[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11530-H11540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ACCOUNTABLE PIPELINE SAFETY AND PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1996
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 1505) to reduce risk to public safety and the
environment associated with pipeline transportation of natural gas and
hazardous liquids, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page H11531]]
S. 1505
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Accountable Pipeline Safety
and Partnership Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of title 49, United States Code.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 60101(a) is amended--
(1) by striking the periods at the end of paragraphs (1)
through (22) and inserting semicolons;
(2) by striking paragraph (21)(B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) does not include the gathering of gas, other than
gathering through regulated gathering lines, in those rural
locations that are located outside the limits of any
incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village, or any
other designated residential or commercial area (including a
subdivision, business, shopping center, or community
development) or any similar populated area that the Secretary
of Transportation determines to be a nonrural area, except
that the term `transporting gas' includes the movement of gas
through regulated gathering lines;''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(23) `risk management' means the systematic application,
by the owner or operator of a pipeline facility, of
management policies, procedures, finite resources, and
practices to the tasks of identifying, analyzing, assessing,
reducing, and controlling risk in order to protect employees,
the general public, the environment, and pipeline facilities;
``(24) `risk management plan' means a management plan
utilized by a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility owner
or operator that encompasses risk management; and
``(25) `Secretary' means the Secretary of
Transportation.''.
(b) Gathering Lines.--Section 60101(b)(2) is amended by
inserting ``, if appropriate,'' after ``Secretary'' the first
place it appears.
SEC. 4. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
(a) Minimum Safety Standards.--Section 60102(a) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``transporters of gas and hazardous liquid
and to'' in paragraph (1)(A);
(2) by striking paragraph (1)(C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) shall include a requirement that all individuals who
operate and maintain pipeline facilities shall be qualified
to operate and maintain the pipeline facilities.''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) The qualifications applicable to an individual who
operates and maintains a pipeline facility shall address the
ability to recognize and react appropriately to abnormal
operating conditions that may indicate a dangerous situation
or a condition exceeding design limits. The operator of a
pipeline facility shall ensure that employees who operate and
maintain the facility are qualified to operate and maintain
the pipeline facilities.''.
(b) Practicability and Safety Needs Standards.--Section
60102(b) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Practicability and Safety Needs Standards.--
``(1) In general.--A standard prescribed under subsection
(a) shall be--
``(A) practicable; and
``(B) designed to meet the need for--
``(i) gas pipeline safety, or safely transporting hazardous
liquids, as appropriate; and
``(ii) protecting the environment.
``(2) Factors for consideration.--When prescribing any
standard under this section or section 60101(b), 60103,
60108, 60109, 60110, or 60113, the Secretary shall consider--
``(A) relevant available--
``(i) gas pipeline safety information;
``(ii) hazardous liquid pipeline safety information; and
``(iii) environmental information;
``(B) the appropriateness of the standard for the
particular type of pipeline transportation or facility;
``(C) the reasonableness of the standard;
``(D) based on a risk assessment, the reasonably
identifiable or estimated benefits expected to result from
implementation or compliance with the standard;
``(E) based on a risk assessment, the reasonably
identifiable or estimated costs expected to result from
implementation or compliance with the standard;
``(F) comments and information received from the public;
and
``(G) the comments and recommendations of the Technical
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, the Technical Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, or both, as
appropriate.
``(3) Risk assessment.--In conducting a risk assessment
referred to in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (2),
the Secretary shall--
``(A) identify the regulatory and nonregulatory options
that the Secretary considered in prescribing a proposed
standard;
``(B) identify the costs and benefits associated with the
proposed standard;
``(C) include--
``(i) an explanation of the reasons for the selection of
the proposed standard in lieu of the other options
identified; and
``(ii) with respect to each of those other options, a brief
explanation of the reasons that the Secretary did not select
the option; and
``(D) identify technical data or other information upon
which the risk assessment information and proposed standard
is based.
``(4) Review.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) submit any risk assessment information prepared under
paragraph (3) of this subsection to the Technical Pipeline
Safety Standards Committee, the Technical Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, or both, as appropriate;
and
``(ii) make that risk assessment information available to
the general public.
``(B) Peer review panels.--The committees referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall serve as peer review panels to review
risk assessment information prepared under this section. Not
later than 90 days after receiving risk assessment
information for review pursuant to subparagraph (A), each
committee that receives that risk assessment information
shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a report that
includes--
``(i) an evaluation of the merit of the data and methods
used; and
``(ii) any recommended options relating to that risk
assessment information and the associated standard that the
committee determines to be appropriate.
``(C) Review by secretary.--Not later than 90 days after
receiving a report submitted by a committee under
subparagraph (B), the Secretary--
``(i) shall review the report;
``(ii) shall provide a written response to the committee
that is the author of the report concerning all significant
peer review comments and recommended alternatives contained
in the report; and
``(iii) may revise the risk assessment and the proposed
standard before promulgating the final standard.
