On June 15, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued an advisory bulletin to pipeline operators related to the effectiveness of coating and corrosion control measures on buried, insulated pipelines. PHMSA’s advisory bulletin responds to a recent pipeline failure and oil spill in California. The failure involved a buried oil pipeline coated with coal tar urethane and covered with tape wrapped foam insulation. The pipeline was insulated because it carried high-viscosity crude that required heat in order to transport. PHMSA found that the pipeline ruptured because of external corrosion that occurred under the pipeline’s coating system. PHMSA also found that this corrosion was facilitated by wet dry cycling. PHMSA’s Failure Investigation Report is here.
PHMSA indicates that corrosion under insulation (CUI) is an integrity threat that is difficult to address through conventional cathodic protection systems and can lead to accelerated corrosion and stress corrosion cracking. PHMSA recommends that operators review their operating, maintenance, and integrity management activities to ensure that their buried, insulated pipelines have effective coating and corrosion control systems. PHMSA recommends that operator procedures consider the need for corrosion control systems that prevent moisture buildup, coatings that avoid cathodic protection “shielding,” advanced ILI data analysis to account for CUI, ILI data analysis and excavations to accurately assess corrosion as outlined in API Standard 1163, and additional or more frequent reassessment intervals for pipelines with known susceptibility to moisture retention.
For more information please contact Jim Curry, Keith Coyle or Brianne Kurdock of our Pipeline and HazMat Safety Practice.
On June 13, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (PIPES Act) legislation that reauthorizes the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) federal pipeline safety program through fiscal year 2019 and contains a number of amendments to the Pipeline Safety Act. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the PIPES Act last week, and the bill will now be sent to the President for his signature.
Among the more noteworthy provisions, Section 12 of the PIPES Act requires PHMSA to develop underground gas storage standards within two years and authorizes the collection of user fees from operators of these facilities. Section 16 also provides PHMSA with significant new authority to issue industry-wide emergency orders if an unsafe condition or practice results in an imminent hazard, meaning a substantial likelihood that death, serious injury, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property or the environment may occur. PHMSA may use emergency orders to impose operational restrictions, prohibitions or safety measures. While PHMSA can issue these emergency orders without a prior hearing, the legislation provides for an expedited process of administrative and judicial review.
Stay tuned for further updates once the PIPES Act of 2016 is signed into law.
On March 17, 2016, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a pre-publication version of its long-awaited notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for gas transmission and gathering lines. The 549-page NPRM has been issued in response to issues raised in National Transportation Safety Board recommendations, congressional mandates, and Government Accountability Office reports. PHMSA has provided a short, 60-day comment period, which will be a challenge to those developing comments on a proposed rule of this complexity and length. For more information, read our Pipeline Safety Alert.
On May 27, 2015, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf announced the formation of a task force to help the Commonwealth, the natural gas industry and communities partner for the development of new pipeline infrastructure to allow natural gas and related byproducts to more effectively reach the market. The task force will focus on creating a series of best practices for the planning, siting and routing of pipelines. It is projected that Pennsylvania may see the construction of up to 25,000 miles of gathering lines in the next decade, and possibly another 4,000 to 5,000 miles of midstream and transmission lines. John Quigley, the acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, will serve as chairman of the task force. The Governor will seek representatives from state agencies, the legislature, federal and local governments, the pipeline and natural gas industries and environmental groups to join the task force. Some of the goals of the task force are to plan construction practices that reduce environmental impact, establish a predictable and efficient permitting process, develop long-term operations and maintenance plans and engage in meaningful public participation.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has included “enhancing pipeline safety” on its 2014 Most Wanted List, which identifies its top 10 priorities for the year. The NTSB warns that although “[p]ipelines remain one of the safest and most efficient means of transporting vital commodities . . . the consequences can be tragic when safe operational practices are not employed and standards are not implemented.” Hydrostatic pressure testing, remote controlled and automatic shutoff valves and improved communications between pipeline operators and emergency responders are among the suggested improvements to promote safe operation of pipelines. Recent pipeline incidents like the rupture of a natural gas transmission pipeline near Interstate 77 in Sissonville, West Virginia, on December 11, 2012, have contributed to the NTSB naming pipeline safety as one of its top priorities for 2014.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice in today’s Federal Register extending the period for responding to its inquiry about expanding the integrity management program requirements to pipelines located outside of high consequence areas and eliminating the class location requirements for gas pipelines. As explained in our previous post, a mandate in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, the most recent reauthorization of the federal pipeline safety laws, requires PHMSA to evaluate these issues and provide a report to the U.S. Congress with its findings by January 2014. The new deadline for submitting comments on the original notice is November 1, 2013.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a final rule in today’s edition of the Federal Register that amends its administrative procedures for federal enforcement actions effective October 25, 2013. The final rule is intended to comply with a mandate in Section 20 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, the most recent reauthorization of the federal pipeline safety laws. Section 20 directed PHMSA to issue regulations that (1) require hearings to be convened before a dedicated “presiding official,” a term defined by statute as an attorney on the staff of the Deputy Chief Counsel that is not engaged in investigative or prosecutorial functions; (2) ensure the expedited review of corrective action orders, which are issued in cases where a pipeline facility is hazardous to life, property, or the environment; (3) create a separation of functions between agency personnel who perform investigatory and prosecutorial duties and those who are responsible for deciding the final outcome of cases; and (4) prohibit ex parte communications on relevant matters by the parties to those actions. The final rule addresses these issues and includes some changes to the draft regulations that the agency published in an August 13, 2012 notice of proposed rulemaking. The changes are largely based on comments submitted by industry trade organizations and the federal committee that advises PHMSA on pipeline safety matters.
As announced in today’s Federal Register, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has released a new draft of its proposed Integrity Verification Process (IVP) for gas transmission lines and extended the period for submitting public comments on the proposal from September 9, 2013, to October 7, 2013. PHMSA revised its original version of the draft IVP in response to comments received from various stakeholders at an August 7, 2013 public workshop. While still in the early stages of development, the IVP is part of PHMSA’s efforts to comply with a mandate in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, the most recent reauthorization of the federal pipeline safety laws, and to address the recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board following its investigation of a September 2010 natural gas transmission line failure in San Bruno, California.
On August 16, 2013, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register that contained a package of periodic updates to the voluntary consensus standards that are incorporated into the federal pipeline safety regulations by reference, as well as several non-substantive, miscellaneous amendments. As PHMSA explained in the NPRM, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Publ. L. 104-113) requires federal agencies to adopt voluntary consensus standards by regulation where appropriate, and there are 64 such standards incorporated by reference into the federal pipeline safety regulations. PHMSA also explained that a congressional mandate in the recent reauthorization of the federal pipeline safety laws requires the agency to make these industry standards available to the public, free of charge, on the Internet. Among the noteworthy changes in the NPRM is a proposal to incorporate the first edition of API Recommended Practice 5LT, “Recommended Practice for Truck Transportation of Line Pipe,” into the federal pipeline safety regulations. A variety of other applicable industry standards would also be updated, including those that apply to the transportation of line pipe by rail, barge, marine vessel; the specifications for line pipe, pipeline valves, and storage tanks; and the methodology for conducting pipeline external corrosion direct assessments. PHMSA is also proposing to clarify the text of three regulations by making non-substantive changes.
On August 1, 2013, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on whether to apply its integrity management (IM) program requirements to pipelines located outside of high consequence areas (HCAs) and, if so, whether that decision would obviate the need for its class location requirements. A mandate in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, the most recent reauthorization of the federal pipeline safety laws, requires PHMSA to evaluate these issues and provide a report to the U.S. Congress with its findings by January 2014. After providing an overview of the current requirements, the notice discusses the comments that PHMSA received on its proposal to expand its IM requirements in an August 25, 2011 advance notice of proposed rulemaking, which the agency issued in response to the September 2010 gas transmission line failure that occurred in San Bruno, California. The notice also requests public comment on a series of additional questions, particularly with respect to whether its class location requirements should be eliminated and replaced with a single design factor that would apply to all (or certain) levels of population density and categories of pipelines. The deadline for submitting comments on the notice is September 30, 2013.
