Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
Subjects › Public Safety › Pipeline Safety › Washington Model Pipeline Ordinances
Updated 05/2012

Washington Model Pipeline Ordinances

Contents

Introduction

A longer than normal introduction is necessary regarding these model ordinances. MRSC does not normally draft model ordinances. Also, the issue of pipeline setbacks is always controversial, so an explanation will assist readers in understanding the issues.

In 2000 state legislation was passed, previously codified at RCW 43.110.070, requiring that: The municipal research council shall, by June 30, 2001, develop and periodically update, for the consideration by local governments:

  1. A model ordinance that establishes setback and depth requirements for new hazardous liquid and gas pipeline construction; and
  2. A model franchise agreement for jurisdictions through which a hazardous liquid or gas pipeline is located.

The task of drafting the documents was entrusted to Municipal Research and Services Center. MRSC worked with representatives of concerned local governments in this state to produce documents that should provide a basis for responsible local government regulation of transmission pipelines in the State of Washington. As noted in the legislation, these documents will need to be periodically updated. Input from pipeline industry representatives, local governments, and regulatory agencies will provide assistance for future modifications. Some wording in the documents will need to be modified slightly if utilized by counties rather than cities.

Model Setback Ordinance

Though the legislation called for depth requirements for transmission pipelines in the model ordinance, those standards are established by federal regulations and are beyond local government or state control. Regulations for the minimum cover for buried gas transmission lines can be found at 49 C.F.R.192.327 (Adobe Acrobat Document) and 49 C.F.R 195.248 (Adobe Acrobat Document) for hazardous liquids. When writing the model ordinance, MRSC reviewed recommended setback standards and also setback regulations adopted previously by several local governments. There is no universally accepted standard for setback distances.

When first drafting the model setback ordinance, the authors originally considered setback as a safety buffer, to protect people in the event of a catastrophic rupture. Unfortunately, trying to establish setbacks that act as safety buffers is not easy, partly because the area at potential risk when there is a catastrophic rupture depends on the product in the pipeline (hazardous liquid or natural gas) and on the diameter and pressure of the pipeline. When a hazardous liquid transmission pipeline ruptures, it is the area downhill from the site of the rupture that is at primary risk, not areas uphill from the rupture. With natural gas transmission pipelines the topography is not as much of a factor, though intervening landforms and shielding from structures can significantly impact whether an individual at any given location is at risk.

Upon further reflection, and after lengthy discussions with planners, government regulators and pipeline operators, comparatively smaller setbacks are recommended because the primary role of a setback should be to protect the pipeline from inadvertent damage. Having buildings set back from pipeline easements makes it less likely that third party damage will be caused during building construction, and less likely that activities adjoining the buildings will cause damage to the underground facilities. It is by restricting building uses allowed in proximity to transmission pipelines that local governments can more effectively minimize injuries and property damage should there be a catastrophic rupture. There are a growing number of jurisdictions that do not allow building uses that would be difficult to evacuate (hospitals, retirement centers, etc.) from being placed in close proximity to a transmission pipeline.

Model Franchise Ordinances

The model franchise ordinances benefited from legal work done on this issue by representatives of the city attorney's office of the City of Bellingham, as well as input from the Washington City and County Pipeline Safety Consortium. Particular thanks should go to attorney David Kerr, assistant city attorney for the City of Bellevue when these documents were originally drafted.

Model Setback and Franchise Ordinances

Other References