``(5) Secretarial decisionmaking.--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.
``(6) Exceptions from application.--The requirements of
subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (2) do not apply
when--
``(A) the standard is the product of a negotiated
rulemaking, or other rulemaking including the adoption of
industry standards that receives no significant adverse
comment within 60 days of notice in the Federal Register;
``(B) based on a recommendation (in which three-fourths of
the members voting concur) by the Technical Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee, the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Safety Standards Committee, or both, as applicable, the
Secretary waives the requirements; or
``(C) the Secretary finds, pursuant to section 553(b)(3)(B)
of title 5, United States Code, that notice and public
procedure are not required.
``(7) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2000, the Secretary
shall transmit to the Congress a report that--
``(A) describes the implementation of the risk assessment
requirements of this section, including the extent to which
those requirements have affected regulatory decisionmaking
and pipeline safety; and
``(B) includes any recommendations that the Secretary
determines would make the risk assessment process conducted
pursuant to the requirements under this chapter a more
effective means of assessing the benefits and costs
associated with alternative regulatory and nonregulatory
options in prescribing standards under the Federal pipeline
safety regulatory program under this chapter.''.
(c) Facility Operation Information Standards.--The first
sentence of section 60102(d) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``as required by the standards prescribed
under this chapter'' after ``operating the facility'';
(2) by striking ``to provide the information'' and
inserting ``to make the information available''; and
(3) by inserting ``as determined by the Secretary'' after
``to the Secretary and an appropriate State official''.
(d) Pipe Inventory Standards.--The first sentence of
section 60102(e) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and, to the extent the Secretary
considers necessary, an operator of a gathering line that is
not a regulated gather line (as defined under section
60101(b)(2) of this title),''; and
(2) by striking ``transmission'' and inserting
``transportation''.
(e) Smart Pigs.--
(1) Minimum safety standards.--Section 60102(f) is amended
by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Minimum safety standards.--The Secretary shall
prescribe minimum safety standards requiring that--
``(A) the design and construction of new natural gas
transmission pipeline or hazardous liquid pipeline
facilities, and
``(B) when the replacement of existing natural gas
transmission pipeline or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities
or equipment is required, the replacement of such existing
facilities be carried out, to the extent practicable, in a
manner so as to accommodate the passage through such natural
gas transmission pipeline or hazardous liquid pipeline
facilities of instrumented internal inspection devices
(commonly referred to as `smart
[[Page H11532]]
pigs'). The Secretary may extend such standards to require
existing natural gas transmission pipeline or hazardous
liquid pipeline facilities, whose basic construction would
accommodate an instrumented internal inspection device to be
modified to permit the inspection of such facilities with
instrumented internal inspection devices.''.
(2) Periodic inspections.--Section 60102(f)(2) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(2) Not later than'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Periodic inspections.--Not later than''; and
(B) by inserting ``, if necessary, additional'' after ``the
Secretary shall prescribe''.
(f) Updating Standards.--Section 60102 is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(l) Updating Standards.--The Secretary shall, to the
extent appropriate and practicable, update incorporated
industry standards that have been adopted as part of the
Federal pipeline safety regulatory program under this
chapter.''.
(g) Mapping.--Section 60102(c) is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following:
``(4) Promoting public awareness.--
``(A) Not later than one year after the date of enactment
of the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Accountability Act of
1996, and annually thereafter, the owner or operator of each
interstate gas pipeline facility shall provide to the
governing body of each municipality in which the interstate
gas pipeline facility is located, a map identifying the
location of such facility.
``(B)(i) Not later than June 1, 1998, the Secretary shall
survey and assess the public education programs under section
60116 and the public safety programs under section 60102(c)
and determine their effectiveness and applicability as
components of a model program. In particular, the survey
shall include the methods by which operators notify residents
of the location of the facility and its right of way, public
information regarding existing One-Call programs, and
appropriate procedures to be followed by residents of
affected municipalities in the event of accidents involving
interstate gas pipeline facilities.
``(ii) Not later than one year after the survey and
assessment are completed, the Secretary shall institute a
rulemaking to determine the most effective public safety and
education program components and promulgate if appropriate,
standards implementing those components on a nationwide
basis. In the event that the Secretary finds that
promulgation of such standards are not appropriate, the
Secretary shall report to Congress the reasons for that
finding.''.
(h) Remote Control.--Section 60102(j) is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following:
``(3) Remotely controlled valves.--(A) Not later than June
1, 1998, the Secretary shall survey and assess the
effectiveness of remotely controlled valves to shut off the
flow of natural gas in the event of a rupture of an
interstate natural gas pipeline facility and shall make a
determination about whether the use of remotely controlled
valves is technically and economically feasible and would
reduce risks associated with a rupture of an interstate
natural gas pipeline facility.
