Government, privatesector, and citizen stakeholders must collaborate to reduce pipeline risks.

On November 1, 2007, a twelve-inch liquid propane line ruptured in Clarke County, Mississippi. Over the next forty-eight hours, eleven thousand barrels of propane were released through a 636-foot-long split in the longitudinal seam. This propane vaporized, and the vapor cloud eventually ignited, causing a fire that resulted in the evacuation of 250 people from their homes and $2.1 million in property damage.

In 2006, the failed pipe was internally inspected within its legal time frame, and the cause of the failure remains unknown. The National Transportation Safety Board, Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and pipeline company continue to investigate. Clarke County, state, and federal officials want to know how this tragedy could have been prevented.

Pipelines are reportedly the safest means available to transport energy materials such as natural gas and petroleum that the United States critically needs. Transport by pipeline is safeguarded through many layers of protection designed to prevent and mitigate the consequences of pipeline incidents.

In rare occurrences, the layers of protection fail—as they did in Clarke County—having serious consequences. One woman, on oxygen and in poor health, lived in a trailer home less than twenty yards from the pipeline. When gas from the ruptured pipe filled her home and she was unable to be moved quickly enough, she begged her daughter to leave and save her own life. The daughter watched helplessly as the flames engulfed her mother and their home.

Tony Fleming, president of the Clarke County Board of Supervisors, was working in the area that day and was one of the first to respond to the explosion. When the pipe ruptured, he heard a blast, saw a fireball, and several seconds later heard a second blast. As a volunteer fireman, he instinctively started toward the scene before his pager went off. As an emergency responder, he had attended the pipeline operator’s annual safety meetings and was aware of a pipeline in the area. The emergency responders recognized the pipeline markers and knew to call the 800 number listed on them. Fleming helped coordinate the emergency response, consoled residents, and answered questions from reporters.

Improving Pipeline Safety

Since the event, Fleming has gained insights that will help county, city, and state managers improve pipeline safety. Although pipeline operators are required to communicate pipeline safety information to people living along their pipelines, residents may not recognize or retain the information. Fleming is concerned that many people living along the failed pipeline did not know of its existence and did not know how to recognize that a leak had occurred or what to do in such an event. Although emergency responders were aware of the pipeline, the county did not have maps showing the line, its size, or the product transported. Following the accident, Fleming searched tax records and located eleven pipelines in the county—all of which were subsequently added to the county maps.

Fleming witnessed the impact the accident had on the community. He is concerned that a new home has been placed on the site where the previous trailer home burned to the ground. At the time of the accident, the county had no permit requirements for dwellings located along the pipeline right of way and thus no way to prevent a replacement trailer from being installed. Compounding his concern are the calls he receives from residents worried about four new pipeline routes proposed in Clarke County. Most residents oppose the new lines and want to hire lawyers to fight the construction.

However, operators can resort to the use of eminent domain to accomplish pipeline extensions, and property owners are being asked to work with the pipeline companies to find ways to accommodate the energy pipelines in their communities. The county has held hearings to answer community questions about the pipelines, and some suggest the next step should be use of a land development approval process to bring area stakeholders together to reach a compromise.

Crossing Boundaries

Pipeline safety responsibility crosses political and sectoral boundaries: local, regional, and national stakeholders have a shared interest in pipeline safety improvement. Two months after the pipeline rupture in Clarke County, PHMSA asked stakeholders from around the country to join together at the first Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA) meeting to work on a process that could add more protection. Tony Fleming attended.

Residents of Clarke County, like many growing communities across the country, must find a way to address the issue of land use and development near pipelines. Community residents are fortunate that the incident happened after most people had left for work and children were at school. The low population density of the area also limited the extent of the tragedy.

Any citizen can play a role in reducing pipeline risks in the community by getting involved (see box). One way is to participate in the land-use and development processes, in which many questions must be answered. How much risk do pipelines pose to the community or jurisdiction? Should populations that are difficult to evacuate be given special consideration? Where can developers and planners find information about pipelines and their operators? What practices would help them minimize the risks in the event of a pipeline failure? Are there ways to utilize pipeline rights of way to enhance the community? How can new development safely coexist with pipelines? Could a buffer zone or more stringent building codes effectively reduce the hazards to the community? How do jurisdictions work together to mitigate pipeline dangers and educate the public, and how do they cooperate or subordinate in the event of a disaster?

