NTSB Safety Recommendation Letter P-95-022 through P-95-023

Page 1Official PDFw FEB 7 1995 In Feply TO: P-9522 and -23 Mr. Michael B. Barker Executive Director Anxricm Planning Association 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washiiigton, D.C. 2086 About 1 1 3 p m on March 23, 1994, a 36inch dianx?ter pipelhe owned and operated by Texas Eastern Transmission Cbipration (TEKO) ruptured catastrophically in a s o n Towxlip, New Jersey, within an aspllalt plant conpwd. 'Ilie force of the iupture and of natural gas escaping at a pressure of &ut 970 pig @mls per syare inch gauge) excavated the soil arouxl the pipe and blew gas Iiundr& of feet into the air, propelling pipe fragmnts, rocks, a~xl debris m r e tlm 800 feet. Within 1 to 2 minutes of the iupture, one of several possible soulces ignited the escaping gas, sending flams upward 400 to 500 feet intlie air. Heat radiating fi-om the nwsive fire ignited the roofs of several building roofs in a =by apartment complex. Occupants, alerted to the einergeilcy by noises from escapmg gas and rocks hitting the roofs, fled from the burning buildings. Approximately 1,.%3 apartment residents were evacuated. Miraculously, ID deaths directly result4 from die iupfme and resulting fire. Most injuies were minor foot burns ad cuts that the apartment residents sustained from the hot pavement and glass shards as they fled the coinplex. Damage from the accident exceeded $2-5 inillion.' In tlie early 19&, dien TE9Y.X was planniiig to add a new pipelim, which it designated Lhe 20, across New Jersey, the accident site was in a Class 2 location, Le., an area that wds on tlie fiinge of a towxhip, that was used for fuming or for idustrial purposes, arxl that 1nd fewer than 20 buildings intended for hum occupa~~y withiin 1 square mile. In anticipation of residential growth, the pipeline con~pany desigled the line using, as a mini~nun, the nmre restrictive Class 3 Imtion standards. When TEKO built Line 20, the company conplied fully with New Jersey statutes that new high-presslire piplines lx coixtructed away froni buildings. However, the State#

Page 22 statutes lad no provisioils limiting the construction of buildings adjacent to pipAinas. Over the years, as local govemrnnts granted permits for building construction near' Line 20, the original sepamtion distance between the pipeline and shuctu~vs vas substantially reduced. Tie Safety Board has previously identified tile need for local arld State govetnnmt agencies, which generally have the authority to control land use and building construction, to consider the public safety rislc; presented by pipelks in urban settings. Following its investigationof a March 15,1983, pipeline acciderlt in West Odessa, Texas? in which six people died, tlie Safety Board expmed commabout the rvsponsibilities of planning officials aid abut government land-use policies. In that accident, an owner/residei$ in a new housing developmiit and his relative were drilling holes with an auger to plant trees whm they struck and m p t u d a liquid petroleum gas 09G) pipeline. The escapiig gas initially p l e d and vaporized, fonning an explosive gas-in4 rrixture tlat was ignited. TE LPG beig blown into the air by the pressure in the line the11 ignited, foming a f7reMl that engulfed tlie relative operating tlie auger and the resident's horn. Tie auger opeiator and the four residents of tlle imbiile Iiom were b d fatally; the owner sustained serious bums and died 5 days later. Tie fire also threatened the resideilts of the horn on the adjohiig lot. They escaped with millor bums only by breaking and fleeing through a back window in their horn. As a result ofthe West Odessa accident investigation, the Safety Board concluded tlnt new public policy should be developed to improve public safety as it relates to tlie proximity of pipelines to populated areas, including: Defining the role of ruxleml, State, and local governments cnncenliiig land planning for land adjacent to pipelines; Placing rvst&ions on the use of land adjacmt to pipelines; Determining whnt informtion should be coimicated to prospeclive users about adjacent pipelines; and Informing prospective users about tlie existence of and potential haza~ds of m b y pipelines. The Board fur.ther concluded tllat crafting public policy for land development adjacent to pipelines would re@e extensive research and would involve incopratirig the view fiom m y interests, iilcluding the geneial public, pipeline operators, lad developers, local, State, ad Federal govern- rileit ageixies, and nmy others. Noting the ability of the Transpotatiori Research Board p) of the National Academy of Sciences to biing diverse interests groups together to foimhe pixtical public safely policy, the Safety Board recorrnmxled that the 'I"?#

Page 33 Assess the adequacy of exisiing public policy for surface and subsurface use of land adjacent to p i p e l k that transport I m d o u s w d i t i e s to provide reasonable public safety. Based on the findin@ of ax: assessimnt, develop a r m m n d e d policy to ranect identified deficiencies in current policy (P-84-30), In 1988, the TRB published Ppliiim and Rhlk S@ety (Special Report 219)? which synthesized policies and practicns for enlming public safety ilear pipelines through clanage prevention progm, land-use mum, and emrgency preparedness program. Tlie ieprt identified m i y policies and practices used to enlmx public safety near pipelines, but concluded that govermnt and hiustry applies tlm measu~es unevenly. The report recommeixled that State and local govemmnts: * Enact damage prevention statutes that clarify enforcemnt responsibility, uxrease contractor liability, ad stipulate that permitting ageilcies a t require, as a widtion of pelinit approval, proof U u t applicants for building or excavation pernnts have notified the pipeline corrpny/one-caU system * Prohibit construction of structures on pipeline rights-of-way and eime a m to pipelines is unobstructed. @ Institute a refenal and approval procedure tlut requires pipeliw opeixtor review of sulxlivisioii plans, site plans, and variances for all piopeities tlut have a pipeline easeimnt. @ Modernize land records system to ensure tlut infomtion about the types of easemnts, easemi% boundaries, ad holders of easemnts by parcel is readily accessible to local planners. * Repare, in wixultatioii with pipeline operators and developers, planning guidelixs for safely integratuig pipelines easelimits into development pro- jects ad protecting the lines duiiig construction; i~mrpomte these guidelines in wqrehensive plans, mni~ig o r d i i m , a~xl building cdes. 0 Consider building setkicks and lowdensity developmnt ilear transmission pipeline iiglits-of-my in densely populated areas with higb concentnt' ' l0nsof pipeline mileage where he risks of damging a pipeline m y k sufficiently great, md the cowqueim sufficiently severe to warmit special nrasures; provide developnmit bonuses IO ranpixate the developer for loss of developable prvrty.#

Page 44 7he repart also included nrxlel/saniple documents for damage prevention legislation, righf-of-wy agreemnts, State legislation for subdivision plan review, guidelines for subdivision developnmts near pipeline rights-of-way, ad local setback ordinma. After reviewing the "3 report, tle Jkpar&nmt of Transportation's Research ad Special Program Administration (RSPA) "wholeheartedly" supp01-teed the report 's rmimrldation that local govemwnts should determk the appropriate use of land ilear pipelines and enact laws to prevent developmnt on pipeline rights-of-way. Following the Ekkoii accident, RSPA con&acted the New Jersey lnstitute of Techmlosy ("I+) in August 19% to perform a study on methods to reduce the risks and enhance pipeline safety and environmental protection with respect to the siting and proximity of pipelines to the public and sensitive environmei~. RSPA noted that the existing papulation-based rqpiremnts, which were considered adequate for assessing risk in the past, proved to be inadequate in the %son, New Jeisey accident. RSPA acknowledged the need to reevaluate pipeline safety regulations in 49 C3R Paas 192 and 195 as they related to the proximity of pipelines to populated and envkonmntally seisitive areas. RSPA noted that landuse, including population concentration and swoUrXting environmnt, should be cmsidered in the evaluation. TIE contract requires that the institute: 0 Develop a fiamwork for effective environnmtal and public safety rqpiremnts in the areas of land use, siting, and ~ehabiitation and reQofitting practices; conpm this h m w r k with existing regulatory rquhemnts and industry practim and raxnmnd d e d improvermxts. Assemble two groups consisting of no nme tlm seven members to provide technical assistance on factual mtters and to give the institute fedback d e d in completing the analytical qukemxts of tle contmt. One group shall ke coqmed of kxiividuals having pipew engkxering and technical expertise and the other of representatives from the environmental commnity and representatives having expeitise in New Jersey land use and zoning mtters. 0 Study the probtiity of failures that can OCCUI" on gas transrrrission and hazardous liquid pipelines and identify the factors that muse pipeline failures. The institute slnll consider failures that might occur anywhere along the p i p e h corridor, but shall coIlcenlrate on failures tlnt m w at lligli risk arm and environmntally sensitive areas, such as urban areas and water bodies used for l i m consumption. The Safety Board believes that the NlIT contract offers significant potential for rationally quantifying the risks posed to public safety by high-pressure pipelikes in urban areas, for assessing tlie effectiveness of government requiremnts in reducing identified risks to acceptable levels, and for identifying what additional actions my be ~ d e d and by whom#

Page 55 The Safety Board has asked RSPA to imke the NJIT study widely available to local and State goveinmnts Mien it is completed. However, completion of and dissemination of the study will ilot ensure that reconnnxded actions are enacted. ?he Safety Board therefore reviewed the objectives aid capabilities of severai associations to determine which would be best able to translate tlle study reslilts into guidance suitable for iqlenentation by local and State goveiimmts and to work with and emurage them on implemntation. The Amrican Planning Association (MA) mqrises professioml planners and otliers interested in nual axl urhi planning issues. ?he Safety Board recogiim that through its reports, seminars, ad coi&mxx.s, the APA can be insmnlal in assisting professiod plmlers develop policies and pi.actices on surface and subsurface use of land adjacent to pipelines to provide reasoinble public safety. Therefore, the Natioid Trailsportation safety Board recommends that the American Plaining Association: Cooperate with tlie Amrican Public Works Association on developing ilwxlel prograns z?d statutes a d o r g u i d e h to aid local and State govemnmts to itqlemnt the mnwrxiations koin the New Jersey Institute of Teclmology's study on enllancing public safety near high- pressure p i p e h . (Class II, Priority Action)0)-95-22) Advise your M d x r s of the public safety co~mnls ad& in tllis accident report ad tu-ge them to hplemnt the land-use itnprovemnt recommendations in the Transportation Research Board's Report 219. (Class II-Prio&y Action)(P-95-23) Also, the safety Board issued Safety Fkcomdations P-95-1 tllrough -4 to the Research ad Special Program Administration, P-95-5 through -7 to the Texas &tern Trnimssion Corpoi-ation, P-95-8 ad -9 to tlie Amrican Public Works Association, P-95-10 and -11 to the Ititerstate Natural Gas Association of Amrim, P-95-12 and -13 to the Association of Oil Pipe LUES, P-95-14 and -15 to tlle hmrican PetroleutnTnstitute, P-95-16 and -17 to tlie Amrican Gas Association, P-95-18 and -19 to the Anmican Society of Civil Eigineers, and P-95-20 and -21 to die International City/Couity Mamgemnt Association. "lie Safety Board is also reiterating Mety Recoiimndatioils P-874 and P-93-21 to tlie Research and Special Programs Administration. If you need additional infornntion, you imy call (202) 382-0672. The Natioid Tra~poiQtion Safety Board is an independent FedefaI agency with the statutory responsibility "to prormte transportation safety by conducting independent accident investigations and by fordating safety improvemnt r m m i h t i o n s " (Public Law 93-633). The Safety Board is interested in any action taken as a result of its safety recomndations. Therefore, it would appreciate a response from you regarding action taken or mnleqlated with respect to tlie recoirnlle~xlatioils in this letter. Please refer to Safety Reconmixlations P-95-22 ad -23 in your reply.#

Page 66 Chairman HALL and Members HAMMERSCHMIDT and FRANCIS concurred in these recommendations. Find all By: Jim Hall Shairman#