APIA has taken on a new challenge and the members of the newly established Pipeline Corridor Committee are keen to see an outcome that will improve understanding of the industry and the requirements surrounding transmission pipeline corridors. The committee is seeking to implement a national ‘notification zone’ concept acceptable to licensees, planning authorities and developers.

Writers of pipeline standards have always recognised that the threats to and from pipelines are affected by population density and surrounding land use. Pipeline standards address this variation in risk through the concept of location classification. Most standards around the world, including AS2885, define four location classes representing (broadly) remote rural areas, rural residential development, suburbs and highly populated locations such as town centres. (AS2885 also has optional secondary location classes for certain land uses that don’t fit cleanly into the four primary location classes.)

Under AS2885, the location class is determined by the land uses within the “measurement length” either side of the pipeline. That length is given by the distance at which the thermal radiation from an ignited full-bore rupture would cause serious burns to an unprotected person (4.7 kW per square metre). The measurement length varies with maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), pipe diameter and contents (trickier for an oil line), and there happens to be a rule of thumb for 10.2 MPa gas pipelines: the measurement length is 1,000 times the nominal diameter of the pipe – 300 m for a 300 mm diameter line, and so on. If there is a suburban development within 300 m of your 300 mm diameter gas pipeline, then it is in a suburban location class – assuming that its MAOP is 10.2 MPa.

Pipeline standards use their location classification in various ways to influence the design and operation of pipelines so as to minimise danger to nearby residents without imposing unreasonably high costs in areas where there are few people. But that is as far as it goes – pipeline standards and location classification only affect things that are within the control of the pipeline designer and/or operator.

Changing conditions and encroachment

Serious problems can arise when land use near a pipeline changes, most commonly through urban development around the outskirts of a city. Some overseas and early Australian pipelines had rules that offered little alternative but to reduce the MAOP of a pipeline if the location class of a pipeline segment changed from rural to residential. That has not been the case in Australia since AS2885 was introduced in 1987. The current (2007) edition of AS2885 has specific rules to maintain pipeline safety despite change of location class. But that only partly solves the problem because those rules for safety may end up imposing substantial costs on the pipeline owner, even if the pipeline MAOP, and hence capacity, is maintained.

Encroachment of urban development around an existing pipeline may also affect its operability. How can you blow down a pipeline for emergency repair if the mainline valve site and vent pipe are now surrounded by houses whose occupants won’t appreciate a few hours of 150 decibels?

There is a solution to all this, which is conceptually simple but politically challenging: ensure that the existence of high-pressure pipelines is properly acknowledged in land use planning and approval processes.

APIA has constituted the Pipeline Corridor Committee to work toward this goal. The committee has two aims:

• To develop a notification zone concept acceptable to licensees, planning authorities and developers and have it implemented nationally; and,
• To provide a basis for compensation of a licensee’s cost to maintain pipeline safety when the permitted land use through which a pipeline passes is changed from the use for which the pipeline was designed.

The committee is establishing two working groups, one dealing with legislation and standards, and the other dealing with information and communication. The second group will begin when the legislation and standards group formalises policy directions. The legislation and standards working group met on 24 February 2011 to start the dialogue amongst industry stakeholders.

The development of a notification concept can be more difficult than it seems at first glance. For the purposes of a land classification under AS2885, a pipeline operator must consider current and future land use around the pipeline to a distance of its measure length. The measurement length of a pipeline has its basis in public safety, but how do you explain to a planning authority what 4.7 kW per square metre means for them? How does planning legislation take the unique measurement length of each pipeline into account? We still don’t have the answers to all the questions, but recent experiences of pipeline operators in South Australia show that planning authorities are interested in the content of AS2885, and they want to link any new requirements on them to those that are in the standard. This makes sense, and it has also assisted the industry’s discussions. Notification zones must be linked to the measurement length defined in AS2885.

However, the phrase ‘measurement length’ itself may not be a useful descriptor for those outside the industry, and consideration needs to be given to changing this term in AS2885. The same applies for the ‘notification zone’ term. It is understood by the industry, but for planning authorities another term may better explain the meaning and function of a notification zone.

A national solution

The most difficult part of industry’s work on this issue is summed up in the five little words at the end of the first bullet point above: ‘and have it implemented nationally’.

Things are done differently in each state and territory, not just by planning authorities, but by just about every regulatory authority (not to mention the many councils involved). The pipeline industry has enjoyed the benefits of the widespread recognition and adoption of AS2885 by pipeline regulators around the nation, but we expect such regulatory consistency in a specific field is probably the exception rather than the norm. We are not the first industry to try to improve the national approach to a planning issue, and it will be a long task.

The APIA Secretariat has commenced discussions with most states, with the view to getting dialogue started. This has been received well for the most part, and as we establish an industry position on notification zones and related items we can try to influence planning legislation and regulations. Land developers are also a key stakeholder on this issue, and the pipeline industry needs to engage the relevant peak bodies for their industry as well.

It is important for the pipeline industry to be conscious of a few things as we discuss and progress this issue. First, AS2885 and licence conditions are clear; the safety of the pipeline is the pipeline licensee’s responsibility. We are trying to implement a system which recognises how some aspects of a pipeline’s safety are influenced by third parties, but the buck stops with our industry.

Second, implementation of a notification zone concept by planning authorities is, in effect, adding a layer of regulation/bureaucracy to the planning processes and development approvals. The pipeline industry doesn’t appreciate more ‘red tape’, and neither will the development industry.

Third, effective treatment of this issue will improve public safety and, therefore, assist a pipeline licensee. We are asking planning authorities to consider some major changes to their processes and the pipeline industry needs to think about concessions we can offer in return. Perhaps this could be through standardised information provision of pipeline location or perhaps there are other things that need to be put on the table.

Finally, we need to be cognisant of the fact that these types of processes can take some years, not months or weeks, to reach conclusion. Engaging with every jurisdiction and achieving national consistency on this issue will be a long, ongoing process. The more help we get from industry the better (and the response has been very good so far), but patience will be necessary. The industry can be assured that the Association and its dedicated members are determined to make progress.