[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10947-S10950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        ACCOUNTABLE PIPELINE SAFETY AND PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks 
about the pipeline bill, because I think this is a very important bill 
for the future and safety of our country. This is a bill that has been 
worked on for quite a long time. It is a bipartisan bill.
  I am very pleased that we have a safety pipeline program, we have a 
funding source. We are reauthorizing the Federal Pipeline Safety 
Program. I think everyone has worked in good faith. In fact, the bill 
is sponsored by Senator Lott, cosponsored by Senators Pressler, 
Stevens, Hutchison, Burns, Shelby, Cochran, Frist, Inhofe, Breaux, 
Ford, Exon, Inouye, Johnston, and Heflin. I think all of us want to 
make sure that the pipelines that are running through the ground in our 
country are as safe as they can possibly be.
  Of course, we have user fees that pay for the safety inspections and 
the Office of Pipeline Safety. I think this bill also adds some simple 
and flexible risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses to some of 
these new regulations. So I think we are going to be taking a giant 
step in the right direction with this bill.
  It does authorize the Office of Pipeline Safety funding through the 
year 2000 so that we will know that the source is good and that it is 
at a reasonable level. It is about what our budget resolution is today, 
and I think that we have made a great improvement.
  So I am very pleased to support this bill as the new chairman of the 
subcommittee from which this bill came.
  I think we have a good, bipartisan compromise that is going to move 
pipeline safety very, very much into the forefront of our consciousness 
as we continue to put down more pipeline and take more energy to the 
people of this country.
  Mr. President, I think Senator Lautenberg, who has also worked very 
hard on this bill, has remarks to make. Is that correct?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Texas. I know that she has 
an interest in safety with our pipelines. Obviously, coming from a 
State like she does, there is a great deal of interest in providing the 
resource, the gas, that travels through these pipelines because it is 
an efficient and cost-effective way of taking care of our energy needs.
  I want to also extend my accommodation to the majority leader, 
Senator Lott, for his work on this bill, as well as the chairman and 
the ranking minority member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler 
and Senator Hollings, and the other Senators who have worked hard and 
who have contributed to this legislation.
  The bill before us enhances our existing pipeline safety program in a 
number of ways. For example, it would promote one-call programs to 
ensure that those who dig in the ground can easily find out where the 
pipelines are located--not only find out, but must know where the 
pipelines are located.
  The bill would also increase funding for pipeline safety programs and 
make other improvements. At the same time, I do have some concerns 
about certain provisions in the legislation which could limit the 
regulators' abilities to adequately manage the program.
  Frankly, it does not go all the way that I would like it to go, but 
it certainly is an improvement on the status quo and should improve 
pipeline safety significantly.
  Mr. President, I have a special interest in this bill--I am sure many 
in this room are aware of it--because an explosion took place in my 
State a couple of years ago, and our experience with it was one that 
will stay permanently etched in the memories of people in New Jersey.
  What happened there was almost inexplicable because, though the 
damage, the physical damage, was extensive, fortunately it was limited 
to one death. There could have been many more. That one death was as a 
result of someone's physical disability who had come in to be in touch 
with friends who lived in the neighborhood. It was terrible. That was 
2\1/2\ years ago.
  That rupture in a gas pipeline led to a terrible explosion in Edison, 
NJ. The blast created an enormous fireball that could be seen for miles 
around. It leveled eight apartment buildings and left a gaping hole in 
the ground. It reminded me, very frankly, Mr. President, of some of my 
wartime experiences when bombed-out areas were left with buildings 
flattened and holes, craters, in the ground. That is what this looked 
like.
  The explosion and the fire injured more than 100 people and brought 
on, as I said, the death of one person, a fatal heart attack of a 32-
year-old woman who had come to visit friends who were in the area. And 
150 families

[[Page S10948]]

were made homeless. Not surprisingly, many of the victims are still 
dealing with the emotional, psychological, and financial consequences 
of the explosion.
  Mr. President, I visited the site of this disaster with Senator 
Bradley very shortly after it took place. We saw the devastation 
firsthand. It was a sobering experience. Nobody could witness a scene 
like that without being committed to doing everything possible to 
prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.

