NTSB Safety Recommendation Letter P-95-018 through P-95-019

Page 1Official PDFWmhingtoi~, DC. 20.594 on Mr. J m E. Davis &ecutive Director Anmican Society of Civil Fngmeers 1015 l.5th street, N.W., Suite 600 Wasl~ington, D.C. 2ooo5-2605 About 11:SS pm. on March 23, 1994, a 3 & i h diamter pipeline owned and operated by Texas Eastern Trammission Corporalion ('IEKD) ruptured ca~oplGcaUy in =son T o ~ h i p , New Jersey, within an asphalt plant c x m p d . n e force of the rupture and of natural gas escaping at a pressure of about 970 p i g (pounds per s q u a ~ inch gauge) excavated the soil around the pipe and blew gas Iiundreds of feet into the air, propelling pipe hpnts, rocks, and debris m r e than 800 feet. Within 1 to 2 minutes of the rupture, ow of several possible SOIXCZS ignited the escaping gas, s e h g flm upward 400 to 500 feet in the air. Heat radiating from the massive fire ignited the roofs of several building roofs in a nearby aparhnxt complex. Occupants, alerted to the emergency by noises from escaping gas and rocks llitting the roofs, fled from the burning buildings. Approxu~nately 1,500 aptmnt residents were evacuated. Miraculously, IX) deaths directly resulted from the rupture and resulting fire" Most injuries were nlinor foot burns and cuts that the apartment residents sustained from the hot paveimnt and glass slm& as they fled the complex. Damage from the accident exceeded $25 million.' In the early 196os, wlien TEiXB was planning to add a new pipeline, which it designated Line 20, across New Jersey, the accident site was in a Class 2 lmtion, Le., an area. that was on the friige of a township, that was used for farming or for industrial pupses, and that had fewer than 20 buildings intended for 1 1 m occupa~~y withiin 1 square mile. In I For imre detailed infomr;ition, read pipeline Arrident Report-Tam Emret-ri Ttrozsmis,siotz corpO@btz Ndriral Gnr pipehe Explosiori od Fire, Ecfison, New .Je/sey, Mwch 2.3, 1994 (iVEB/PAR-95/01). 6362A#

Page 22 anticipation of residential growth, the pipeline company clesigned the line using, as a minhum, the more restrictive Class 3 lmtion standarris. When TETcy> built Line 20, the conlpany complied fully with New Jersey statutes that r ~ w high-pressure p i p e l k be constructed away from buildings. However, the State statutes had EO provisions limiting the construction of buildings adjacent to pipelines. Over the years, as local governments granted pennits for building construction near Line 20, the original separation distance between the pipeline and structures was substantially reduced. l i e Safety Board has previously identified the need for local and State government agemies, which generally have the authority to control land use and building construction, to cortsider the public safety risks presented by pipelii in urban settings. Following its investigation of a March 15, 1983, pipeline accident in West Odessa, Texas: in Wlkh six people died, the Safety Board expi& comrn about the responsibilities of planning officials and about goverrrment land-use policies. In that accident, an ownedresident in a new housing development and his relative were drilling holes with an auger to plant t~m when they struck and nrptured a licpid petroleum gas (Lpc;) pipelk. The escapmg gas initially p l e d and vaporized, foiinhg an explosive gas-in& i n h e that was ignited. l i e LPGbemg blown into die air by the pressure in the line then ignited, forming a fkeball that e@& the relative operating the auger and the resident's home. The auger oprator and the four residents of the mbde home were b d fatally; the owner sustained serious burns and died 5 days later. The fire also tlreatened the residents of the home on the adjoining lot. They escaped with minor buns only by braking and fleeing through a back window in their home. As a result of the West Odessa mident investigation, the Safety Board concluded that new public policy should Lx: developed to improve public safety as it relates to the proximity of pipelines to populated areas, including: uefining the role of Fedeid, State, and local guvermnts concerning land planning for land adjacent to pipelii; Placing resnictions on the use of land adjacent to p i p e l k ; I)ete&ng what information should be communicated to prospective use~s about adjacent pipelii; and Informing prospective users abut the existem of and potential lwards of nearby p i p e k . ,i i#

