Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Federal District Court Holds that CERCLA Procedure for Natural Resource Damage Assessments Not Required as a Matter of Law
- Local Law Prohibiting Natural Gas Piping is Preempted, Ninth Circuit Holds
- District Court Failed to Consider Maui Factors as to Mining Company's Groundwater Discharges, Tenth Circuit Holds
- Federal District Court Excludes Expert Testimony in Flint Water Cases as Unreliable
- Federal District Court Rejects Divisibility of Harm Defense, Imposing Joint and Several Liability in CERCLA Action
Topics
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Utah
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Stigma
- Damages
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Consent Decree
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
- Danielle N. Bagwell
- Brielle A. Brown
- Kate Campbell
- Stephen D. Daly
- Thomas M. Duncan
- Kelly A. Hanna
- Jessica D. Hunt
- Todd D. Kantorczyk
- Dylan G. LaMorte
- Brandon P. Matsnev
- Giselle F. Mazmanian
- Nicole R. Moshang
- Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller
- Diana A. Silva
- Alice Douglas Solomon
- Natalia P. Teekah
- Garrett D. Trego
Is a leaking pipeline indicative of an operator’s failed attempt to consider all relevant risk factors when the pipeline has had leaks in the past? In the context of pipeline integrity management regulations, the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit said no. On August 14, 2017, the Court vacated, in part, a final order issued by the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) to ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (“ExxonMobil”), which found that ExxonMobil failed to properly consider the susceptibility of certain portions of its Pegasus Pipeline to seam failure and assessed a civil penalty of $2.6 million. The opinion in ExxonMobil Pipeline Company v. United States DOT determined that, despite an oil leak from its Pegasus Pipeline, ExxonMobil was not in violation of PHMSA regulations requiring it to consider all risk factors that reflected the risk conditions on a certain pipeline segment because ExxonMobil “carefully [underwent] an informed decision-making process in good faith, reasonably taking into account all relevant risk factors in reaching a decision” that the pipeline was not at risk of seam failure. 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15144 (Aug. 14, 2017).
In March 2013, the 859-mile long Pegasus Pipeline, transporting crude oil from Patoka, Illinois to Nederland, Texas, ruptured, spilling several thousand barrels of oil near Mayflower, Arkansas. Subsequent to its investigation, PHMSA issued a final order finding ExxonMobil violated several pipeline safety regulations, including failing to consider all risk factors in establishing an assessment schedule for its integrity management program (“IMP”) in its high consequence areas of the Pegasus Pipeline. 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e). The Pipeline Safety Act and PHMSA regulations require pipeline operators to create an IMP for all pipelines that could affect a high consequence area, which include highly populated areas and environmentally sensitive areas. The pipeline integrity regulations set forth certain assessment methods available to operators, and include additional requirements for pipelines constructed with low-frequency electric resistance welded steel (“LF-ERW”) because of a higher rate of seam failure. The regulations include no specific method for operators to determine whether LF-ERW pipe is susceptible to longitudinal seam failure, but PHMSA commissioned and published a third-party report which provides a methodology of determining seam-failure susceptibility. Because the Pegasus Pipeline contained LF-ERW pipe, ExxonMobil was subject to those additional regulatory requirements.
PHMSA’s final order included four violations based on ExxonMobil’s alleged failure to consider all risk factors in its pipeline assessment schedule. PHMSA cited past occurrences of seam failure as the basis for its conclusion that ExxonMobil erroneously determined that the pipeline was not susceptible to seam failure and did not properly assess the pipeline’s integrity. In its appeal of the final order, ExxonMobil referred to a number of seam evaluations it conducted beginning in late 2004. Each of those evaluations applied the methodology published by PHMSA for LF-ERW pipe, with expert testimony establishing that ExxonMobil properly followed the methodology in its consideration of risk factors and its conclusion that the pipeline was not susceptible to seam failure despite the leak in 2013.
The Court agreed with ExxonMobil, finding PHMSA acted arbitrarily and capriciously with respect to five of its violations in the final order. The regulation on which four of the violations were based, 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1), is a process-based regulation and does not compel a certain outcome, but rather leaves it up to the operator to make the decision on seam failure susceptibly. Specifically, the Court held that the use of “consider” in the regulation meant that the pipeline operator had to “carefully undergo an informed decision-making process in good faith, reasonably taking into account all relevant risk factors in reaching a decision.” The fact that the release occurred, the Court said, “did not necessarily mean that ExxonMobil failed to abide by the pipeline integrity regulations in considering the appropriate risk factors.” Because the Court found that ExxonMobil conducted its seam-failure evaluations properly in accordance with the PHMSA-published report, ExxonMobil had sufficiently established that it considered all relevant risk factors in accordance with the regulations. Accordingly, the Court vacated the final order and penalty amount with respect to those violations based on the consideration of risk factors.