Pipeline Safety: Property Damage Definition for Reporting Incidents on Gas Pipelines and Accidents on Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

Southwest Gas Corporation, a natural gas local distribution company, supports the proposed revision to the CFR 191.3 Incident Definition. They specifically endorse the joint comments from the American Gas Association (AGA) and American Public Gas Association (APGA) to exclude permitting, restoration, and other peripheral costs from property damage definitions.

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), a trade association representing the majority of U.S. interstate natural gas transmission pipeline companies, supports the proposed rule to clarify the property damage definition for reporting incidents. They argue that the proposal provides greater clarity and consistency, removes unnecessary reporting burdens for minor incidents, and does not compromise pipeline safety.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association (LEPA) support the proposed revisions to increase the property damage threshold for reporting incidents and accidents. They argue that the new threshold is reasonable, aligns with other regulations, and provides necessary regulatory clarity by excluding indirect costs from damage calculations.

The Pipeline Safety Trust, a nonprofit watchdog organization, opposes the proposed rule because it would reduce the availability of accident data by increasing property damage reporting thresholds. They argue that capturing low-consequence events is essential for identifying systemic safety issues and recommend removing the property damage criterion entirely in favor of more comprehensive reporting.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) opposes the proposed rule to narrow the definition of a pipeline "incident," arguing that it will decrease transparency and public awareness regarding the safety and impacts of pipeline infrastructure. They contend that the proposed changes would result in an incomplete national database of incidents and that the cited regulatory cost savings are negligible compared to the public safety benefits of comprehensive reporting.

The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), a trade association representing the refining and petrochemical sector, supports the proposed rule to clarify and harmonize the definition of "property damage" for pipeline incident reporting. They argue that the proposal improves regulatory clarity by focusing on direct damage costs and incorporating inflation-based adjustments, though they suggest further refinements to ensure the definition of "undamaged infrastructure" is objective and consistent.

The American Gas Association and the American Public Gas Association support the proposed rule to exclude permitting and restoration costs from the property damage definition for incident reporting. They argue that these costs are not indicative of incident severity, vary significantly by jurisdiction, and are often impossible to determine accurately within reporting deadlines.

South Bow Corporation supports the proposed rule to replace the static $50,000 property damage reporting threshold with an inflation-adjusted threshold. They argue that using inflation-adjusted figures and specific indices provides a more accurate and data-driven approach to benchmarking performance and reporting requirements.