Page 33 The Board further concluded that craftiig public policy for land developmnt adjacent to pipelines would require extensive research and would involve incoiporatingtlie view frornnmy interests, including the general public, pipeline operators, land developers, local, State, and Federal g o v e m n t ageides, and m y others. Noting the ability of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy of Sciences to bring diverse interests group together to formulate practical public safety policy, the Safety Board m m a that the TRB: Assess the adequacy of existing pubIic policy for surface and subsurface use of l a d actjacmt to pipelines that transport hazardous commodities to provide reasonable public safety. Based on the findings of the assessmnt, develop a r e c m m d e d policy to correct identifie3 deficiencies in current policy (P-84-30)" In 1988, the "3 published Pipelines ad public Safety (Special Report 219): which syi~~esizd policies and practices for e d m i n g public safety near p i p e h a through damage prevention progmm, lad-use ~ m u r e s , ad einergency preparedness program. The report identified imiy policies and practices used to enhance public safety near pipelines, but conclded that governmnt and industry applies these measu~es unevenly. 'Ihe report r e c o m d e d that State and local govermnts: e Enact damage prevention statutes that clarify enforcement responsibfity, increase wntractor liability, and stipulate that permitting agencies inwt require, as a widition ofpennit approval, pr'oof that applicants for build- ing or excavation permits have notified the pipeline wxpny/oneCall system Prohibit construction of structures on pipeline rights-of-way and e m access to pipelks is unobstructed. e Institute a refenal and approval procedure that requires pipeline operator review of suklivision plans, site plans, and variances for all properties that have a pipeline easement. e Modernize land records system to ensure tllat information about the twpes of easements, easement boundaries, a d holders of easements by p m l is readily accessible to local plau~rs. e Prepare, in wmultation with pipeline operators and developers, platlming guidelines for safely integrating pipelices easem~ib d o developnmt pro- ,jects and protecting the lines during wnsh.uction; incorporate these guidelims in comprehensive plans, zoning o r d k m , and building codes. Natioid Amdeny of Sciences, Trarlrportation Research Board, Pipeher md Rcbk (Spcid R e p ? 219), Washington, D.C,#

Page 44 Q Consider building setbacks and lowdensity developmnt near transmission pipeline rights-of-way in densely ppulated areas with high concentrations of pipeline mileage where the iisks of damaging a pipeline m y be sufficiently great, and tlie consequerlces sufficiently severe to wmnt p i a l measures; provide developmnt bonuses to compensate the developer for loss of developable property. l i e report also included nmlelfsample documents for damage prevention legislation, right-of-way agreemeilts, State legislation for subdivision plan review, guidelines for suwivision developnlents near pipeline rights-of-way, and local setback ordinances. After reviewing the TRE3 report, the I?epartmnt OfTranSpOrtation's Research and Special Progtans Adrninistration (RSPA) "wholeheartedly" supported the report's ~ecommendation that local govemnts should determirle the appropriate use of land ~lear pipelines ard enact laws to prevent development on pipeline rights-of-way. Fo!.lowing the Edison accident, RSPA contracted the New Jersey Institute of Technology 0 in August 1994 to perform a study on methods to reduce the risks and enhance pipeline safety and envhormntal protection with respect to the siting and proximity of pipelks to the public and sensitive enviromnts. RSPA noted that the existing populatiorrbasd ~equirements, which were considered aLzequate for assessing risk in the past, proved to be inadequate in the Edison, New Jersey accident. RSPA acknowledged the need to reevaluate pipeline safety regulations in 49 C3;R Parts 192 and 195 as they related to the proximity of pipelines to populated and environmntaUy sensitive areas. RSPA noted tlut land use, including population cownhation and surrounding enVironrm$ should be considered in the evaluation. The cantract r@res that the institute: Q Lkvelop a fiamwork for effective environmntal and phlic safety requirements in the arms of land use, siting, and &abiitation and retrofitting practices; compare this -work with existing regulatoory requirements and ~IKILISQ practices ad recommend & improvements. Q Assemble two g o u p consisting of no m r e than seven m&rs to provide technical assistaxe on factual matters arld to give the institute feedback needed in completing tlie analytical r w e m n t s of tlie cantract. One group shall be composed of individuals having pipeline engkeering and technical expeortise and the other of representatives from the environmental community and representatives having expertise in New Jersey land use and zoning matteis. Study the probabiiity of failures that can occur on gas transmission a~xl hazardous liquid pipelines and idenhfy the factors that cause pipeline failures. Xie institute shall consider failures that might occur anywiieie along the pipeline coiklor, but shall collcentrate on failures that occur at high risk a~eas and enviromntally sensitive areas, such as urban areas and water Mies used foi human consumption.#

Page 55 'The Safety Board believes that the MITcontract offers sigrnficant potential for rationally quantifying the risks posed to public safety by high-pressure pipelines in urban areas, for assessing the effectiveness of govemnt rqukments in reducing identified risks to acceptable levels, and for identifjuig what additioid actions may be needed and by whom, Tie Safety Board has asked RSPA to make the NJIT study widely available to local and State govermnts when it is completed. However, completion of and disseminationof the study will not ensure that recmnmxded actions are enacted. Tie Safety Board therefore reviewed the objectives and capabilities of several associdous to detennim which would be best able to translate the shldy results into g k h c e suitable for implemntation by local and State govemnts and to work with and emurage them on implemntalion Tie Safety Board recognizeS the American Society of Civil Ekgmeers (AXE) as a major professional association in the planning and development of urban praperties. 'The Safety Board is aware tlut the ASCE has several divisions, such as the LJrban Planning and Ikvelopment Division, the Special Standards Division, and the Pipeline Division, which address issues tlut are included in the NTIT study. In 1992, the National Conference of States on Building Cdes arrd S t a r e , in its request for development of national consensus sta~dards to address land use and subdivision developmnt, mognizd the ASCE as a most appropriate organization to undertake the development of land-use standards. Therefore, the National Tramportation Safety Board recornmeids that tbe A m r i c m Society of Civil F,ngkers: Cooperate with the h r i c a n Public Works Association on developing indel programs and statutes a d o r guidelines to aid local and State governments to implemnt the rmmndations from the New Jersey Institute of Teclmlogy's study on enlmcing public safety near high- pressure pipelines. (Class 11, Priority Action)(P-95-18) Advise your Members of the public safety concerns addressed in this accident report and urge them to inpjlemnt the land-ilse improvement recomndations in the Transportaion Research bard's Report 219. (Class II, Priority Action)(P-95-19) Also, the Safety Board issued Safety Fkxonm~~ldafions P-95-1 tluough 4 to the Research and Special Program Administration, P-95-5 through -7 to the Texas Eastern Transinksion Cxrrpration, P-95-8 and -9 to the Arnerican Public Works Association, P-95-10 and -11 to the Interstate Natu-al CQS Association of America, P-95-12 and -13 to the Assmiation of Oil Pipe Lines, P-95-14 ald -15 to the An~rican Petroleum hstitute, P-95-16 and -17 to the Amiican Gas Association, P-95-20 and -21 to the htematioid City/&mty Manageirent Assmiatio% and P-95-22 ad -23 to the An~iican Planning Association. "lie Safety Board is also reiterating Safety Recomiredations P-87-4 and P-W21 to the Research and Special P r o m Administration. If you need additional information, you my call (zo2) 3&2-0672. 7#

Page 66 The Natiod Transportation Safety bard is an hdepndent Fedeial agency with the statutory responsibility "to promote trxqmrtation safety by conducting independent accident investigations ad by f o d a t i n g safety improvemnt recomrldations" (Public Law 93633). The Safety Board is interested in any action taken as a iesult of its safety recomndations. Therefore, it would appreciate a 1espw from you regardkg action takenor contemplated with respect to the recomdations in this letter. Please refer to Safety Recomndations P-95-18 ad -19 in your reply. Cllauman HALL and Members HAMMERsc7nu3IDT ad FRANCIS concmxd in these recomndations. By: 1#