So much pipeline safety information!

Did you know we recently updated our briefing papers and added papers on three additional topics? These papers are a great source of ‘Pipeline Safety 101′ information – they are short and each focused on a single topic. They do not need to be read in order, though some basic understanding is helpful before reading about the more technical issues. Check them out if you haven’t already! Here is the full list:

 

Pipeline Safety Technical Experts Available

Check out our new listing of Pipeline Safety Technical Experts HERE!

The Trust published a Request for Qualifications in 2015, asking those with technical expertise in a whole range of pipeline safety issues to submit their information to us. Community organizations, local governments and individuals frequently ask the Trust for suggestions of independent technical experts with experience in engineering who can provide paid technical assistance in a broad variety of areas relating to oil and gas pipelines. They seek general advice, as well as specific advice related to pipeline conceptual design, construction methods, corrosion, pressure cycling, materials, electrical interference, air quality, mechanics, chemical impacts, siting safety, inspection techniques, leak detection, repair methods and a host of other topics. 

In order to provide an array of options to these local governments and community groups, we undertook this RFQ. Inclusion in the directory does not imply endorsement by the Trust. We appreciate those who responded to our request, and recognize how difficult it can be for communities to find independent experts able to provide unbiased information and advice. If you are someone seeking an expert, please have a look at our new listings here. If you are an expert, feel free to contact us to request inclusion in the future. 

What is the Pipeline Safety Trust, and what do you do there?

I began working in earnest for the Trust two years ago. Recently, I received a phone call from a timid citizen looking for support as he tried to educate himself in the midst of a pipeline construction project coming his way. He asked this question, and it offered me a brief opportunity to reflect on our work.

Do you remember 1999? If you lived in Bellingham, you know exactly where you were on June 10th of that year. Exactly where you were when an ominous and huge mushroom cloud rose into the clouds from the fireball that occurred after a 16” pipeline ruptured in a city park, sending a quarter million gallons of gasoline down a salmon creek, and subsequently igniting and causing an enormous explosion. Three kids died. Kids died and a salmon stream was wiped out because of negligence, poor management, lack of oversight and near nonexistent regulations.

So we remember. Sixteen years later, we remember these kids, and think about the 252 others who have died since 1999 in pipeline tragedies. We remember this disaster, and think about the 4,476 other significant pipeline incidents that have happened since 1999. It’s not easy to keep these issues on the forefront, especially when the oil & gas industry spends $141 million in a single year lobbying to keep their perspective on top.

We are not anti- or pro- pipelines. We are pro-safety, and work to make pipelines safer so human and environmental tragedies can hopefully be averted. Our board is very careful about where Trust funding comes from, and has been wise in investing the original endowment in a way that still makes our work possible.

In the Trust’s early years, it was difficult to access any information about pipeline safety. Now the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has a good website with more information than we can easily digest. We annually glean and assess the transparency of each state’s pipeline safety information, and hope that through this we push the bar higher and encourage more and more information about pipeline safety to be easily accessible to people who are affected by pipelines.

Our website too has grown, and offers a wide variety of information, tools, and educational materials to anyone looking for it.

Part of our work is asking questions and bringing up difficult issues so they can be talked about openly, as we try to do every year at our conference that draws about 200 people from the pipeline industry, the federal and state regulatory community, and every-day citizens or local government representatives who care about these issues and how they impact their local community. The kinds of in-person public conversations that occur at our conference do not happen anywhere else; it’s a unique opportunity for diverse stakeholder discussions about pipeline safety issues.

Other things we have accomplished and on which we continue to work:

  • Improve federal pipeline safety regulations by testifying before Congress and commenting on proposed rules.
  • Provide increased access to pipeline safety information.
  • Provide a “public interest” voice to pipeline safety processes and at a variety of meetings.
  • Serve as the public voice to the media looking into pipeline safety incidents and rules.
  • Partner with groups trying to move pipeline safety forward.
  • Provide technical assistance to impacted communities.

If you are affected by oil and gas pipelines, I hope you find the Pipeline Safety Trust helpful, join us in pushing the safety bar upward, and have confidence that what we provide is truly credible, independent, and in the public interest.

Another pipeline incident anniversary – have things changed since 2009?