``(B) Not later than one year after the survey and
assessment are completed, if the Secretary has determined
that the use of remotely controlled valves is technically and
economically feasible and would reduce risks associated with
a rupture of an interstate natural gas pipeline facility, the
Secretary shall prescribe standards under which an operator
of an interstate natural gas pipeline facility must use a
remotely controlled valve. These standards shall include, but
not be limited to, requirements for high-density population
areas.''.
SEC. 5. RISK MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 601 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Sec. 60126. Risk management
``(a) Risk Management Program Demonstration Projects.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish risk
management demonstration projects--
``(A) to demonstrate, through the voluntary participation
by owners and operators of gas pipeline facilities and
hazardous liquid pipeline facilities, the application of risk
management; and
``(B) to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of the
program.
``(2) Exemptions.--In carrying out a demonstration project
under this subsection, the Secretary, by order--
``(A) may exempt an owner or operator of the pipeline
facility covered under the project (referred to in this
subsection as a `covered pipeline facility'), from the
applicability of all or a portion of the requirements under
this chapter that would otherwise apply to the covered
pipeline facility; and
``(B) shall exempt, for the period of the project, an owner
or operator of the covered pipeline facility, from the
applicability of any new standard that the Secretary
promulgates under this chapter during the period of that
participation, with respect to the covered facility.
``(b) Requirements.--In carrying out a demonstration
project under this section, the Secretary shall--
``(1) invite owners and operators of pipeline facilities to
submit risk management plans for timely approval by the
Secretary;
``(2) require, as a condition of approval, that a risk
management plan submitted under this subsection contain
measures that are designed to achieve an equivalent or
greater overall level of safety than would otherwise be
achieved through compliance with the standards contained in
this chapter or promulgated by the Secretary under this
chapter;
``(3) provide for--
``(A) collaborative government and industry training;
``(B) methods to measure the safety performance of risk
management plans;
``(C) the development and application of new technologies;
``(D) the promotion of community awareness concerning how
the overall level of safety will be maintained or enhanced by
the demonstration project;
``(E) the development of models that categorize the risks
inherent to each covered pipeline facility, taking into
consideration the location, volume, pressure, and material
transported or stored by that pipeline facility;
``(F) the application of risk assessment and risk
management methodologies that are suitable to the inherent
risks that are determined to exist through the use of models
developed under subparagraph (E);
``(G) the development of project elements that are
necessary to ensure that--
``(i) the owners and operators that participate in the
demonstration project demonstrate that they are effectively
managing the risks referred to in subparagraph (E); and
``(ii) the risk management plans carried out under the
demonstration project under this subsection can be audited;
``(H) a process whereby an owner or operator of a pipeline
facility is able to terminate a risk management plan or, with
the approval of the Secretary, to amend, modify, or otherwise
adjust a risk management plan referred to in paragraph (1)
that has been approved by the Secretary pursuant to that
paragraph to respond to--
``(i) changed circumstances; or
``(ii) a determination by the Secretary that the owner or
operator is not achieving an overall level of safety that is
at least equivalent to the level that would otherwise be
achieved through compliance with the standards contained in
this chapter or promulgated by the Secretary under this
chapter;
``(I) such other elements as the Secretary, with the
agreement of the owners and operators that participate in the
demonstration project under this section, determines to
further the purposes of this section; and
``(J) an opportunity for public comment in the approval
process; and
``(4) in selecting participants for the demonstration
project, take into consideration the past safety and
regulatory performance of each applicant who submits a risk
management plan pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(c) Emergencies and Revocations.--Nothing in this section
diminishes or modifies the Secretary's authority under this
title to act in case of an emergency. The Secretary may
revoke any exemption granted under this section for
substantial noncompliance with the terms and conditions of an
approved risk management plan.
``(d) Participation by State Authority.--In carrying out
this section, the Secretary may provide for consultation by a
State that has in effect a certification under section 60105.
To the extent that a demonstration project comprises an
intrastate natural gas pipeline or an intrastate hazardous
liquid pipeline facility, the Secretary may make an agreement
with the State agency to carry out the duties of the
Secretary for approval and administration of the project.
``(e) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2000, the Secretary
shall transmit to the Congress a report on the results of the
demonstration projects carried out under this section that
includes--
``(1) an evaluation of each such demonstration project,
including an evaluation of the performance of each
participant in that project with respect to safety and
environmental protection; and
``(2) recommendations concerning whether the applications
of risk management demonstrated under the demonstration
project should be incorporated into the Federal pipeline
safety program under this chapter on a permanent basis.''.
(f) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``60126. Risk management.''.
SEC. 6. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE.
