S-2661-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by John Curtis (R-UT)
What it does
The bill would allow an owner or operator of a pipeline facility to use risk-based inspections to meet federal inspection requirements for in-service breakout tanks, starting on the date of enactment. It would also require the Secretary of Transportation, through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to revise 49 C.F.R. 195.432 as soon as practicable to allow these inspections. The use of risk-based inspections would be optional for operators.
Who benefits
Pipeline owners and operators that run breakout tanks, which may be able to target inspections and lower compliance costs or scheduling burdens. Fuel and crude oil shippers and consumers could see indirect savings if lower costs are passed through. Inspection engineering firms that specialize in risk modeling might gain business. Regulators may also be able to concentrate attention on higher-risk tanks.
Who is hurt
Communities, water supplies, and ecosystems near breakout tanks could face greater exposure if risk models miss a failure that fixed-interval inspections would have caught. Inspection contractors that rely on routine scheduled inspections might lose work. PHMSA would take on the work of rewriting the rule and overseeing operators' risk models. Workers at the tanks could be affected if less frequent inspections allow hazards to go undetected.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that inspecting every tank on a fixed calendar spends resources on low-risk tanks while higher-risk tanks get no extra attention. They contend that risk-based methods, already used in other pipeline integrity programs and in industry standards, would focus effort where failures are most likely and cut unnecessary costs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that fixed inspection intervals give a clear, enforceable safety baseline, while risk-based approaches depend on operators' own models and data. They contend that flawed assumptions or weak oversight could let tank defects go unnoticed, raising the chance of leaks or spills that harm nearby communities and water supplies.
Constitutional context
Congress regulates pipeline safety under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which reaches the interstate transport of oil and hazardous liquids; Wickard v. Filburn (1942) supports broad authority over economic activity of this kind. The bill itself specifies the rule change, so it raises little nondelegation or major questions concern.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts some decision-making to pipeline operators and directs the executive branch (DOT/PHMSA) to rewrite its rule; Congress retains oversight, and courts could review the rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Historical precedent
Pipeline safety law has previously moved toward risk-based integrity management, such as the integrity management programs for hazardous liquid pipelines that PHMSA adopted in the early 2000s following the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002.