Natural Gas Pipeline Safety is a Myth!
San Bruno, CA - Following another deadly natural gas pipeline rupture and explosion, it becomes clear that there are few safety standards and the promises of safety made by natural gas pipeline operator corporations like PG&E, El Paso and others are nothing less than blatant deceptions of the public trust. Federal regulators at PHMSA are beholden to corporate interests, NOT to public safety.
The recent disaster in San Bruno, CA following a natural gas pipeline explosion is just the latest in a string of deadly pipeline explosions over the years. Our pipeline infrastructure keeps increasing with new gas and oil pipelines constantly being constructed, though none of the older pipelines being properly maintained. The evidence of constant pipeline explosions and resulting fatalities over the years shows that extreme neglect is the norm for the pipeline's corporate operators, and looking the other way is the norm for federal regulators at PHMSA.
"Oil and gas industry writes its own standards"
Critics decry 'conflict of interest'
By Andrew Restuccia 8/13/10 5:31 PM
"This story is the third in a series on federal oversight of the nation's 2.3 million miles of oil and natural gas pipelines. You can read the first story here and the second story here.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the federal agency that oversees the country's 2.3 million miles of oil and natural gas pipelines, has adopted as part of its regulations all or parts of at least 29 standards written by the oil and natural gas industry.
The revelation, which comes to light as part of an investigation into pipeline safety by The Washington Independent, raises significant questions about the relationship between PHMSA and the industry that it regulates. It also feeds into comparisons between the agency and the now-defunct Minerals Management Service, which was in charge of permitting and licensing offshore drilling projects in the run-up to the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill.
PHMSA has come under increased scrutiny in the aftermath of a July 26 pipeline break near Battle Creek, Mich., that bled nearly 1 million gallons of oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. While an investigation into the cause of the spill is ongoing, environmentalists and advocacy groups have been quick to criticize PHMSA, arguing that the agency doesn't require adequate inspections of the nation's pipeline system and it has a too-cozy relationship with industry.
For her part, PHMSA Administrator Cynthia Quarterman, who took over the agency in Nov. 2009, has promised to reform the agency. But Quarterman herself has close ties to the oil industry, working as legal counsel for Enbridge Energy, the very company that owns the pipeline that burst in Michigan.
Now, The Independent has learned, PHMSA has adopted a series of industry standards by reference in its Pipeline Safety Regulations. At least 29 standards were written by two powerful industry trade groups: the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Gas Association (AGA). API, which represents both the oil and natural gas industries and is a powerful lobbying force in Washington, authored 27 of the standards. AGA, which represents 195 natural gas companies around the country, has authored two standards, according to a list provided by PHMSA.
"There's kind of a basic conflict of interest there if you're letting industry develop part of things and then you adopt them as regulations," said Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, a non-profit group that advocates for fuel transportation safety.
The industry standards touch on a number of issues key to ensuring pipeline safety, including pipeline welding, monitoring for liquid pipelines, evaluating the strength of corroded pipelines and testing pipeline pressure.
But even though these standards have been adopted as federal regulations, they continue to be the property of the oil and gas industry. As a result, public access to these standards is severely restricted. If a member of the public wants to see one of the standards, they must travel to the PHMSA headquarters in Washington or purchase the standard from API or AGA. Industry groups see the standards as proprietary information and therefore will not allow PHMSA to publish them on its web site.
"What makes this worse is that those standards are still the property of industry," Weimer said.
Weimer has focused much of his scrutiny on a 2003 API standard that has been adopted by PHMSA. The standard outlines a process for oil and natural gas companies to alert nearby residents to the presence of a pipeline in their area. Weimer argues that API has no business writing such a standard. The standard should be written by an outside group with experience communicating important information to people, he said.
"The American Petroleum Institute is clearly a group that lobbies on behalf of industry, and sometimes they are developing standards that they really don't have expertise in. API doesn't have some deep understanding of how you communicate with the public about a pipeline," Weimer said.
API's public awareness standard, a read-only version of which has been published online by API after prodding from Weimer and others, says, "A more informed public along pipeline routes should supplement an operator's pipeline safety measures and should contribute to reduce the likelihood and potential impact of pipeline emergencies and releases." But the standard also stresses that "pipelines are a relatively safe mode of transportation, that pipeline operators undertake a variety of measures to prevent pipeline accidents, and that pipeline operators anticipate and plan for management of accidents if they occur."