  In response to the explosion in New Jersey, I began to explore 
various ways that pipelines could be made safer. I talked with experts 
from around the country, and I developed legislation, now introduced as 
S. 162, that did propose a variety of steps.
  First, my bill promoted the establishment of the so-called one-call 
program. One-call very simply requires anyone who is about to dig--a 
builder, construction company--to simply make a telephone call to make 
sure that where they are going to dig is not dangerous because of 
pipelines. This is important because two-thirds of all pipeline 
accidents are caused by people who dig without knowing where they are 
digging.
  So I say, they must know. So I am pleased that the bill before us, 
like my own, would promote one-call programs and direct the Office of 
Pipeline Safety to help States establish these programs.
  Another provision in my bill required the use of remote control 
shutoff valves. Mr. President, given the state of technology in the 
world today, you would think this kind of thing would be used 
routinely, which simply means that someone in a remote location with 
some visual contact through electronic means could see what is 
happening and start turning down the cutoff valves. Unfortunately, that 
very simple technology was not used in this case. But it is now being 
used.
  Too often when a major leak occurs, pipeline operators must 
physically travel to the site of the leak and manually turn off a huge 
valve. This process can take many hours. After the Edison explosion, it 
took over 3 hours to shut off the valve, the valve that was producing 
the gas flow to continue the flames and the destruction that was taking 
place, in large part, because the shutoff valve was manual and took 
over 700 turns to close. Meanwhile, again, the dangerous gas was 
escaping into the environment. Remote control shutoff valves would have 
solved this problem in fairly quick fashion.
  So I am pleased that the managers of the bill were able to include a 
provision in the managers' amendment that would require that DOT, which 
has jurisdiction here, study the feasibility of these devices. If, as I 
expect, the Secretary determines that the devices are feasible and 
would reduce risks of pipeline accidents, the Secretary would be 
required to mandate their use.
  Another proposal in my bill would allow residents to be notified of 
the location of the pipelines in their neighborhoods. Citizens have a 
right to know this information. A better informed public leads to 
improved safety. So I am pleased that the managers of the bill have 
included in their amendment, the managers' amendment, a provision that 
requires that all operators provide a pipeline map to local 
communities.
  The provision also requires that the Secretary review existing 
pipeline safety education programs, determine which ones are the most 
effective, and implement appropriate programs nationwide.
  My legislation also would have helped ensure that pipeline leaks and 
weaknesses were detected before disasters by promoting the use of so-
called smart pigs. The term ``smart pigs'' refers to technology that 
essentially permits a device to travel through a pipeline and evaluate 
whether or not there are weaknesses that have to be attended to or that 
otherwise could lead to problems in the future. The use of this smart 
pig technology is important, especially as more pipes grow older and 
thus more vulnerable to problems.

  The bill before us would authorize OPS, the Office of Pipeline 
Safety, to require the use of smart pigs, though it does not mandate 
their regular use, as I would prefer. I am hopeful that OPS will 
promote these tools aggressively.
  There are other provisions in this bill before us that also mirror 
proposals of mine. One provision would make it a Federal crime to dump 
waste in pipeline rights of way. This will help protect these rights of 
way from large volumes of material which can damage the pipeline.
  So, Mr. President, there are several provisions in this bill that I 
support and that can help, and will help, to improve pipeline safety. 
At the same time, however, in my view, the legislation should go 
farther.
  For example, I am concerned that the public will not have adequate 
input in the review of proposed risk demonstration projects. I am also 
concerned that the bill could make it harder for the Office of Pipeline 
Safety to propose and adopt pipeline safety standards because of new 
cost/benefit requirements.
  On balance, though, Mr. President, this bill represents a very good 
step forward. Although far from perfect--and we know around here that 
the perfect is the enemy of the good; it is said so often and proves 
true almost every time--although far from perfect, it should improve 
pipeline safety, and it deserves our support.
  Once more, I thank the majority leader and the other Senators 
involved for their work on this bill. I look forward to working with 
them in the future to ensure that the legislation is implemented 
properly and effectively, and to consider other steps that can be taken 
that promote pipeline safety in our communities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
reauthorization of the Office of Pipeline Safety (S. 1505).
  This is a bill which is bipartisan with seven Democratic and nine 
Republican cosponsors.
  This is a bill which was unanimously approved by our Commerce 
Committee.
  This is a bill which is supported by both the administration and the 
regulated pipeline industry.
  This is a bill which focuses on just the statute which regulates the 
natural gas and liquid transmission and distribution industry.
  This is a bill which is targeted on the role and responsibilities of 
the Office of Pipeline Safety within the Department of Transportation.
  This is a bill which deals in a responsive and responsible manner the 
way rules are made for this sector of the energy community; but, I want 
to be very very clear, nothing in this bill will jeopardize the 
integrity and safety of America's natural gas transmission system. And 
nothing in this bill will reverse the environmental success story of 
this industry.
  This is a bill which permits demonstration projects by recognizing 
opportunities for regulatory flexibility.
  This is a bill where the one-size-fits-all mandate mentality is 
replaced by responsible creative yet accountable rulemaking.
  This is a bill which will intimately affect 160 million Americans 
because they live in gas heated buildings.
  This is a bill which governs enough natural gas pipes to go around 
the Earth 48 times.
  And, finally this is a bill which has direct impact on under a 
million Americans because they work in some aspect of the natural gas 
industry.
  The leadership of Senator Pressler and Senator Exon has made this 
manager's amendment possible, and I want to publicly thank them for 
both their time and attention to advancing this consensus compromise.
  Let me say in conclusion: Safety on America's interstate natural gas 
pipelines will be enhanced by this legislation. And I want to 
underscore that environmental protection along America's pipeline 
right-of-ways will also be enhanced by S. 1505.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1505, the 
Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996.
  This legislation reauthorizes the pipeline safety programs that are 
the responsibility of the Department of Transportation's Office of 
Pipeline Safety (OPS). OPS has a tremendous responsibility in ensuring 
the safety of the nation's gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The 
combined interstate pipeline system has approximately 1.8 million miles 
of pipeline, consisting of approximately 1.6 million miles of gas 
pipeline and 155,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline. Any map of the 
nation's pipeline system shows how much

