone insist on a hydro static pressure test to 150% of MAOP.  TELL YOUR FEDERAL MPs AND PROVINCIAL MPPs THAT NOTHING LESS THAN A HYDRO STATIC PRESSURE TEST TO 150% OF MAOP is satisfactory.  CSA Z662-11 is intended for new pipelines in rural areas, not for old pipelines in the middle of Toronto.  The NEB process and CSA Z662-11 are both designed to maximize pipeline company profits, not address public safety.  THIS PIPELINE DOES NOT MEET PROVINCIAL SAFETY STANDARDS!   

Absent a pressure test to 150% of MAOP everyone should assume that eventually there will be a rupture failure, and if that failure occurs in the GTA the cost will be many billions of dollars.  Enbridge is a large company but I doubt its capacity to fund a $10 billion to $20 billion spill clean up.  Hence Enbridge should carry third party insurance of $10 billion to $20 billion per incident.  If Enbridge has to choose between properly fixing the pipe and paying the insurance premium on a $20 billion policy it will probably choose to fix the pipe, which is what it should have done in the first place.
Best Regards,

Charles Rhodes, P. Eng., Ph.D.
Xylene Power Ltd.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20140311/17f7bc02/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Notes on Pipeline maps.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 17920 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20140311/17f7bc02/attachment.doc>


More information about the All mailing list