Question of the weekI think it was around this time in 2009 that a gas pipeline blew up in Palm City, Florida near a school. What really happened then, and have things gotten safer in the past 6 years?

On May 4, 2009, an 18-inch Florida Gas Transmission Company interstate pipeline ruptured about 6 miles south of Palm City, Florida, releasing about 36 million cubic feet of natural gas and causing three minor injuries in Martin County. The community was fortunate: the gas did not find a source of ignition and catch fire, nor did two other large gas lines buried parallel to the one that ruptured sustain any damage, though 106 feet (over 5,000 pounds) of buried pipeline was blown into the air and landed in the right-of-way between two major highways. The pipeline segment that failed was between two automatic shutoff valves, but only one closed in response to the pressure drop on the pipeline. A Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system was in use by the pipeline operator at its control center in Houston, TX to remotely monitor and control the movement of gas through the pipeline. The SCADA system also failed to recognize the rupture or trigger any alarms.NTSB: Location next to I-95 and high school, in Rupture of Florida Gas Transmission Pipeline and Release of Natural Gas 20090504

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a pipeline accident brief on this incident, which found the cause of the accident to be the operator’s failure to detect cracking of the pipeline beneath protective coating. The NTSB also found that the operator failed to correctly identify the pipe as being within a high consequence area even though it was near a school.

As with most pipeline incidents, there were many contributing factors to this incident. The operator subsequently changed operations and procedures related to this pipeline in response to a PHMSA corrective action order as reported by the NTSB. But here, in response to the question about whether things have gotten safer in the past 6 years, we will focus on the issue of high consequence area (HCA) identification.

If the pipeline segment had been correctly identified as being within a high consequence area, then it would have been included in the pipeline operator’s integrity management program. There are specific rules in the federal regulations requiring the implementation of integrity management in high consequence areas, and these include specific inspection, analysis, maintenance and repair criteria designed to detect problems such as those that caused this 2009 incident.

As to whether these same mistakes could be happening today, the answer is yes. Are things safer? It’s hard to say. The same rules that allowed the identity and location of HCA’s to be kept secret from the public in 2009 are still in place. The public can’t know, until after an incident, whether an operator has accurately identified the HCAs along its route.  

A fundamental problem is that PHMSA essentially leaves the designation of high consequence area (HCA) boundaries up to the pipeline operators, and entrusts them to update the boundaries when any changes take place that would trigger a new inclusion in the HCA. There is no way for an average citizen to know about the details of these HCA boundaries, to know if PHMSA is enforcing the designation of those areas, and no way to help ensure operators encapsulate what needs to be included within those boundaries according to the regulations.

For example, on a gas transmission line like the one in Florida that ruptured in 2009, the presence of certain populated areas would trigger the HCA designation. There is a complicated way for gas pipeline operators to choose their method of designation and draw their boundaries (see 49 CFR §192.903). Put generally, any area near a pipeline with a high population (for gas pipelines, that means 20 or more homes), or with a populated activity center (e.g. school, office, assisted living, recreation area, campground, etc.; referred to as “designated sites” in the gas regulations), would be considered part of an HCA. Just how near to the gas pipeline these homes and activities need to be to trigger the HCA designation depends on how big the pipeline is, and the pressure inside it.

So what if a community is building a new school? Or what if a development goes in within a half-mile of an existing pipeline? In the case of a hazardous liquid (e.g. crude oil or petroleum) pipeline, nearby town water intakes or environmentally sensitive areas also trigger the HCA designation – what if a town changes their water intake or an agency recognizes a new critical habitat area? These types of changes and development happen all across the country, but only a very few communities have practices or rules in place that facilitate active dialogue between a pipeline operator and developer, or between an emergency management team and pipeline operator, to the degree that these types of changes are promptly reflected in a pipeline operator’s integrity management program.

In fact, PHMSA rules allow over 10 years – yes, TEN YEARS – from the time a natural gas pipeline operator identifies HCA changes to when that information must be part of a completed baseline assessment of the pipeline in the newly identified HCA. And PHMSA rules allow over 6 years from the time a hazardous liquid pipeline operator identifies an area of high population or sensitivity, to when that information must have been incorporated into its completed pipeline assessment. And the time between the actual on-the-ground change and the identification of that change by the pipeline operator adds even more time – a vague amount of time as this type of information analysis is only required by the operator ‘periodically.’