[[Page S10949]]

our population depends on safe pipelines. The question is not whether 
pipeline safety programs should be reauthorized. Rather, we must 
determine the best way to maintain the safety of the interstate 
pipeline system while allowing the pipeline operators and owners to 
provide the service so necessary to the nation's well-being.
  The importance of OPS is not theoretical. Many of us can report on 
gas line ruptures and spills in our states in the past. For example, 
there was a gas pipeline rupture in New Jersey two years ago. There was 
a horrible spill in my home state of South Carolina this summer. Over 1 
million gallons was spilled. My staff has spent countless hours in 
monitoring this disaster. Luckily, the skill and dedication of OPS 
prevented that spill from becoming a major environmental disaster. The 
OPS training exercise with the pipeline owner held just prior to the 
spill contributed to the speed with which the adverse effects of this 
spill were mitigated--most of the spill was cleaned up and the 
remainder evaporated. In this regard, I extend my appreciation to OPS 
for keeping me informed of the spill and the efforts to redress the 
harm done to the land and water in South Carolina. Of course, I intend 
to continue monitoring our pipeline situation in South Carolina until I 
am satisfied that our pipelines are truly safe.
  This bill provides authorization levels that are consistent with the 
Administration's budget request for OPS, but unfortunately, the 
appropriations for OPS that just passed the Congress are about 10 
percent below the budget request. Obviously, OPS will be able to do its 
job better if it does not have to shift resources constantly to cope 
with funding difficulties. Despite its funding shortfall, however, I 
have reason to believe that OPS will ensure that our situation in South 
Carolina is rectified.
  This legislation was crafted from many discussions between OPS and 
the pipeline industry. The bill refines the present OPS regulatory 
program so that OPS's scarce resources are put to the nation's best 
advantage. This greater ability to target its resources will help OPS 
to concentrate on the most serious problems, like the one we have faced 
in South Carolina. The bill also allows OPS and the pipeline industry 
to cooperate in designing risk management programs which will provide 
an appropriate level of safety while relieving pipeline facility owners 
and operators of unnecessary paperwork. In addition, this legislation 
contemplates a true partnership between the parties by including the 
states in the regulatory process with OPS and the pipeline industry.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 1505.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill before us would establish a new 
statutory standard for the Secretary of Transportation to meet when 
issuing a standard for pipeline safety. Section 4 of the bill provides 
that: ``Except where otherwise required by statute, the Secretary shall 
propose or issue a standard under this Chapter only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended standard justify its 
costs.''
  When the Senate was debating governmentwide regulatory reform 
legislation earlier in this Congress, much of the debate focused on the 
issue of whether or not it was appropriate to set an across-the-board 
standard for the application of cost-benefit analysis to major rules. 
We referred to this issue as ``decisional criteria''--which basically 
meant the standard to be applied by the agency in selecting a rule for 
promulgation based on an analysis of the rule's benefits and costs. We 
were unable to reach agreement.
  Some thought there should be a strict standard--that the head of an 
agency should have to show that the benefits of the rule justify the 
costs. Some thought we should apply that standard, but permit important 
exceptions for uncertainty in the data and rules where the public 
interest was significantly at stake. Others thought we should require 
the agency to do the analysis and explain, based on the cost-benefit 
analysis, whether the benefits of the rule justify its costs and if 
not, explain why the rule is still being issued.
  As a body, we have not been able to agree on the formulation for this 
standard. That is why Senator Glenn and I have had some concern about 
the standard being adopted for the Office of Pipeline Safety. We don't 
want anyone to view acceptance of the standard in this bill as a 
precedent for adopting a similar standard in any other Federal program. 
That's because what may work well and be appropriate for the Office of 
Pipeline Safety and the safety rules issued by that office, is not 
necessarily an appropriate standard for any other Federal agency.
  So I wish to ask my colleagues who have been working on this bill a 
few questions about the scope of the standard contained in this bill.
  Mr. President, would the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, who has 
worked so hard on this legislation, agree that it is not the 
committee's intent that the standard for the application of cost-
benefit analysis included in this legislation be applied to any other 
agency?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the provision in this legislation with 
respect to cost-benefit analysis is unique to the Office of Pipeline 
Safety. It is not my intent, nor was it ever suggested by any member of 
the committee that the standard we use in this bill, be applied to the 
regulatory process of any other Federal agency.

