NTSB Safety Recommendation P-12-009

NTSB safety recommendation P-12-009.

TO THE PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Amend Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 194 to harmonize onshore oil pipeline response planning requirements with those of the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for facilities that handle and transport oil and petroleum products to ensure that pipeline operators have adequate resources available to respond to worst-case discharges.

Priority: CLASS II

Overall Status: Closed - Acceptable Alternate Action

Issued Date: 2012-07-25

Adopted Date: 2012-07-10

Overall Date Closed: 2018-02-21

Synopsis: On Sunday, July 25, 2010, about 5:58 p.m., eastern daylight time, a segment of a 30-inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B), owned and operated by Enbridge Incorporated (Enbridge) ruptured in a wetland in Marshall, Michigan. The rupture occurred during the last stages of a planned shutdown and was not discovered or addressed for 17 hours. During the time lapse, Enbridge twice pumped additional oil (81 percent of the total release) into Line 6B during two startups; the total release was estimated to be 843,444 gallons of crude oil. The oil saturated the surrounding wetlands and flowed into the Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. Local residents self-evacuated from their houses, and the environment was negatively affected. Cleanup efforts continue as of the adoption date of this report, with continuing costs exceeding $767 million. About 320 people reported symptoms consistent with benzene exposure. No fatalities were reported.

Probable Cause: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determines that the probable cause of the pipeline rupture was corrosion fatigue cracks that grew and coalesced from crack and corrosion defects under disbonded polyethylene tape coating, producing a substantial crude oil release that went undetected by the control center for over 17 hours. The rupture and prolonged release were made possible by pervasive organizational failures at Enbridge Incorporated (Enbridge) that included the following: Deficient integrity management procedures, which allowed well-documented crack defects in corroded areas to propagate until the pipeline failed. Inadequate training of control center personnel, which allowed the rupture to remain undetected for 17 hours and through two startups of the pipeline. Insufficient public awareness and education, which allowed the release to continue for nearly 14 hours after the first notification of an odor to local emergency response agencies. Contributing to the accident was the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) weak regulation for assessing and repairing crack indications, as well as PHMSA’s ineffective oversight of pipeline integrity management programs, control center procedures, and public awareness. Contributing to the severity of the environmental consequences were (1) Enbridge’s failure to identify and ensure the availability of well-trained emergency responders with sufficient response resources, (2) PHMSA’s lack of regulatory guidance for pipeline facility response planning, and (3) PHMSA’s limited oversight of pipeline emergency preparedness that led to the approval of a deficient facility response plan.

Ntsbnumber: DCA10MP007

Report Number: PAR-12-01

Addressee Name: PHMSA

Addressee Status: Closed - Acceptable Alternate Action

Addressee Date Closed: 2018-02-21

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2020-06-12

Communication Type: NPRM Response

Communication Contents: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has reviewed the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) April 16, 2020, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Pipeline Safety: Regulatory Reform for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines. In this notice, PHMSA is requesting comment on proposals to repeal, replace, or revise sections in Parts 190, 194, and 195 of the federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. The NTSB also issued the following recommendation to PHMSA as a result of the Marshall, Michigan, accident investigation: To PHMSA: Amend Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 194 to harmonize onshore oil pipeline response planning requirements with those of the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for facilities that handle and transport oil and petroleum products to ensure that pipeline operators have adequate resources available to respond to worst-case discharges. (P-12-9) Closed?Acceptable Alternate Action On November 13, 2017, PHMSA informed the NTSB that it had harmonized its review of oil spill response plans, in practice and policy, with those of the USCG and EPA. PHMSA stated that it had adopted a policy of using the USCG’s Guidelines for Determining and Evaluating Required Response Resources for Facility Response Plans and the response resource inventory to assess and verify the adequacy of response resources in oil spill response plans. As a result of this action, on February 21, 2018, the NTSB determined that PHMSA’s adoption of this policy was an acceptable alternate response to amending Part 194 to harmonize facility response planning requirements with those of the USCG and EPA. The NTSB therefore classified Safety Recommendation P-12-9 as Closed? Acceptable Alternate Action.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2018-02-21

Communication Type: Official Correspondence

Communication Contents: We note that you recently harmonized the procedures you use when reviewing oil spill response plans with those of the USCG and the EPA. As a result, you adopted a policy of using the USCG’s Response Resource Inventory and its “Guidelines for Determining and Evaluating Required Response Resources for Facility Response Plans,” contained in 33 CFR Part 154, Appendix C, when you assess and verify the adequacy of response resources in the oil spill response plans that you require. The adoption of this policy is an alternate response to amending Part 194 that satisfies Safety Recommendation P-12-9, which is classified CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE RESPONSE.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2016-12-05

Communication Type: Official Correspondence

Communication Contents: We understand that you plan to conduct a rulemaking to address this recommendation. To this end, you are taking the lessons learned from your studies and your April 12, 2016, public workshop to develop a “good practices” guide for completing oil spill response plans for onshore oil pipelines, which will be the basis for developing regulatory options to meet this recommendation, will improve and update other aspects of the regulations, and will address changes included in your pipeline reauthorization. We note that this guide will be available to the public this fall. Pending completion of these efforts and our review of the final rules, Safety Recommendation P-12-9 is classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2014-01-03

Communication Type: Official Correspondence

Communication Contents: We are encouraged that, following the Macondo Well incident, PHMSA implemented an action plan to fortify its planning and preparedness functions and is now working with the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to revise the Preparedness for Response Exercise Program guidance, to enhance communications with area committees, and to improve environmental protection, among other efforts. Pending completion of the recommended actions, Safety Recommendation P-12-9 remains classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2015-04-08

Communication Type: Official Correspondence

Communication Contents: We understand that you are collaborating with other federal agencies to revise your oil spill response plan program, and have (1) issued ADB-2014-01 regarding the preparation of facility response plans and (2) revised your review processes to verify consistency with 33 CFR Part 154, Appendix C. We are encouraged that you continue to study and evaluate ways to better harmonize 49 CFR Part 194 with the regulations of other agencies, and that you intend to make any needed changes in that regard when you next update Part 194. Pending timely completion of the recommended action, Safety Recommendation P-12-9 remains classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2013-01-11

Communication Type: Official Correspondence

Communication Contents: The NTSB notes that PHMSA is continuing to work with the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, to revise the Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) guidance, to enhance communications with area committees, and to improve environmental protection. We also note that these agencies will determine what actions are needed to better align the objectives, content, form, and format of facility response plans. Pending completion of the recommended rulemaking, Safety Recommendation P-12-9 is classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2017-11-13

Communication Type: Official Correspondence

Communication Contents: -From Howard R. Elliott, Administrator: PHMSA requests the NTSB consider this recommendation "Closed-Acceptable Alternate Action." Previously, PHMSA had informed the NTSB that we would address this recommendation through a rulemaking action. However, PHMSA believes that a rulemaking is unnecessary to meet the intent of this recommendation. PHMSA harmonized its review of oil spill response plans, in practice and policy, with those of the USCG and EPA. PHMSA adopted a policy of using the USCG' s "Guidelines for Determining and Evaluating Required Response Resources for Facility Response Plans" (found in 33 CFR Part 154, Appendix C) and the Response Resource Inventory (RRI) to assess and verify the adequacy of response resources in oil spill response plans. Additionally, on April 12, 2016, PHMSA held a public workshop to share knowledge and experiences with oil spill response planning and preparedness and discuss practical ways onshore oil pipeline operators can better plan and prepare for an oil spill. NTSB's attendance at the workshop was appreciated. During the public workshop, we discussed our review procedures and how we use the USCG guidelines and RRI to determine whether pipeline operators have sufficient resources to respond to a worst-case discharge. PHMSA is taking the lessons learned from our studies and this workshop to develop a "Good Practices" guide for completing oil spill response plans. PHMSA had previously reported that the "Good Practices" guide would be available to the public by October 31, 2016. However, due to other pressing priorities, the publish date has been delayed to December 2017.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2016-08-17

Communication Type: Official Correspondence

Communication Contents: -From Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator: PHMSA plans to conduct a rulemaking to address this recommendation. As first steps, PHMSA is taking the lessons learned from our studies and the workshop to develop a "Good Practices" guide for completing oil spill response plans for onshore oil pipelines. The guide will serve as the basis for developing regulatory options to meet this recommendation, improve and update other aspects of the regulations, and address changes included in PHMSA's pipeline reauthorization. The "Good Practices" guide will be available to the public by October 31, 2016. PHMSA has studied and evaluated methods to harmonize its Prut 194- Response Plans for Onshore Pipelines with regulations promulgated by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Department of Interior regulations were also examined for off-shore facilities. During this period, PHMSA revisited and re-engineered its oil spill response plan review and approval processes to apply what has been learned and has re-engaged with stakeholders and agencies having responsibilities under the national response system. In practice and policy, PHMSA has harmonized its review of oil spill response plans with those of USCG and EPA, since the primary tools PHMSA uses to verify the adequacy of response resources are the USCG's "Guidelines for Determining and Evalua6ng Required Response Resources for Facility Response Plru1s" (found in 33 CFR Part 154, Appendix C) and the Response Resource Inventory (RRI). The RRI is a national database of response resources that is maintained by the USCG, as required by the Clean Water Act as amended. The RRI includes data received from companies that wish to have their equipment listed in a publicly-accessible system, as well as data generated from the Oil Spill Removal Organizations (OSRO) classification program. Participation by private industry is voluntary, except for classified OSROs whose participation becomes mandatory when they apply for a classification. The EPA regulations found 40 CFR Part 1 12, Appendix E, references the USCG regulations and have similar resource calculation worksheets as those found in USCG guidelines. On April 12, 2016, PHMSA hosted a public workshop to share knowledge and experiences with oil spill response planning and preparedness and discuss practical ways onshore oil pipeline operators can better plan and prepare for oil spills. The NTSB's attendance at the workshop is appreciated. During the public workshop, we discussed our review procedures and how we use the USCG guidelines and RRI to determine whether pipeline operators have sufficient resources to respond to a worst case discharge. Further, we highlighted that an operator must have resources available to respond to a spill anywhere within a response zone that is determined by the operator.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2013-08-29

Communication Type: Official Correspondence

Communication Contents: -From Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator: Following the Macondo Well incident, PHMSA implemented an action plan designed to fortify our planning and preparedness functions. Our action plan, plus this recommendation, drove PHMSA to redouble its work with counterparts in the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to revise the Preparedness for Response Exercise Program guidance, enhance communications with Area Committees, and improve the environmental protection provided by the most effective combination of federal response resources and tactics available for use along any onshore oil pipeline. We also drove Enbridge to make major improvements to its related spill response plans. PHMSA has successfully coordinated a cooperative review of the revised Enbridge Facility Response Plan with the USCG, the EPA, and the National Energy Board (of Canada) resulting Enbridge making the needed changes to its response plan. This plan is now publically available and serves as the model for other pipeline operators. There are differences in regulatory requirements, capabilities, and resources available among the various federal agencies involved with spill due to differences in mission, organizational size, and level of staffing. PHMSA continues work with its counterpart agencies to better harmonize the objectives, content, form, and format of facility response plans to be consistent with the calculations and assumptions of the USCG regulations.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2015-01-22

Communication Type: Official Correspondence

Communication Contents: -From Timothy P. Butters, Acting Administrator: PHMSA is revisiting and revitalizing its oil spill response plan program and collaborating on these efforts with other Federal agencies. • On January 28, 2014, PHMSA issued ADB-2014-01, "Conforming Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to Appendix A to Part 194-"Guidelines for the Preparation of Response Plans" and Identifying Deficiencies" to remind operators of the circumstances of the Marshall, Michigan, pipeline accident and the need to update FRPs every five years and when new or different operating conditions would affect the implementation of a response plan. • We have revised our Facility Response Plan review processes to include checks for consistency with 33 CFR Part 154, Appendix C, "Guidelines for Determining and Evaluating Required Response Resources for Facility Response Plans," cited in Appendix A to Part 194. • We are participating in the update of the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines with the EPA, USCG and BSEE. PHMSA continues its study and evaluation of ways to better harmonize Part 194 – Response Plans for Onshore Pipelines with regulations promulgated by other agencies and intends to incorporate any needed harmonization or other changes in the next Part 194 update rule.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Date: 2012-11-01

Communication Type: Official Correspondence

Communication Contents: -From Cynthia Quarterman, Administrator: PHMSA acknowledges there may be potential benefit in having more harmonization or more standardized methods of determining response resources among the plan agencies (i.e., USCG, US EPA, US DOI). In promulgating the Facility Response Plan Regulations at 49 CFR, PHMSA noted that this standardization is especially beneficial in cases where a pipeline is part of a complex facility - a facility regulated by more than one federal agency under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.a After the Marshall, MI incident, PHMSA commissioned the Volpe Transportation Systems Center to perform a benchmarking study among the review and approval processes among the four agencies. The Volpe Center drafted a report with findings concerning the business processes used by each agency: 1) where the reviews were conducted (Field or Headquarters), 2) the number of plans reviewed by each agency, 3) staff devoted by each agency to the process, 4) secondary (Quality Assurance) reviews, and 5) use of exercises to validate plan content. These findings showed some differences in business practices that caused PHMSA to coordinate with the other approving agencies more closely. PHMSA conducted joint meetings with USCG, EPA and BOEMRE (now BSEE), that have resulted in a review process that is more similar to the other agencies. Specifically, PHMSA: • Has increased the number of plan reviewers; • Determined that it will incorporate Regional input into each plan’s review; • Increased its consultation with EPA via its Headquarters Office of Emergency Management, and • Will implement a secondary review of each plan for consistency and quality assurance PHMSA does reference Appendix C to the U.S. Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR Part 154 as guidance for determining response resources needed to remove a worst case discharge. EPA adopted many of those planning concepts concerning the type and amount of response equipment from USCG rulemaking in its response planning regulation for non-transportation-related facilities (40 CFR Part 112, Appendix E). In most instances, plans for pipeline are already using the USCG’s and EPA’s method for planning response resources for a worst case discharge. There are differences in capabilities and resources available among each of the agencies. This is due in large part to the difference in mission, organizational size, and staffing. Because of its small size, PHMSA has traditionally taken a more performance-based approach to aspects of its safety regulations of pipeline systems. We have recently redoubled our efforts working with our counterparts in the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement in revising the Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) guidance, enhancing communications with Area Committees, and seeking to improve the environmental protection provided by the best combination of response resources and response tactics available along any onshore oil pipeline. That said, enhancing the harmonization among the regulations proposed in the Board’s recommendation may require additional resources for the agencies involved. PHMSA will continue to work with our counterpart agencies to determine if enhanced communications, cooperation, or regulations are needed to better align the objectives, content, form, and format of facility response plans.

Addressee Acronym: PHMSA

Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government

Communication Type: Official Correspondence