We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
After nearly a year of discussions in both chambers, the U.S.
Congress passed the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011 (HR 2845) and presented it to the President on
Dec. 23, 2011. The proposed changes would greatly increase the
review and oversight of pipeline systems and pipeline safety
requirements. Some of the major provisions include:
Additional requirements imposed on pipeline owners and
operators:
The Act requires pipeline owners/operators to verify records
for accurate contents relating to physical and operational
characteristics and to confirm the maximum allowable operating
pressure (MAOP) for pipes located in High Consequence Areas as well
as Class 3 and Class 4 areas. In situations where the pipeline
records are inadequate to confirm the MAOP, the owner or operator
must "reconfirm a maximum allowable operating pressure as
expeditiously as economically feasible; and . . . determine what
actions are appropriate for the pipeline owner or operator to take
to maintain safety until a maximum allowable operating pressure is
confirmed." 49 U.S.C. § 60139(c). This process can be
costly. In addition, all exceedances of the MAOP in each segment of
a pipeline must be reported to the appropriate authority within
five days after the exceedance occurred.
The Act extends to FY2015 the authorization of the Pipeline
Safety Improvement Act of 2002. The fees collected under 49 U.S.C
§ 60301 (pipeline user fees) totaled $90.7 Million. The Act
also establishes a Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund in the
Treasury.
Applicants seeking a waiver of a pipeline safety requirement
under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(c) or (d) are no longer entitled to
judicial review of a waiver denial.
Within two years of enactment, regulations are to require the
use of automatic or remote controlled shut-off valves for new
transmission pipelines "where economically, technically, and
operationally feasible."
Increases the penalties for violations of pipeline safety
requirements:
Civil penalties for violating pipeline safety rules were
increased from $100,000 per day/$1 million maximum for a series of
violations to $200,000 per day/$2 million maximum for a series of
violations. The Act defines a "major consequence
violation" to be an incident resulting in one or more deaths
or injuries or illnesses requiring hospitalizations and
environmental harm exceeding $250,000 in damages.
The administrative penalty caps which limit the amount of civil
penalties that can be sought in administrative enforcement
proceedings are not applicable to civil penalties issued under 49
U.S.C. § 60120 for pipeline transportation and pipeline
facility safety violations.
USDOT has authority to seek civil penalties against persons
that interfere and/or obstruct an inspection or investigation.
Requires pipeline safety-related studies:
PHMSA must conduct a study on the status of cast iron pipe
replacement every other year.
PHMSA must conduct a study on the impacts pipeline safety has
on damages experienced by third parties.
PHMSA is to analyze whether integrity management programs
should be expanded beyond high consequence areas and whether the
expansion of the integrity management programs would reduce the
need for class location requirements.
The Secretary of Transportation is to review and report on the
sufficiency of safety regulations for gas and hazardous liquid
gathering lines both onshore and offshore, including the inlets of
the Gulf of Mexico, within two years of the effective date of the
Act.
PHMSA must conduct a study on the technical limitations of
current leak detections systems, with an emphasis on the ability to
detect ruptures and small leaks for high consequence areas.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