While pipeline accidents are rare, they can be deadly. According to PHMSA records, there were 265 "significant incidents" in the U.S. pipeline system last year, resulting in 14 deaths, 63 injuries and more than $152 million in property damage.
Incidents involving natural gas resulted in 10 deaths and 59 injuries — most commonly caused by equipment failure and corrosion. But, a previous story found, PHMSA does not have the mandate, or the staff, to oversee the millions of miles of pipelines crossing the country. Federal law mandates that PHMSA require only seven percent of the country's natural gas pipelines and just 44 percent of the country's liquid pipelines to be inspected.
PHMSA, responding to questions about the standards in a written statement, said it is bound by law to incorporate by reference acceptable standards into its regulations. The agency cited the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, which directs federal agencies to adopt standards set by "voluntary consensus standard bodies" when possible, rather than writing their own standards.
The Office of Management and Budget defines voluntary consensus standards as "technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, both domestic and international," PHMSA said, noting that "every U.S. government technical regulatory agency uses consensus standards."
The public has access to the standards at the Department of Transportation's headquarters in Washington or at the Government Printing Office, PHMSA noted. "PHMSA is actively working with standards organizations to urge them to provide better access to standards they have authored," the statement said.
While federal law requires federal agencies to consider adopting standards, Weimer said PHMSA should take more precautions with the standards it adopts. PHMSA had adopted a total of 69 standards. Beyond the 29 written by the oil and natural gas industry, the others were written by more technical groups like the American Society of Mechanical Engineers or the National Fire Protection Association.
"Some of these standards are developed by groups like National Association of Corrosion Engineers. So, some of these groups really do have lots of expertise in the area and it makes sense," Weimer said. But groups like API, Weimer argued, should not be developing standards because they have too much of an interest in the outcome of regulations.
Peter Lidiak, pipeline director at API, said PHMSA is not doing anything wrong in adotping industry standards as regulations. "They're doing what they are supposed to be doing. We wouldn't put out a standard if we didn't think it was an appropriate set of guidelines for the industry to follow," he said, adding, "We do often suggest to them that they might look at a standard that we have put in place rather than writing all new regulations if they address the same thing."
On the issue of public access to the standards, Lidiak stresses that the standards are proprietary information, but notes that industry groups provide copies to PHMSA for public inspection. "If somebody wanted a bound copy, they'd have to pay to see them. But we provide a copy of all of our pipeline related standards to PHMSA," Lidiak said. "And I will grant you, it's not convenient for somebody living in Kansas City to come to PHMSA's office."
Lidiak also stressed that PHMSA reviews all industry standards before adopting them and can choose to adopt them in part if necessary. PHMSA also allows public comment on the standards, he said. A spokesperson for AGA did not return a request for comment.
Ultimately though, Weimer isn't satisfied with the the standards and the lack of public access to them. "We believe in transparency. The more information that's available to the public, the better," he said."
above article found here;
"California Gas Explosion Raises New Questions About Pipeline Safety."
By Andrew Restuccia 9/10/10 11:06 AM
"At least four people are dead in San Bruno, Calif., after a natural gas pipeline break caused an explosion that leveled dozens of homes and damaged many others.
Quite a few questions remain about what caused the explosion and details are still unfolding. But the explosion will likely bring more attention to the issue of pipeline safety, which I've written about extensively in a series of articles published this summer.
As I reported in August, many industry observers say pipeline oversight by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is severely lacking.
According to my story:
A 2002 law mandates the inspection of pipes in "high consequence areas" — regions near natural resources like rivers, or populated ares like towns or cities. But because only portions of pipeline in the high consequence areas must undergo safety inspections, companies are under no federal regulatory obligation to adequately or consistently inspect thousands of miles of pipeline outside of those areas.
In addition, I reported that there are no federal regulations that require pipelines to be set back a safe distance from houses or commercial buildings.
Moreover, there are no federal laws or regulations to ensure that houses and commercial buildings are constructed a safe distance away from pipelines. This lack of a so-called "setback" regulation raises particular concerns when it comes to natural gas pipelines, which, if broken, can burst into flames causing huge fireballs.
