Supervisors hear overview of PHMSA rules meeting

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) held a meeting in Des Moines May 31-June 1. The agency is currently in the process of drafting new rules specific to CO² pipelines, while holding public meetings in Iowa to discuss needed equipment and training, dispersion modeling, safety measures, leak protections, reporting, and other topics.
Rural Red Oak resident Jan Norris, who took part in the meeting, met with the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors to share details of the meeting with the board.
“I think it’s really important that you hear what the experts at PHMSA thought were important enough to share that helped them be educated in order for others to be educated in the same way,” Norris said. “The meeting lasted around 10 hours each day, and was well-attended with around 250 people in-person and 850 on-line. Among the attendees were state legislators, county supervisors, EMS directors, and concerned landowners.”
Norris said the primary purpose of the meeting was for PHMSA to gather information that would help them in rule-making.
“Multiple panels were presented with a variety of experts with a variety of experience, as well as an audience Q/A. A lot of content was shared. Topics included PHMSA Pipeline Safety Oversight: Who Regulates What? Public Perspectives; Tribal Government; Research and Development; and Emergency Training and Engagement;” Norris advised.
Norris said it became very clear very quickly that the meeting was a very necessary event.
“There were more questions than answers and PHMSA appeared to be sincere in its pledge to be listening. They will be taking back the things discussed at the meeting for further consideration. Panelists were not eager to sing the praises of carbon pipelines, and they had a lot of concerns,” Norris stated.
According to Norris, PHMSA representatives started off the two day meeting by making it clear that the top priority was to listen, and that the agency exists to protect people and the environment by overseeing safety, design, construction, and maintenance.
“They recognize how vitally important the need to significantly strengthen carbon rules and serve as a model for the world. The new carbon pipeline regulations will have a broad and historic impact. Officials said over and over that they have no siting or permit authority; routing is the state’s responsibility. Also, land use decisions are local. While PHMSA officials know setbacks are a huge issue, they don’t regulate them,” Norris explained.
In discussing the future of carbon pipelines, it was discussed that the Department of Energy has stated 30,000 to 90,000 more miles of carbon pipeline could be coming across the U.S., while the current highway system is only 47,000 miles. PHMSA also issues enforcement actions for infractions, and the PHMSA director said last year was a peak year in issuing penalties.
Also discussed at the meeting, Norris said, was the fact that carbon pipelines differ from others in scale and scope.
“The proposals for a massive pipeline network are hub and spoke. It’s a massive global effort in a context and complexity that has never been seen before. Also, sources of carbon are different and complicated. Most carbon capture is from a single source currently, as in an ethanol plant, but as things move forward, there will be multiple sources increasing the potential for contamination,” Norris advised. “We know this is a risk, as pipeline are leaky. This is a new risk, and it’s difficult to ensure safe operation. Another difference with carbon leaks is that these pipelines are a geographic risk. The route has hills and valleys, and there is interaction with topography, terrain, weather, and temperature.”
Other issues noted during the meeting, Norris said, were the fact that carbon gases can be lethal, and have the potential to kill livestock and things below the surface. Also, due to a lack of a vast system, there were gaps in regulations, and while it was safer to transfer carbon through pipelines versus trucks or trains, there were still pipeline failures, and the results could be catastrophic.
One big topic of discussion was a rupture in Satartia, Miss.,  in February of 2020, which resulted in hundreds of residents in the area having to be evacuated.
“According to the officials, the carbon spread was in miles, not feet. For 1,000 feet, the ground was frozen with ice. The rupture lasted for more than four hours, and people were unsafe for two hours. A total of 47 people were hospitalized, and many today are still injured,” Norris said. “There was discussion on what the best response should have been. One panelist spoke of a test recommending shelter in place. Those that sheltered in place in Satartia were unconscious and injured.”
A great deal of discussion was held on modeling, and that citizens needed to know the risk and how to take care of themselves. The current PHAST modeling, Norris said, had limitations.
“There is no go data available on carbon gas. We need more information. Experiments are needed on infiltration, air exchangers, and limits. Perfection isn’t needed, just general risk zones, and people need carbon detectors to know when to leave. Counties should require a dispersion model before determining setbacks,” stated Norris.
Among the most pressing needs noted were research on impurities, the effectiveness of crack arresters, leak detection, emergency responder training and equipment, and necessary corrosion resistance. Also noted was the fact that most areas were not prepared for a pipeline disaster, and a hazmat team could be as far as 45 minutes away from the scene.
Landowners in attendance voiced their own concerns, citing the need for strong rules, as the rules won’t be in place for protection in most cases, the pipelines will already be built. Dispersion modeling was also not being shared, and there were concerns over insurance if the landowner damaged a pipeline. Local emergency responders were also noted as needing special equipment and breathing apparatus. So far, 78% of Iowans were against the construction of the pipeline, and counties were urged to take action.
“The advice to counties was that they needed to pass what they wanted and enforce it. If it was not legal, the company could file in court. Generally, states can pass more stringent regulations than PHMSA can. They said we must insist on our own safety and not let the company put monetary value over our own safety,” stated Norris.
Norris said while she made her presentation as unbiased as possible, she did draw some personal conclusions from the meeting.
“Land use decisions are local, and some things are beyond PHMSA authority. The local jurisdiction is the states and the counties. It is the authority of the states and counties to set zoning setbacks. There are also huge gaps in conversations and communications between companies and emergency responders and the public. Most counties rely on underequipped volunteer first responders,” Norris commented
Supervisors Chair Mike Olson asked if anything definitive came out of the meeting. Norris said the meeting’s purpose was to listen to experts in the field and collect information, but PHMSA also made it clear they did not have authority over some of the things that people would like them to have.
Maggie McQuown added that PHMSA needed to go back with the information it received, and it would take time for the organization to come up with new safety mesures.
Norris said while the decision went back to the Iowa Utilities Board, the county also needed to set an ordinance and setbacks. She urged the county that it shouldn’t hesitate to pass an ordinance.
Olson countered that another Iowa county was currently in litigation over an ordinance passed issuing regulations.
“I don’t want to be responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars to a pipeline company and be liable. Therefore, I personally feel we don’t want to get into a legal battle and pay legal fees over something we have no control of in the first place,” Olson said.
Norris said personal safety over herself and her neighbors was a valid concern, and that the concerns should not be dismissed.
Discussion on the topic was then closed.