Contrary to some who think pipeline information needs to be less accessible, we think the secrecy surrounding pipeline operator’s designations of high consequence areas (HCAs) and other withheld information leads to more risky pipelines. If communities could access this type of information easily, it would be easy for planners, emergency responders, and concerned citizens to inform pipeline operators when a change is needed – thereby leading to SAFER pipelines, not more risky ones. Our experience is that those most impacted by pipelines – those who live in close proximity to them, are the ones with most at stake and most interested in keeping the pipelines and their community safe. Withholding information from these stakeholders disregards critical allies in our collective efforts toward safer pipelines.

Despite the lack of a transparent playing field in this area, there are some things you can do.

Communities with active Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) often have regular open meetings, and the committee itself should include representation from community groups as well as emergency response professionals, elected officials, professional staff, and facility and pipeline operators. The emergency responders who participate in these meetings have the ability to access information from pipeline operators that the general public cannot access. Pipeline operators are required to share their emergency response plans with local first responders, and to maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other public officials. Citizens can participate with the LEPC and request the committee work on accurate identification of HCAs in partnership with the pipeline operator. The LEPC topic is addressed in more detail in chapter 5 of our Local Government Guide to Pipelines.

PHMSA maintains a web-based National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS), which is viewable on a county-level and depicts the location of hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines, along with population areas and other information. While the population areas may give some indication of where a high consequence area is likely to be designated, there is not a direct link between the NPMS information and what the operators currently use to designate their HCAs. The PHMSA information is not up to date, and does not include the level of detail or environmental information needed to truly assess HCA boundaries. This is a problem. There are periodic opportunities for the public to comment on this issue, as the Trust did in December 2014 and October 2013 (comments of the Trust on a variety of pipeline safety topics are viewable here). The public needs to be able to view information and data gathered from pipeline companies on NPMS that depicts pipeline locations within an HCA with a high level of accuracy. There is in fact a statutory requirement that HCAs be incorporated as part of NPMS and updated biennially.[1]

Lastly, the Palm City, Florida incident was one of the incidents the NTSB highlighted in their recent safety study published earlier this year entitled “Integrity Management of Gas Transmission Pipelines in High Consequence Areas” and discussed in our January 30 Smart Pig blog post. This study included a number of additional changes needed to help make pipelines safer over time.

[1] Pipeline Safety Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011; Section 6 made part of 49 USC 60132.

Local options when thinking about new pipelines

Question of the weekThere are rumors of a new pipeline coming to my community. I’ve heard of another town with its own pipeline ordinance, but I also hear that it’s not up to the community and we really have no say. Should we pass our own ordinance and will it help?

You can pass your own ordinance, but whether it will help or not depends on where you are, what type of pipeline is proposed, and what the ordinance says.

It is true that in some circumstances communities “have no say,” but not all. There are a few circumstances over which the federal agencies have exclusive authority: FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has exclusive authority over the routing of new interstate natural gas pipelines; and PHMSA, the federal pipeline safety agency, retains authority over rulemaking and enforcement of safety regulations governing oil and natural gas pipelines. States can seek certification from PHMSA to regulate the safety of intrastate pipelines, and once certified can write stronger regulations for those pipelines than the federal minimum regulations established by PHMSA. States can take on a stronger role in other areas as well – but that is a subject for another post. If not disallowed by the state, local communities can have an important role when it comes to land use and pipelines.

For situations where local rules are not preempted by other state or federal laws, there are a number of options for action:

When a pipeline is built, the pipeline operator typically needs to get road crossing permits and negotiate franchise agreements or easements for crossing public roads, using road rights of way or crossing parks or other land owned by the local government. Some communities do this as they need to, and others have an ordinance that governs all these types of franchise agreements or easements between the town/county and the pipeline operator. This type of ordinance typically avoids preemption issues with state or federal law, though we recommend consulting with an attorney in your area. Franchises can address things like notification to the local government, maintenance of the right-of-way, availability of information, required payments by operators, circumstances where relocation of the pipeline may be necessary (and who would pay for it), pipeline abandonment, insurance and financial guarantees, and other issues. For examples of franchise ordinances, see the Franchise page on our website.

