Implement pipeline safety reforms sooner, House panel tells PHMSA

May 2, 2019
US House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders strongly criticized the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for not implementing more congressional mandates in the 2011 and 2016 federal pipeline safety authorizations as a subcommittee held a hearing on May 1 to begin preparing a replacement.

US House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders strongly criticized the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for not implementing more congressional mandates in the 2011 and 2016 federal pipeline safety authorizations as a subcommittee held a hearing on May 1 to begin preparing a replacement.

PHMSA Administrator Howard R. Elliott responded that the US Department of Transportation agency is working to ensure that US oil and gas pipelines are operated safely, and finalizing outstanding congressional mandates remains a priority.

“As part of the 2011 reauthorization, Congress required the use of automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves on newly constructed transmission pipelines to limit damage when a rupture occurs,” noted the full committee’s chairman, Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ). “The National Transportation Safety Board recommended use of this technology 25 years ago after a pipeline explosion in my congressional district in Edison, NJ. Yet, here we are, still discussing this issue.”

The 2011 law also required pipeline operators to install leak detection systems on hazardous liquid pipelines, but PHMSA still has not finalized a rule 8 years later, Pallone said. “And in what I considered to be the most important provision of the 2016 reauthorization, Congress gave PHMSA emergency order authority to address imminent, industry-wide safety hazards that pose a threat to life or significant harm to property or the environment. Yet PHMSA has failed to implement this, too,” he said.

Such delays are not entirely PHMSA’s fault, Pallone stated. A prescriptive cost-benefit analysis required under the federal pipeline safety law’s 1986 reauthorization hamstrings the agency, he said. “If we want PHMSA to finalize more rulemakings, we must remove or adjust this overly burdensome requirement,” he said.

PHMSA can’t do it alone

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the full committee’s ranking minority member, noted that PHMSA not only has to work with other federal entities such as the US Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Transportation Security Administration when it comes to pipeline safety, but also with state governments and agencies.

“It is often state pipeline safety workers who are on the front lines inspecting and enforcing safety requirements. In many cases, it is also the states’ responsibility to regulate rates and ensure that adequate investments are made in pipeline maintenance and modernization,” Walden said. “As members of Congress, it is our responsibility to ensure that PHSMA and the states have enough resources and the appropriate tools to get the job done.”

Walden noted that there are many areas where he believes Congress can update and strengthen the law to drive innovation and lower the barrier of entry for new technologies. “I also believe we should examine recent pipeline safety incidents and incorporate lessons-learned,” he said. “We should also make sure to provide PHMSA with clear directions, recognizing that they already have a backlog of Congressional mandates and they are working on two high priority rules for both gas and liquid pipelines.”

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), who chaired the House committee’s Energy Subcommittee hearing, said he was concerned that TSA would not provide a witness to testify (as did Walden). He also said that state and local governments often have to provide workers and resources to respond to pipeline accidents and often are not reimbursed for the costs. “There also are burdensome restrictions on how money ostensibly available under other programs is utilized,” Rush said.

He later asked Elliott if there a defined obligation for pipeline operators to work with county-level emergency management agencies to develop and maintain emergency capabilities before an event or exercise occurs.

2011 and 2016 responses

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the subcommittee’s ranking minority member, said he has considered pipeline safety a priority for years. “It’s personal. We had to deal with a bad pipeline accident in my home state in 2010 on the Kalamazoo River, which led to the passage of the Upton-Dingell Pipeline Safety Bill in 2012. In 2016, we came together again to pass another bipartisan pipeline safety bill which now is set to expire in October. I’m proud of what we accomplished with that bill, particularly language requiring mandatory annual inspections for certain pipelines such as the Enbridge Line 5 that was built some 50 years ago across the Straits of Mackinac,” he said.

Upton observed that the hearing also was going to examine a Government Accountability Office report that found weaknesses in TSA’s pipeline management program (OGJ Online, Dec. 20, 2018).

When he testified, Elliot said he sympathized with the frustrations that have been expressed regarding the outstanding congressional mandates on pipelines and hazardous materials safety. “Of the 11 remaining mandates from the 2011 and 2016 Pipeline Safety Acts—there were 61 in total—three are tied to reports and other actions, and the remaining eight are tied to in-progress rulemaking efforts,” he said.

Elliott said mandates from the 2011 act—the ones that have been open the longest—are being addressed by three of PHMSA’s current rulemakings for gas transmission pipelines, hazardous liquids pipelines, and rupture detection and valves. PHMSA continues to make progress on these rules, he said. “The liquids pipelines safety rule moved out of DOT for final review several months ago. We’ve also completed our work on the gas transmission pipeline final rule and the valve and rupture detection rule. These rules are undergoing internal review at DOT,” Elliott said.

Elliott said, “I understand that many of you, and many of our stakeholders, may feel like we’re not moving fast enough on our rulemakings.”

Pipeline industry efforts

The oil industry already has programs that have helped reduce the number of US liquids pipeline incidents affecting people or the environment by 20% in the last 5 years as reported by PHMSA, another witness testified. “PHMSA data also show pipeline incidents caused by incorrect operation are down 38% and pipeline incidents impacting people or the environment caused by corrosion, cracking or weld failures are down 35% during the same period,” said Association of Oil Pipelines Pres. Andrew J. Black, who also testified on the American Petroleum Institute’s behalf.

API currently has more than 600 standards which are referenced more than 650 times in federal regulations covering PHMSA and other agencies, Black said. Specifically, API has developed many standards to address pipeline safety in close coordination with experts from government, academia, and the industry. “To improve upon our strong safety record and reach our goal of zero pipeline incidents, it is imperative that the regulatory environment and PHMSA be positioned to meet current and future safety challenges,” Black said.

He said API and AOPL have identified three priority areas where PHMSA reauthorization can support the shared objective of industry and the regulating agency in advancing pipeline safety: harnessing technology and innovation; protecting pipelines, people, and environment; and modernizing PHMSA and pipeline safety regulations.

Black said the groups recommend that Congress improve PHMSA programs and regulations by helping PHMSA hire and retain expert pipeline inspectors, improving due process in PHMSA enforcement proceedings, tailoring pipeline requirements to operating status, adjusting PHMSA incident reporting requirements for inflation, and incorporating the latest best practices on inspections, repair, and tank maintenance.

“API and AOPL oppose removing the current statutory requirement for the benefits and costs of PHMSA regulatory proposals to be identified. We believe there is no link between current PHMSA delays in rulemaking and the need to demonstrate benefits and costs of proposed regulations,” he said.

“If anything, this requirement saves time by avoiding delays with the Office of Management and Budget were PHMSA to submit a rulemaking where the costs exceed the benefits. In our view, this requirement makes for rulemakings more focused on specific pipeline safety needs and less likely to be overly broad or needlessly burdensome,” Black said.

Contact Nick Snow at [email protected].