When pipelines cross more densely populated areas or when development comes into proximity to pipelines, the risk of damage to the pipelines increases, as does the risk to populations near the lines. Figure 1 shows an increasingly familiar situation, a formerly rural area near a transmission pipeline in Washington State and the same area after construction of a new residential development.

Reducing Risk

Planners and developers often work under the pressure of conflicting goals: promoting economic viability while improving quality of life, developing infrastructure while ensuring public safety, attracting industry while limiting air and water pollution, and constructing new buildings while managing traffic congestion. They must balance community benefits and growth with individual landowner rights.

They must be aware of potential hazards and avoid them (ideally) or buffer the community from them. Pipelines are usually safe and generally invisible to the community, but they can and do pose risks. Checking pipeline location is the first step in consideration of pipeline risks in the landuse planning process (Figure 2).

As noted, pipeline regulatory protection already has many layers, beginning with established and proven pipeline design, manufacturing, and construction standards. They include regulatory requirements for pipeline operators to rigorously monitor, inspect, maintain, and protect their pipelines. Operators must also develop and maintain management practices to ensure the integrity and safe operation of their pipelines. Personnel working on pipelines must demonstrate they are qualified to perform the work. Operator personnel must demonstrate they can recognize abnormal conditions and respond appropriately to protect life and property.

In densely populated and other high-consequence areas, additional protective measures further ensure pipeline safety. These measures may include extra depth of cover over the pipe, lower allowable operating stress levels, and more stringent monitoring. PHMSA continually evaluates pipeline operator inspection and accident data to determine when operational practices need to be enhanced or other corrective actions taken.

To enhance pipeline safety, pipeline operators are required to develop and implement public awareness campaigns to communicate with people living along the pipeline, emergency responders, and government officials. They are required to provide very specific information to the affected public through public awareness programs under the American Petroleum Institute’s Recommended Practice (API RP) 1162.

Operators must inform the affected public about the potential hazards created by the pipeline in their neighborhood and how to recognize, respond to, and report a pipeline emergency. They must include in their programs procedures for advising affected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents along the pipeline; an overview of how pipelines operate; hazards that may result from activity in proximity to the pipeline; hazards due to possible pipeline operations; and measures undertaken to prevent impact to public safety, property, or the environment. They are required to give emergency and local public officials information on the location of transmission pipelines and on how operators prepare for emergencies to enhance emergency response and community growth planning.

The potential seriousness of pipeline accidents makes these many explicit instructions necessary. A significant challenge for PHMSA and the pipeline companies is ensuring that individuals and officials receive, fully understand, and implement the information sent to them as a result of API RP 1162. In an intergovernmental and intersectoral process as complicated as pipeline safety, building in detection mechanisms that serve as automatic early flags to potential problems is an important role for all stakeholders.

Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance

Local land-use planning regulations can be one marker of prospective problems. To change these practices, planners, developers, and community leaders need guidance that is straightforward and not overly burdensome. To meet this need, PHMSA initiated the year-long PIPA effort to develop risk-informed guidance for land-use planning near transmission pipelines. It is partnering with a variety of stakeholders, including state and local government, community planners, property developers, real estate professionals, concerned citizens groups, and pipeline operators. This risk-informed guidance will become an additional layer of protection.

During the inaugural PIPA meeting on January 15, 2008, stakeholder representatives presented material to illustrate the challenges they will face, potential benefits that risk-informed guidance can offer, and need to work jointly to reduce the risks associated with land use near pipeline rights of way. They represent federal government agencies, state and local government associations, pipeline industry associations, public advocacy groups, and associations representing stakeholders from outside the pipeline industry. They have expertise in risk analysis; risk communication; land-use management, planning and development; and development regulation.

Some stakeholders join out of curiosity, perhaps to learn more about pipelines or PHMSA. Some seek guidance for planning and development around pipelines. Some come to share their experiences in implementing risk-informed land-use planning in their own jurisdictions. Some have their own individual agendas, and others simply come to learn. Still others—moved as Tony Fleming was to participate— come because of local tragedies, unanswered questions, a sense of responsibility to their office, and a desire to make a difference so future lives can be spared.

Consensus Process

PHMSA is encouraging more local governments and property developers to attend the next PIPA meeting so there can be greater inclusion in the consensus strategy it is using. PHMSA is using this strategy in the PIPA effort because of its success in past similar situations. Carl Johnson, administrator of PHMSA, explains,

“PHMSA believes firmly that the most useful and practical guidance can be developed through a consensus process. A key element is promotion of all stakeholders’ interests. Participants are decision makers. Involvement is critical to obtaining endorsement of the decision-making process and ultimately support for the results from the project. Fostering input, participation, and sharing among those persons who have an investment in and adjacent to the rights of way increases the chances that the end product will be broadly implemented.”

Task Team Goals

The Transportation Research Board’s Special Report (SR) 281, Transmission Pipelines and Land Use: A Risk-Informed Approach, provides a basis for land-use practices, zoning ordinances, and preservation of environmental resources issues with regard to pipeline rights of way and their maintenance. (The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves as an independent adviser to the federal government and others on scientific and technical questions of national importance.) During the kickoff meeting for the PIPA effort, the participants divided into three task teams: protecting communities, protecting transmission pipelines, and communication. Each team developed goals using guidelines from a PIPA steering group and the recommendations of SR 281.

Protecting Communities

This team is addressing the question, “What should pipeline safety stakeholders do, or avoid doing, adjacent to the pipeline rights of way to reduce the risk to communities?” It is evaluating best practices and creating simple, risk-informed guidance for

• defining recommended characteristics of land use adjacent to transmission rights of way and
• using enhanced building codes for structures adjacent to transmission rights of way.

Protecting Transmission Pipelines

This team is addressing the question, “What should pipeline safety stakeholders do, or avoid doing, on the rights of way to reduce the risk to transmission pipelines?” It is working to

• identify acceptable landowner uses and activities on the rights of way and ways to incorporate rights-of-way space in new developments;
• compile best practices for specification, acquisition, and maintenance of the rights of way by operators (best practices are to include managing encroachments on and vegetation in the rights of way); and
• develop best practices for the management and recording of land documents for planning agencies, operators, surveyors, and landowners.

Communication

This team is investigating the question, “How should the risks to transmission pipelines and communities be communicated to pipeline safety stakeholders?” They have begun to

• examine ways to foster early communication in the land development process among stakeholders;
• determine best practices for real-estate disclosure of transmission rights of way to potential purchasers of property;
• describe benefits, risk, and risk management of pipeline transportation; and
• formulate the PIPA risk communication plan and design the format of the final PIPA work product to communicate all PIPA results to stakeholders.

Using a consensus approach, each team will work during the year to identify best practices for land-use planning and development near transmission pipelines and prepare guidance for communicating the information to various stakeholder groups. The best practice information may take the form of guidance, recommendations, model ordinances, or suggested planning policies, regulations, or legislation.

Conclusion

The Clarke County accident, and its aftermath, illustrates the issues that the task teams will be handling. One issue is that some residents along the pipeline may have been unaware of its existence, despite the requirements of API RP 1162. How do officials build more reliable notification and a clear explanation into the process? Another issue is that the county had no way to prevent the replacement of the trailer because it did not have permit requirements in place for the pipeline right of way. How do officials create a process that will provide flags to officials regarding development or occupancy activity along the pipeline right of way? These are difficult, complicated questions, but through public-private collaboration, they can be answered and the public made safer.

References

American Petroleum Institute. Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators. API Recommended Practice 1162, first edition, December 2003. committees.api.org/pipeline/ standards/index.html.

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Transmission Pipelines and Land Use: A Risk-Informed Approach. Special Report 281 (Washington, DC: 2004). onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr281.pdf.