There are also community ordinances that establish a setback or consultation area between the pipeline and certain development, homes, or businesses. There are no federal regulations that set an absolute minimum distance that a pipeline can be built from a house, so a number of communities have moved forward on their own to do this. One option is to establish a ‘consultation zone’ so the pipeline owner and property owner or developer of any new project have to talk with one another prior to going ahead with the development or the new pipeline. Another option is to pass an ordinance requiring setbacks that vary depending on what type of residential uses exist near the pipeline. We have examples of these types of ordinances as well on our website.

Setbacks are often intended to help prevent damage to the pipeline by people doing something stupid on top of it (like installing a swimming pool or fence), or to aid in evacuation by offering a bit more time for folks to get out of the area. But they are likely not wide enough to protect a person from an explosion on a high pressure pipeline (for larger diameter high pressure gas pipelines, that distance may need to be over 1,000 feet).

A local government could also choose to treat new pipelines as a conditional use and require a pipeline proponent to apply for and receive a conditional use permit before beginning construction within the jurisdiction. You can find an example of this option on our website as well (see Colorado example).

Chapter 4 of our Local Government Guide describes in more detail options that local communities have as they think about how best to prepare for the prospect of a new pipeline coming to town.

A Call for Transparency in Pipeline Safety Enforcement – Ten Years Later

Question of the week: I’ve looked at some of the pipeline enforcement data online through PHMSA’s website, but don’t really understand it, and don’t see a lot of information available. Can you tell me how pipeline enforcement works, and what is available to the public when there is an enforcement case against a pipeline operator who has some sort of violation of the rules?

Answer: 

This question produced deja vu for us here. It turns out our very first newsletter in 2005 included on article on this topic, so we decided to have a look to see what had changed in the past 10 years. The article was about how the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) civil fine enforcement works and why OPS should make it more transparent. While OPS has improved some things (like its percentage of assessed penalties that are eventually collected), the substance of the issues has not changed at all, and enforcement procedures still occur largely behind closed doors with only the regulators and industry present, and no public record of proceedings.

How It Works

OPS enforcement procedures are complex. In simple terms, there are three stages:

  1. Investigating — reaching a preliminary conclusion whether a company violated the law. This can happen as a result of an inspection or an incident.
  2. Proposing a fine — notifying the company of the allegation and what the fine could be.
  3. Hearing/Assessing/Collecting — giving the company an opportunity to present its views; deciding what the fine will be; collecting it.

The time from the first to the last step may take more than a decade. Meanwhile, there is no public input and the availability of documents is limited. According to the enforcement statistics,[1] over the past ten years OPS collected about 84 cents for every dollar of fines it proposed (up from less than 50 cents when we published the article nearly 10 years ago). These statistics leave out millions of dollars in fines that were proposed but never or not yet collected because cases either never made it to the final collection phase or still have unresolved compliance issues.[2]

What is most troubling to us is the way in which fines are reduced or unresolved. Without any public access, the pipeline operator goes behind a closed door with government officials and comes out paying less money than originally owed. What goes on behind that door? No one knows. PHMSA has made improvements in providing enforcement information in the last 10 years, and usually provides access to the corrective action order, the operator’s response or request for a hearing and the final order through links on its enforcement web page. However, between the time an operator requests a hearing on a penalty case and PHMSA issues a final order, none of the documents or arguments made in the enforcement hearing process are posted for public review, and PHMSA neither publishes notice of hearings nor allows the public or members of the press to attend if they happen to learn when a hearing is scheduled. Nor is there a requirement for a record of the hearing to be made, let alone made public. This is the stage where most of the reduction in proposed penalties occurs, and the public can only hope to be able to read between the lines of a Final Order to determine why the penalty was reduced and whether the reduction was legitimate.

The Need for Transparency

In this country, after the investigatory stage, law enforcement takes place in public for good reasons. Public scrutiny enhances credibility, accountability and fairness while preventing even the appearance of government corruption in the following ways:

Credibility — seeing OPS expeditiously enforce its regulations would instill confidence that safe operation is a requirement rather than a guideline.