Section 60108 is amended--
(1) by striking ``transporting gas or hazardous liquid or''
in subsection (a)(1) each place it appears;
(2) by striking the second sentence in subsection (b)(2);
(3) by striking ``Navigable Waters'' in the heading for
subsection (c) and inserting ``Other Waters''; and
(4) by striking clause (ii) of subsection (c)(2)(A) and
inserting the following:
``(ii) any other pipeline facility crossing under, over, or
through waters where a substantial likelihood of commercial
navigation exists, if the Secretary decides that the location
of the facility in those waters could pose a hazard to
navigation or public safety.''.
SEC. 7. HIGH-DENSITY POPULATION AREAS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREAS.
(a) Identification.--Section 60109(a)(1)(B)(i) is amended
by striking ``a
[[Page H11533]]
navigable waterway (as the Secretary defines by regulation)''
and inserting ``waters where a substantial likelihood of
commercial navigation exists''.
(b) Unusually Sensitive Areas.--Section 60109(b) is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Areas To Be Included as Unusually Sensitive.--When
describing areas that are unusually sensitive to
environmental damage if there is a hazardous liquid pipeline
accident, the Secretary shall consider areas where a pipeline
rupture would likely cause permanent or long-term
environmental damage, including--
``(1) locations near pipeline rights-of-way that are
critical to drinking water, including intake locations for
community water systems and critical sole source aquifer
protection areas; and
``(2) locations near pipeline rights-of-way that have been
identified as critical wetlands, riverine or estuarine
systems, national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife
preservation areas or refuges, wild and scenic rivers, or
critical habitat areas for threatened and endangered
species.''.
SEC. 8. EXCESS FLOW VALVES.
Section 60110 is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, if any,'' in the first sentence of
subsection (b)(1) after ``circumstances'';
(2) by inserting ``, operating, and maintaining'' in
subsection (b)(4) after ``cost of installing'';
(3) by inserting ``, maintenance, and replacement'' in
subsection (c)(1)(C) after ``installation''; and
(4) by inserting after the first sentence in subsection (e)
the following: ``The Secretary may adopt industry accepted
performance standards in order to comply with the requirement
under the preceding sentence.''.
SEC. 9. CUSTOMER-OWNED NATURAL GAS SERVICE LINES.
Section 60113 is amended--
(1) by striking the caption of subsection (a); and
(2) by striking subsection (b).
SEC. 10. TECHNICAL SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEES.
(a) Peer Review.--Section 60115(a) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``The committees referred to in the
preceding sentence shall serve as peer review committees for
carrying out this chapter. Peer reviews conducted by the
committees shall be treated for purposes of all Federal laws
relating to risk assessment and peer review (including laws
that take effect after the date of the enactment of the
Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996) as
meeting any peer review requirements of such laws.''.
(b) Composition and Appointment.--Section 60115(b) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or risk management principles'' in
paragraph (1) before the period at the end;
(2) by inserting ``or risk management principles'' in
paragraph (2) before the period at the end;
(3) by striking ``4'' in paragraph (3)(B) and inserting
``5'';
(4) by striking ``6'' in paragraph (3)(C) and inserting
``5'';
(5) by adding at the end of paragraph (4)(B) the following:
``At least 1 of the individuals selected for each committee
under paragraph (3)(B) shall have education, background, or
experience in risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The
Secretary shall consult with the national organizations
representing the owners and operators of pipeline facilities
before selecting individuals under paragraph (3)(B).''; and
(6) by inserting after the first sentence of paragraph
(4)(C) the following: ``At least 1 of the individuals
selected for each committee under paragraph (3)(C) shall have
education, background, or experience in risk assessment and
cost-benefit analysis.''.
(c) Committee Reports.--Section 60115(c) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``including the risk assessment
information and other analyses supporting each proposed
standard'' before the semicolon in paragraph (1)(A);
(2) by inserting ``including the risk assessment
information and other analyses supporting each proposed
standard'' before the period in paragraph (1)(B);
(3) by inserting ``and supporting analyses'' before the
first comma in the first sentence of paragraph (2);
(4) by inserting ``and submit to the Secretary'' in the
first sentence of paragraph (2) after ``prepare'';
(5) by inserting ``cost-effectiveness,'' in the first
sentence of paragraph (2) after ``reasonableness,'';
(6) by inserting ``and include in the report recommended
actions'' before the period at the end of the first sentence
of paragraph (2); and
(7) by inserting ``any recommended actions and'' in the
second sentence of paragraph (2) after ``including''.
(d) Meetings.--Section 60115(e) is amended by striking
``twice'' and inserting ``up to 4 times''.
(e) Expenses.--Section 60115(f) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Pay and'' in the subsection heading;
(2) by striking the first 2 sentences; and
(3) by inserting ``of a committee under this section''
after ``A member''.