"There aren't any regulations at all about setbacks. You can build a house right next to a pipeline," Weimer says. The only rule regarding setbacks is that a landowner cannot build on the right of way easement used to build the pipeline, Julia Piscitelli, a PHMSA spokesperson says. "Generally, pipeline burial locations are determined by local, county and state ordinances," she said."
above article found here;
link to washingtonindependent.com
So far in 2010 the PHMSA lists 38 incidents involving pipelines. CHEC has an online data sheet listing all these incidents;
Created Aug 23, 2010 by Conrad Volz
"Data pertaining to gas transmission and gas gathering incident data. Incidents data includes: significance, operator name, location, commodity released, causes, injuries, site descriptions, minimum value for property damage, value or volume of product lost and criterion for fire and/or explosion, etc. The 2010 to present PHMSA flagged data set reports 38 total incidents across the country. Thirty Three (33) or about 87% of these incidents were reported as significant incidents."
find data here;
Please contact PHMSA and demand that they do their job to prevent future pipeline explosions;
Another way to prevent future pipeline disasters is to not build any more needless pipelines across long distances! Although construction on the 680 mile Ruby Pipeline has already begun, it is not too late to try and stop this monstrosity from crossing pristine desert ecosystems.
from Great Basin Resource Watch;
"Ruby Pipeline Action Page
The Ruby Pipeline L.L.C. (El Paso Corporation) Project which will transport natural gas from Wyoming through northern Utah and northern Nevada to Oregon is moving along quickly. However, there is still time to take action in stalling this project until all environmental and cultural impacts, as well as alternative routes, have been fully studied. Please download and sign the following letters (or write your own personalized letter) to Senator Harry Reid and Ron Wenker of the BLM.
The proposed route will traverse across Northern Nevada, through undisturbed land, and will have damaging impacts on areas of envirnmental and cultural significance.
California will be the beneficiary of the natural gas while Nevada will bear the majority of the negative environmental and cultural impacts. The damaging impacts could be avoided if a route was chosen along existing corridors such as Interstate 80 and the West-Wide Energy Corridors. It appears that El Paso Corporation is avoiding California at all costs, possibly due to stricter environmental laws in California or because the cost to do business is higher in the Golden State. Or...maybe El Paso Corporation wants to avoid California because they were found gulity of manipulating the natural gas energy market in California during the 2000-2001 energy crisis which resulted in blackouts and soaring natural gas prices in California. This Class Action suit resulted in El Paso Corporation paying the state of California $1.7 billion over the next 20 years.
Regardless of the reason to why El Paso does not traverse through California, the fact that El Paso does not use existing corridors will result in devastating environmental effects on, but not limited to, Greater Sage Grouse and its habitat in northern Nevada. The proposed route will also traverse directly through areas of cultural significance to Native Americans. This is evident where the proposed route will go directly through Barrel Springs in northern Washoe County, which is a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) boundary of the Fort Bidwell Indian Community, and is thus potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Ruby Pipeline L.L.C. has not provided a satisfactory explanation to why other less environmentally damaging alternative routes were not fully studied. Why is the West-Wide Energy Corridor (WWEC) being disregarded as an alternative route when the Federal Government has allocated substantial time and money to it? The Ruby Pipeline Project is a perfect example of a project that should utilize the existing energy corridors! In addition to the WWEC corridor, Ruby Pipeline L.L.C. has neglected to offer a thorough examination of other routes such as the Black Rock, Sheldon, and Interstate 80 routes. Not only does Ruby Pipeline L.L.C. need to report on why they prefer their proposed route, but they are also required by law to report extensively through detailed analyses on why they have not chosen other alternative routes. A paragraph or two in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) explaining why these alternative routes were eliminated is not acceptable. In addition, The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 states that in managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands. In light of the alternative routes, the proposed route does cause unnecessary and undue degradation of undisturbed public lands.
As with the Sierra Club, we would like to see the pipeline follow an alternate route (highlighted in blue above) that will have less severe environmental and cultural impacts. Click the map for a larger view.
In addition to the route concerns, the final EIS, issued on January 8, 2010, is inadequate and incomplete. Environmental and cultural reports continue to be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These reports should have been include in the final EIS as required by law. Most disturbing to the cultural studies shortfall is the fact that government-to-government consultation with native tribal communities has been limited to nonexistent. This lack of consultation is a violation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The lack of consultation with native tribal communities is also a direct violation of Executive Order 13175 which directly addresses consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and President Obama's Order of Transparency and Open Government in which Obama states "we will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration". However, neither tribes nor conservation groups were consulted regarding the proposed pipeline route. Consultation would have alleviated many concerns.
So, please take a moment to download, sign, and mail the letters at the top of this page to slow down this fast paced process!"
article found here;
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion