Despite his promise to the gas industry last year that he wouldn’t change the Pipeline Safety Act of 1995 (see Daily GPI, March 19, 1999), Congressman Bob Franks (R-NJ), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee — who also is running for a Senate seat in his home state — introduced a bill last week that would do just that. His legislation joined a growing stack of pipeline safety bills that have been introduced this session.

With the Pipeline Safety Act due to expire in September and theBellingham, WA, liquids pipeline explosion, which killed two10-year-old boys and a young man, fresh in the minds of lawmakers,pipeline safety has become a significant concern this year. TheEdison, NJ, explosion of the 36-inch diameter Texas Eastern naturalgas pipeline in 1994 also appears to still be fresh in the minds ofsome New Jersey congressmen.

The Franks bill, titled the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act(H.R. 4849), would significantly change and increase the safetyprocedures for pipelines, including adding requirements thatpipelines conduct regular pigging and hydrostatic testing. The billalso would give much greater power to the states in overseeing theconstruction of new pipes and the operation of existing pipes. Inaddition, it would raise sharply the penalties for any violations.

The Franks bill is similar to another piece of legislation introduced in the Senate last month by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (S 2438). McCain’s bill already has been voted out of committee. There are several other pieces of pipeline safety legislation, including the Clinton Administration’s own bill (see NGI, April 17; May 15; and June 19). It appears quite possible that pipeline safety legislation will be passed during the current Congressional session, pipeline industry officials admit.

Pipeline representatives aren’t too pleased, however, with thesituation. They would much rather see a simple reauthorization ofthe existing Pipeline Safety Act. But they believe they are makingprogress on the new bills and expect to see a version of the Franksand McCain bills passed.

“Probably the most important thing about this bill,” said onepipeline official, referring to the Franks legislation, “is that ithas a bias in favor of mandating the use of smart pigs orhydrostatic testing with respect to inspecting pipelines. We’reconcerned about mandating specific techniques over others. Onlyabout 30% of our pipeline mileage can accommodate smart pigs. Withhydrostatic testing, you have to take the line out of service for awhile, and then you run the risk of weakening the pipeline andcausing further problems down the road. It’s potentially adestructive test on the pipeline, and some of the problems that youcould create may not manifest themselves for a while.”

The second issue pipeline officials are concerned about ishaving to consult with state and local officials in developingpipeline integrity plans. That requirement is in the Franks andMcCain bills and is part of a new rule being drafted at theDepartment of Transportation. Each pipeline would have to createits own pipeline integrity program. The bill essentially wouldrequire the pipelines to consult with all the state and localgovernments with jurisdiction over the land they cross, which couldshut down many project entirely.

“When you have several thousand political subdivisions that youhave to deal with and each one wants A,B,C, and D and they are notnecessarily compatible, it’s a real recipe for a mess,” thepipeline official noted. “What we’re saying is there ought to besome process where the interests of state and local governments canbe involved through an interview with the Secretary ofTransportation on a specific project. That doesn’t require theoperator to get everybody to sign off. If everyone had to sign off,it would ensure that these things drag on forever. I think the goalshould be to get these integrity plans put in place.”

The bill as currently drafted also suggests that states couldcreate their own unique pipeline oversight methods. “We’re notexactly sure what that means, but it doesn’t sound good,” theindustry official said. “If you have individual states requiringdifferent things, it creates problems in managing the pipelines andmay actually create deliverability problems as well and conflictbetween the states. We don’t have a problem with the states beingresponsible for inspections where those states get permission fromDOT to do that and operate under the federal guidelines. Allowingstates to go beyond the federal guidelines or outside of federaloversight would cause problems.”

What’s worse for pipelines, particularly those cited forviolations, is the bill’s proposed increase in civil penalties.Certain penalties would be doubled to $1 million and others wouldincrease to $500,000 from only $25,000 depending on the violation.

“We haven’t really heard any good justification for increasingthe civil penalties. We’re not crazy about it but it’s not apriority issue for us,” the pipeline official said.

The legislation also provides an additional $500,000 in fundingto expand and improve state one-call programs as well as otherpublic awareness efforts that are aimed at preventing damage fromoutside forces.

The bill is co-sponsored by nine other congressmen. It has beenreferred to the House Commerce Committee.

Rocco Canonica

©Copyright 2000 Intelligence Press, Inc. All rightsreserved. The preceding news report may not be republished orredistributed in whole or in part without prior written consent ofIntelligence Press, Inc.