SEC. 11. PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Section 60116 is amended--
(1) by striking ``person transporting gas'' and inserting
``owner or operator of a gas pipeline facility'';
(2) by inserting ``the use of a one-call notification
system prior to excavation,'' after ``educate the public
on''; and
(3) by inserting a comma after ``gas leaks''.
SEC. 12. ADMINISTRATIVE.
Section 60117 is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
``The Secretary may require owners and operators of gathering
lines to provide the Secretary information pertinent to the
Secretary's ability to make a determination as to whether and
to what extent to regulate gathering lines.'';
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(k) Authority for Cooperative Agreements.--To carry out
this chapter, the Secretary may enter into grants,
cooperative agreements, and other transactions with any
person, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, any
unit of State or local government, any educational
institution, or any other entity to further the objectives of
this chapter. The objectives of this chapter include the
development, improvement, and promotion of one-call damage
prevention programs, research, risk assessment, and
mapping.''; and
(3) by striking ``transporting gas or hazardous liquid'' in
subsection (b) and inserting ``owning''.
SEC. 13. COMPLIANCE.
(a) Section 60118 (a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``transporting gas or hazardous liquid or''
in subsection (a); and
(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) comply with applicable safety standards prescribed
under this chapter, except as provided in this section or in
section 60126;''.
(b) Section 60118 (b) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Compliance Orders.--The Secretary of Transportation
may issue orders directing compliance with this chapter, an
order under section 60126, or a regulation prescribed under
this chapter. An order shall state clearly the action a
person must take to comply.''.
(c) Section 60118(c) is amended by striking ``transporting
gas or hazardous liquid'' and inserting ``owning''.
SEC. 14. DAMAGE REPORTING.
Section 60123(d)(2) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) a pipeline facility that does not report the damage
promptly to the operator of the pipeline facility and to
other appropriate authorities; or''.
SEC. 15. BIENNIAL REPORTS.
(a) Biennial Reports.--
(1) Section heading.--The section heading of section 60124
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 60124. Biennial reports''.
(2) Reports.--Section 60124(a) is amended by striking the
first sentence and inserting the following: ``Not later than
August 15, 1997, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary
of Transportation shall submit to Congress a report on
carrying out this chapter for the 2 immediately preceding
calendar years for gas and a report on carrying out this
chapter for such period for hazardous liquid.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 60124 and
inserting the following:
``60124. Biennial reports.''.
SEC. 16. POPULATION ENCROACHMENT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 601, as amended by section 5, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 60127. Population encroachment
``(a) Land Use Recommendations.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall make available to an appropriate
official of each State, as determined by the Secretary, the
land use recommendations of the special report numbered 219
of the Transportation Research Board, entitled `Pipelines and
Public Safety'.
``(b) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) evaluate the recommendations in the report referred
to in subsection (a);
``(2) determine to what extent the recommendations are
being implemented;
``(3) consider ways to improve the implementation of the
recommendations; and
``(4) consider other initiatives to further improve
awareness of local planning and zoning entities regarding
issues involved with population encroachment in proximity to
the rights-of-way of any interstate gas pipeline facility or
interstate hazardous liquid pipeline facility.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 60126
the following:
``60127. Population encroachment.''.
SEC. 17. USER FEES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation
shall transmit to the Congress a report analyzing the present
assessment of pipeline safety user fees solely on the basis
of mileage to determine whether--
(1) that measure of the resources of the Department of
Transportation is the most appropriate measure of the
resources used by
[[Page H11534]]
the Department of Transportation in the regulation of
pipeline transportation; or
(2) another basis of assessment would be a more appropriate
measure of those resources.
(b) Considerations.--In making the report, the Secretary
shall consider a wide range of assessment factors and
suggestions and comments from the public.
SEC. 18. DUMPING WITHIN PIPELINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
(a) Amendment.--Chapter 601, as amended by section 16, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 60128. Dumping within pipeline rights-of-way
``(a) Prohibition.--No person shall excavate for the
purpose of unauthorized disposal within the right-of-way of
an interstate gas pipeline facility or interstate hazardous
liquid pipeline facility, or any other limited area in the
vicinity of any such interstate pipeline facility established
by the Secretary of Transportation, and dispose solid waste
therein.
``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`solid waste' has the meaning given that term in section
1004(27) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6903(27)).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Cross-reference.--Section 60123(a) is amended by
striking ``or 60118(a)'' and inserting ``, 60118(a), or
60128''.
(2) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for chapter 601 is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``60128. Dumping within pipeline rights-of-way.''.
SEC. 19. PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PIPELINE FACILITIES.
Section 60117(a) is amended by inserting after ``and
training activities'' the following: ``and promotional
activities relating to prevention of damage to pipeline
facilities''.
SEC. 20. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) Section 60105.--The heading for section 60105 is
amended by inserting ``pipeline safety program'' after
``State''.
(b) Section 60106.--The heading for section 60106 is
amended by inserting ``pipeline safety'' after ``State''.
(c) Section 60107.--The heading for section 60107 is
amended by inserting ``pipeline safety'' after ``State''.
(d) Section 60114.--Section 60114 is amended--
(1) by striking ``60120, 60122, and 60123'' in subsection
(a)(9) and inserting ``60120 and 60122'';
(2) by striking subsections (b) and (d); and
(3) by redesignating subsections (c) and (e) as subsections
(b) and (d), respectively.
(e) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 601 is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``pipeline safety program'' in the item
relating to section 60105 after ``State'';
(2) by inserting ``pipeline safety'' in the item relating
to section 60106 after ``State''; and
(3) by inserting ``pipeline safety'' in the item relating
to section 60107 after ``State''.
(f) Section 60101.--Section 60101(b) is amended by striking
``define by regulation'' each place it appears and inserting
``prescribe standards defining''.
(g) Section 60102.--Section 60102 is amended by striking
``regulations'' each place it appears in subsections (f)(2),
(i), and (j)(2) and inserting ``standards''.
(h) Section 60108.--Section 60108 is amended--
(1) by striking ``regulations'' in subsections (c)(2)(B),
(c)(4)(B), and (d)(3) and inserting ``standards''; and
(2) by striking ``require by regulation'' in subsection
(c)(4)(A) and inserting ``establish a standard''.
(i) Section 60109.--Section 60109(a) is amended by striking
``regulations'' and inserting ``standards''.
(j) Section 60110.--Section 60110 is amended by striking
``regulations'' in subsections (b), (c)(1), and (c)(2) and
inserting ``standards''.
(k) Section 60113.--Section 60113(a) is amended by striking
``regulations'' and inserting ``standards''.
SEC. 21. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--Section 60125 is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--To carry out this chapter
(except for sections 60107 and 60114(b)) related to gas and
hazardous liquid, there are authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Transportation--
``(1) $19,448,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(2) $20,028,000 for fiscal year 1997, of which
$14,600,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
1997 collected under section 60301 of this title;
``(3) $20,729,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which
$15,100,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
1998 collected under section 60301 of this title;
``(4) $21,442,000 for fiscal year 1999, of which
$15,700,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
1999 collected under section 60301 of this title; and
``(5) $22,194,000 for fiscal year 2000, of which
$16,300,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2000 collected under section 60301 of this title.''.
(b) State Grants.--Section 60125(c)(1) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(D) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.
``(E) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, of which
$12,500,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
1997 collected under section 60301 of this title.
``(F) $14,490,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which
$12,900,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
1998 collected under section 60301 of this title.
``(G) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, of which
$13,300,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
1999 collected under section 60301 of this title.
``(H) $15,524,000 for fiscal year 2000, of which
$13,700,000 is to be derived from user fees for fiscal year
2000 collected under section 60301 of this title.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.
Rahall] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of
my 20 minutes be given to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer],
and that he be permitted to control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my understanding, I could be wrong, is that
those of us in opposition, which I am, are entitled to 20 minutes under
the rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, unless there is some other Member in
opposition, I would ask for the 20 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.
Rahall] opposed to the bill?
Mr. RAHALL. No, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate my
unanimous-consent request and reclaim my time from the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Pallone] is opposed to the bill, he can be recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we extend the
time here by an additional 10 minutes so that we are able to give 5
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], 5 minutes to the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], and 10 minutes to myself,
which I will be liberal with for the first time in my life in order to
share it with others who support this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Shuster] will control 10 minutes, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Schaefer] will control 5 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Rahall] will control 5 minutes, and the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Pallone] will control 20 minutes in opposition.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Shuster]?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of S. 1505, the Accountable Pipeline Safety and
Partnership Act of 1996. The bill authorizes the pipeline safety
program for 5 years. It ensures and oversees the safety of our Nation's
gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. I certainly want to thank my
colleagues for their support.
Pipelines remain the safest form of transportation in our country.
Fatalities from pipeline accidents represent less than 0.003 percent of
the total number of fatalities of all modes of transportation. The bill
we are considering today is a new direction for pipeline safety. In the
last decade, Congress has micromanaged the program. However, because of
the outstanding safety record, we think it makes a lot of sense that
the industry and the Department of Transportation now move away from a
command and control approach to a risk-based approach and that is what
the legislation does.
This has been bipartisan throughout. We have worked with colleagues
on the other side of the aisle. Indeed we have worked with the
Department of Transportation, with all parties who are interested. And
we believe that this is a
[[Page H11535]]
strong safety bill in the right direction and we would urge its
support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 1505,
legislation that would roll back in my opinion the gains made by the
pipeline safety improvement act of 1992, which was largely written by
the former chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Phil Sharp.
That law, which was passed a mere 4 years ago, made positive,
significant public safety and environmental changes to our pipeline
laws.
That law and the protections already on the books are important to
me. About 2 years ago the residents of Edison, NJ, which is in my
district, and communities across the country got a very loud wake-up
call when a natural gas pipeline exploded, sending a fireball hundreds
of feet into the air and destroying the homes of more than 1,000 people
in my district.
This bill, which was drafted primarily with far more input from the
industry than from the House Democrats, allows pipeline operators to
decide for themselves what safety precautions to take and which to
ignore while, making it even more difficult for Federal regulators to
pass new safety requirements. However, as evidenced with the Iroquois
pipeline in New York, there is an inherent conflict of interest that
prevents companies from regulating themselves in a manner that provides
maximum protection to the public.
Unfortunately, despite some lone cries from both parties, this
Congress is set to let the industry govern itself and at the same time
weaken protections in existing law. Right now the law requires that all
individuals responsible for operating and maintaining pipelines be
tested for qualifications and certified to operate and maintain those
pipelines. But the bill before us removes the testing and certification
requirement.
The 1992 act, which I mentioned, required the Department of
Transportation to issue several new safety and environmental protection
regulations. This bill, however, creates risk management demonstration
programs, I will repeat that, risk management demonstration programs
that allow pipeline companies to write their own rules.
Furthermore, the general language is written to give industry maximum
wiggle room. The bill allows DOT to exempt pipelines from current
regulations and forces DOT to release them from future regulations,
including those based upon the public law of 1992 and essentially the
rules that are still pending right now.
The bill is so poorly drafted that it allows pipeline operators who
fail to comply with the plans that they themselves wrote to continue to
regulate themselves. Instead of mandating that companies that are in
substantial noncompliance be automatically kicked out of the program,
it opens the door to allowing those bad actors to remain exempt from
the rules that every one else has to play by.
This bill also deletes a requirement in current law requiring that
pipelines be inch inspected at least once every 2 years. If you think
about the Edison accident, after that accident the DOT and everyone who
was involved thought the inspection should be more frequent. This bill
says they do not even have to do it every 2 years.
The bill would undermine a DOT regulation that allows DOT to require
companies to replace old pipes with new pipelines that are able to be
inspected by an internal inspection device, also known as a smart pig.
During the Edison accident aftermath there was much suggestion that
smart pigs be used wherever possible. This does not require that
anymore. By changing the underlying basis for the DOT rule, pipeline
companies would now be able to successfully overturn current regulation
in court.
The bill also removes a requirement in current law that DOT, when
issuing a standard, has to consider the extent to which the standard
contributes to safety and environmental protection. The bill replaces
this with risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. This is the
Contract With America risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis that I
thought that this Congress had rejected.
Furthermore, the bill would add more industry representation to the
two committees that would serve to peer review the risk assessment/
cost-benefits processes, while leaving in place weak conflict-of-
interest provisions.
Finally, perhaps most egregiously, this bill completely changes
environmental language in current law to benefit the oil industry. It
undermines wetlands protection and removes the requirement to identify
pipelines in earthquake zones. And, to add insult to injury, it removes
a mandate for regular inspection of pipelines in environmentally
sensitive areas.
I just have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the New Jersey
delegation has worked hard to improve this bill. On the Senate side,
amendments were added by Senators Lautenberg and Bradley that would
require DOT to study effectiveness of remote shutoff valves, and if the
study finds them technically or economically feasible, would require
DOT to publish standards for their use where they would reduce risk.
It also contains language requiring criminal penalties for dumping in
pipeline rights-of-way. That is something that Mr. Schaefer put in at
my request, and I appreciate that. And it retains a House Democratic
amendment authorizing DOT to engage in public education to promote One-
Call and pipeline damage prevention, again something that Mr. Schaefer
put in the bill at my request, and I appreciate that.
These are poison-coated carrots, I think, meant to entice us into
supporting a bill that will ultimately undermine the very protections
we support. Even with these additions by the New Jersey delegation,
this is a bad bill.
None of this bill's provisions have ever been the subject of
legislative hearings in either the House or the Senate. Last year, as
part of their Contract With America, the House Republicans rammed a
dangerous industry-drafted bill through two committees without
significant Democratic input. That bill has been sitting in limbo for
well over a year.
But because the original bill contained risk assessment language that
condemned it to a near certain Presidential veto, Republicans finally
sat down with us and other Democrats to negotiate a new bipartisan
bill. But Republicans broke off negotiations, for example, after only
one session because they realized that they could get a better deal by
forcing the Senate bill on the Democrats. That is what we are getting
here today. That is wrong.
We went to the table in good faith. We were prepared to make a deal
and help move it through the House and Senate on a truly bipartisan and
inclusive basis, which is what should happen. Instead we have this:
broken-off negotiations and a bill that we are being denied our right
to amend. The process stinks. It is unnecessary process.