Accountability — if companies successfully challenge fines because regulations are poorly crafted, the public could demand better rules.

Fairness — secret proceedings deny the public an opportunity to question fines and permit operators to make one-sided arguments without fear of rebuttal.

Prevention of corruption — while no one is suggesting that OPS is corrupt, any government agency that permits fines to be whittled down behind closed doors is just asking for trouble from a suspicious public.

How It Should Be

OPS should create an Internet accessible enforcement docket, like the existing DOT rule-making docket, where the public could view enforcement as it progresses. The docket would include the OPS Notice of Probable Violation, Corrective Action Order or other enforcement documentation, the company’s responses, documents exchanged between the parties before and during a hearing, transcripts of hearings and the final decision. OPS should permit intervention by aggrieved parties. The hearing dates should be on the docket, and the hearings themselves should be open to the public and members of the press.

When pipeline operators violate the law, they endanger the public. Therefore, the public has an interest in seeing operators held accountable. Open and transparent enforcement procedures would enhance public confidence and permit the public to work with OPS to make pipelines safer.

 

ENDNOTES:

[1] Data extracted from PHMSA-OPS website on March 26, 2015. See http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/CivilPenalty_opid_0.html

[2] Only cases that have been closed by PHMSA with no outstanding compliance issues left unresolved from PHMSA’s Final Report are included in their statistics.

Technical Assistance Grant Opportunity – Apply Now

Question of the Week: I heard something about grants being offered to communities for hiring experts and promoting public participation in pipeline safety proceedings. Can you tell me more about how to access these funds?

Answer:

PHMSA recently announced a grant opportunity for Community Technical Assistance Grants – Applications are Due April 22, 2015. 

Community groups and local governments are eligible to apply for PHMSA Technical Assistance Grants (“TAG grants”) of up to $100,000 for technical advice on pipeline concerns, to enhance public involvement in official proceedings on pipeline safety, for production and implementation of local pipeline ordinances, or for a wide variety of other pipeline safety related projects. You can find an archive of the nearly 200 projects funded with these grants in past years here.

Here is the link to the full announcement: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=272688

From PHMSA:

The TAG program provides funding to communities for technical assistance and analyses of local pipeline safety issues. Technical assistance is defined as engineering or other scientific analysis of pipeline safety issues. The funding can also be used to help promote public participation in official proceedings. However, the funding may not be used for lobbying, in direct support of litigation, or for activities associated with regulatory compliance or typical operations and maintenance of pipeline facilities. Local projects can range from public awareness activities to technology solutions, such as the conversion of paper maps into electronic format. The awards have funded a broad range of activities, including:

o   Improvement of local pipeline emergency response capabilities

o   Improvement of safe digging programs

o   Development of pipeline safety information resources

o   Implementation of local land use practices that enhance pipeline safety

o   Community and pipeline awareness campaigns

o   Enhancements in public participation in official proceedings pertaining to pipelines

 

If you intend to apply for a grant, the preparation for doing so (obtaining online accounts and numbers and entering your proposal in the online system) takes quite a bit of effort and time, so plan accordingly to allow enough time before the deadline to get help if you need it.

 

We’re happy to help give you feedback on your TAG idea, or talk to you about what some other communities have done, so feel free to contact us for more information if you’re interested.

Background on the TAG Grants

When Congress began working to strengthen the nation’s pipeline safety laws in 2001, the forerunner of The Pipeline Safety Trust pushed for the creation of a federal program that would provide money to local governments and communities for hiring independent experts. These experts would help them obtain information so they could be informed and active participants in decision-making activities about pipelines running through—or proposed for siting in—their communities.

In the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, Congress authorized the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program, which was based on a successful Superfund grant program that had been operating within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1988. However, Congress did not appropriate any program funds when it passed this law. Over the next four years, Congress failed to fund the TAG program, and the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), which is within the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), didn’t move ahead to implement it. Consequently, the Pipeline Safety Trust worked with supporters in Congress to break this “logjam” and a provision was inserted in the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 to withhold funding from other activities until PHMSA established procedures and criteria for initiating the TAG program. In 2008, Congress provided $1 million in the federal budget for funding this program and in 2009 the Pipeline Safety Trust helped OPS develop criteria for evaluating grant applications.