Potential Areas of Attention

Disclaimer

The following is a list of user suggested potential areas of attention regarding the California Department of Education's (CDE) advisory "Guidance Protocol for School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis" (Protocol). A variety of users of the 2007 Protocol have identified these as areas which may need updating or other technical adjustments in order to improve the process. Neither URS Corporation nor CDE are expressing an opinion as to the validity of these statements or requiring use of these suggested items. Neither CDE nor URS Corporation as authors of the Protocol accepts any responsibility for any deficiency, misstatements, or inaccuracies provided by these statements or their referenced resources. These areas of attention are provided only as additional information which may be helpful to those preparing and reviewing pipeline risk assessments based upon the 2007 Protocol. It should not be implied nor construed that consideration or use of these items is required by CDE. The decision to use the Protocol and these suggestions is strictly voluntary and is intended to be made by the Local Educational Agency (LEA) in consultation with their qualified consultants. CDE will continue to explore the need for issuing modifications to the Protocol to help LEAs and their consultants in determining how best to ensure a safer school environment.

Protocol Users' Suggested Areas of Attention

1. Technical
   1. Use of more current pipeline incident data as available for California from the U.S. Department of Transportation of the 1984-2001 data used in the 2007 Protocol.
   2. Direct use of the Automated Resource for Chemical Hazard Incident Evaluation (ARCHIE) or American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) manual equations for volumetric flow rates by gravity for liquid pipelines versus those cited in the Protocol.
   3. Consideration of adjustments for the increased probability of pipeline rupture based upon age of pipelines, especially those constructed before 1970 due to federal testing requirements .
   4. Consideration of using Societal/Population Risk Calculations and Thresholds as used by the U.S. Department of Defense/Explosive Safety Board for catastrophic events.
   5. Careful consideration of conversions between British Thermal Units and kilowatts per meter when determining flammability limits.
   6. In August 2019, CDE was contacted by an engineer with extensive experience in preparing Pipeline Safety Hazard Assessments using both the CDE Protocol and the similar Protocol used by Los Angeles Unified School District. The engineer has pointed out that the when calculating the individual hazard length segment (XSEG), the LAUSD methodology adds the school frontage length that parallels the pipeline to the XSEG equation as shown in the CDE Protocol (see pages 4-15&16 of Vol. 1 of the CDE Protocol). The engineer states this may be done because all individuals along the length of the school frontage (and both ends of the property as calculated by the XSEG) are susceptible to the 1% mortality impact and without this addition use of the CDE protocol might result in an underestimation of risk.
2. Procedural
   1. Expanded consideration of the effectiveness of a larger variety of Mitigation/Management Measures for both reducing the probability of a pipeline release and severity of impacts.
   2. Use of a LEA board resolution to allow more effective communication of the spectrum of risks (including pipelines) with a frame of reference.