  Cost benefit analysis for pipeline safety is straight forward and 
largely quantifiable. Assessing the effects of pipeline safety ruptures 
is not as uncertain as health-related analyses, such as lead exposure 
levels or other long-term exposure to toxics. Pipelines are fixed 
facilities in known locations that carry finite quantities of specific 
products. The consequences of different types of ruptures or problems 
is therefore very quantifiable. The costs of various proposed 
requirements is usually also very quantifiable as most proposals seek 
to use existing procedures, processes, or tools with which pipeline 
operators have actual field experience. This makes cost and benefits 
more readily identifiable regarding pipeline safety regulations.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a comment? If 
I may, I agree with the Senator from Nebraska. This standard we've set 
in this bill for the issuance of pipeline safety standards is unique to 
the Pipeline Safety Office. That's why we have the support for this 
legislation of the Department of Transportation and the regulated 
industry. The Department of Transportation says it can live with this 
standard, and that's why we are able to include it in this bill.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator from Michigan yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have been pleased to work with the 
Senator from Michigan on this matter as well as the overall issue of 
regulatory reform. In August I wrote to the majority leader, Senator 
Lott, who has taken a strong interest in drafting this legislation, and 
explained to him our concern about the cost-benefit standard contained 
in this bill. My concern, like Senator Levin's, was that this 
legislation could be used as a precedent in the debate on the larger 
regulatory reform bill. The majority leader, in a letter dated August 
9, 1996, assured me that would not be the case. He said in that letter, 
``S. 1505 only applies to the federal pipeline statute. In fact, it 
will affect only one federal agency with 100 employees and could impact 
less than ten rules per year. This is not a precedent setting 
proposal.''
  Would the majority leader be able to confirm his earlier statement?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would be happy to respond to the Senator's 
request. The cost-benefit standard included in S. 1505 is not intended 
to be used, nor will I use it, as a precedent for a cost-benefit 
standard to be applied to other agencies. It works for pipeline safety, 
because it was specifically written with the knowledge of that office 
and its unique responsibilities in mind.

  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, with those assurances by the majority 
leader and the key members of the Commerce subcommittee who've been 
working on this bill, I can support this legislation.
  In the recently enacted, bipartisan Safe Drinking Water Act, we 
adopted a very different standard for rulemaking. In that legislation 
we said: ``At the time the Administrator (of EPA) proposes a national 
primary drinking

[[Page S10950]]

water regulation under this paragraph, the Administrator shall publish 
a determination as to whether the benefits of the maximum contaminant 
level justify, or do not justify, the costs based on the analysis 
conducted under paragraph (3)(C).''
  We will now be able to see how each of these proposals works in real 
life. I look forward to seeing and analyzing the results.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I join with my colleague and friend from 
Michigan, Senator Levin, in saying that I can support this legislation 
with respect to this issue. I am also happy to support the inclusion of 
added language to protect the public's right to participate in the 
development and approval of the risk management demonstration projects 
provided udner this bill.
  I was concerned that as initially drafted, communities affected by 
these projects might not have a voice in commenting on the proposals 
made by pipeline owners and operators for alternative methods of 
complying with the law. The sponsors of the legislation agreed to add 
statutory language to protect that right to public participation. With 
that addition, as well as the statement of the sponsors as to the scope 
of the bill, I will support this legislation.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________