U.S. Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), Chair of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, recently asked the Government Accountability Office to assess the impact of current shale oil and gas development on the nation’s existing transportation infrastructure, including rail and pipelines. Rockefeller’s request was reportedly prompted by a recent train derailment incident in Quebec and the Sissonville, WV, pipeline explosion event which occurred in December 2012. The Committee held a hearing on rail safety in June 2013 and a field hearing on pipeline safety in January 2013.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced in today’s Federal Register that a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting will be held on August 8 to 9, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia. The TAC is composed of two committees, the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC), also known as the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, and the Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee (LPAC), also known as the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee. The GPAC and LPAC advise PHMSA on the technical feasibility, practicability, and cost-effectiveness of proposed safety standards for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. According to the announcement, PHMSA plans to release a detailed agenda for the meeting on its website in the near future.
In a press release issued earlier today, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) stated that a recent federal court decision confirms its authority to inspect natural gas liquids (NGL) plants for compliance with the minimum federal safety standards in 49 C.F.R. Part 195. The decision, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, dismissed a lawsuit filed against PHMSA by the operator of an NGL plant. The district court concluded that the Pipeline Safety Act’s new judicial review provision provides the federal courts of appeal with exclusive jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim that PHMSA does not have the authority to inspect the piping and equipment located inside the plant’s boundaries.
In its decision, the district court explained that judicial review of a “regulation or order” issued by PHMSA must be initiated within 89 days by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals where a person resides or has its principal place of business. The district court reasoned that, as with other similar statutes, the term “order” should be interpreted broadly for purposes of the Pipeline Safety Act’s judicial review provision to encompass any PHMSA decision that has sufficient finality, i.e., that imposes an obligation, denies a right, or fixes some legal relationship. The district court found that the agency action being challenged in the case—PHMSA’s decision to inspect the NGL plant—was an order that could only be reviewed in the federal courts of appeal. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
It should be noted that on February 25, 2013, the plaintiff company filed a separate petition for review of PHMSA’s action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and that the D.C. Circuit has yet to issue a ruling on the petition.
On April 23, 2013, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comments on its proposal to collect additional data on hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. Under the current regime, operators are required to provide less data when submitting an accident report for certain small volume releases (i.e., at least 5 gallons but less than 5 barrels) that do not result in additional environmental consequences, significant property damage, or personal injuries or fatalities. PHMSA estimates that approximately half of the accident reports submitted in 2011 and 2012 involved these kinds of low consequence releases. PHMSA uses the information collected from these reports to identify short- and long-term trends in the pipeline industry and for inspection planning and risk assessment, and the agency has determined that the same information should be collected for both low consequence and more significant releases. PHMSA is also proposing to revise its instructions for determining the amount of volume spilled and recovered as a result of a hazardous liquid pipeline accident. Citing concern with the data obtained since the agency revised those instructions three years ago, PHMSA is proposing to require that the reported volume spilled include all product exiting the pipeline system, and that the reported volume recovered include all product collected during the spill response. PHSMA is also proposing to incorporate its information collection for hazardous liquid pipeline leak detection systems into its recordkeeping and accident reporting information collection for hazardous liquid pipeline operators.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) recently released updated enforcement guidance for complying with its operator qualification (OQ) and hazardous liquid integrity management program (IMP) requirements. PHMSA’s OQ requirements establish minimum federal safety standards for the qualification of individuals who perform covered tasks. A covered task is an activity identified by the operator that is performed on a pipeline facility, is an operations and maintenance task, is performed as a requirement of the pipeline safety regulations, and which affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline. PHMSA’s IMP requirements apply to hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines that could affect a high consequence area (HCA) in the event of a leak or failure. HCAs include commercially navigable waterways, certain populated areas, and other areas that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage. PHMSA’s enforcement guidance provides information on each of the regulatory provisions, including a recitation of the applicable text, summaries of the relevant interpretations, advisory bulletins, and other reference materials, and examples of situations that might result in probable violations.