If it was brought under normal circumstances, this would be subject
to a point of order because it has a $6 million pay-as-you-go
violation. No amendments. It undermines safety and environmental
protection. It is opposed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the
American Oceans Campaign, and the Center for Marine Conservation.
I urge my colleagues, before you vote, think about this. Do you
really know what you are getting into in this Senate bill? I am here to
tell you that this is not what you think. This is not something that is
going to move forward on protections for pipelines. It is harmful. It
deserves to be defeated. It is really backtracking on the issue of
pipeline safety in this country. It deserves to be defeated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am astonished at the gentleman's comments when he says the House
Democrats did not have an opportunity to participate. I recognize that
his committee does not have primary jurisdiction and they may be very
upset about that, but the facts are the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has primary jurisdiction over
[[Page H11536]]
this, and the Democrats on our committee were full partners throughout
the process when this legislation was crafted.
Further, there were hearings held on this legislation and, further,
this legislation passed the Senate unanimously, passed our Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, which has primary jurisdiction,
unanimously.
Indeed, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Senator
Lautenberg, said this on the floor of the Senate: ``The bill before us
enhances our existing pipeline safety program in a number of ways.'' He
goes on to list those ways. He also goes on to say that the bill would
also increase funding for pipeline safety programs and make other
improvements.
It passed the Senate unanimously; passed our committee unanimously.
Now at this 11th hour suddenly we find that the committee which does
not have primary jurisdiction, but I guess would like to have
jurisdiction, is on the floor opposing this legislation. I regret that.
{time} 1630
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, S. 1505, the Accountable Pipeline Safety
and Partnership Act of 1996 reauthorizes the Natural Gas and Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Safety Acts both of which expired in September of last
year.
Natural gas and oil pipelines play a vital role in getting energy to
market. In the United States there are approximately 280,000 miles of
natural gas transmission lines and 1.5 million miles of gas
distribution lines. Hazardous liquid pipelines consist of over 200,000
miles of pipeline. Even with this extensive pipeline network, oil and
gas pipelines have maintained a remarkable safety record. However,
because of the enormous potential for loss of life or harm to the
environment from a pipeline rupture, it is important that we make sure
our national pipeline system operates as safely as possible.
The bill we are considering today, S. 1505, is a compromise version
of a bill passed last year by the Commerce Committee, Like the House
bill, H.R. 1323, S. 1505 changes the way pipelines will be regulated in
the future. In the past, Congress responded to specific accidents by
creating inflexible, one-size fits all mandates which were applied to
all pipelines. The result has been a layering of congressional
mandates, which don't necessarily lead to improved safety, and in some
instances may even divert limited resources away from more promising
safety measures.
S. 1505, like its House predecessor, gets away from the old approach,
by requiring the Department of Transportation to conduct a risk
assessment for new pipeline safety regulations. In addition, S. 1505
establishes a voluntary, 4-year risk management demonstration project
at DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety.
Under this demonstration program, pipeline operators would be allowed
to assess the unique safety risks associated with their pipelines,
create specific safety measures tailored to a pipeline or a segment of
pipelines, and implement these measures subject to DOT approval and
management. DOT would have the responsibility of ensuring that the risk
management proposal contains provisions designed to provide an equal or
greater level of safety than currently exists under the statute.
S. 1505 also makes a number of smaller and technical changes. Among
other things, pipeline operators must now be qualified rather than
certified to operate a pipeline, the definition of environmentally
sensitive areas is clarified, and DOT is given authority to enter into
agreements with States and other entities to promote pipeline safety.
S. 1505 lowers the user fees pipelines must collect to pay for the
pipeline safety program. The improvements made to the pipeline safety
program by this bill will result in less costly and more effective
regulation of pipelines. Importantly, the user fees, while lower than
DOT's original request, are significantly higher than the amounts
authorized in the House bill. Keeping pipeline safety user fees at a
reasonable level will assure that consumers can afford to purchase
clean burning, environmentally friendly natural gas and will help keep
the cost of heating oil and gasoline at reasonable levels.
I believe DOT can run an efficient and effective Office of Pipeline
Safety with the money authorized in S. 1505, given the fact that more
emphasis will be placed on risk management and risk assessment as
opposed to command and control regulation. S. 1505 is the kind of
innovative solutions we need to ensure responsible regulation while
controlling the cost of government.
Overall, I believe S. 1505 will improve an already high level of
safety on our Nation's interstate pipelines. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I come from an area of the country where, at times,
terror springs forth from deep within the Earth. The ground shakes,
fire and smoke belch forth, the siren wails, and then the process of
counting the dead begins.
It is unfortunate, but true, that this is part of the legacy of
underground coal mining in Appalachia. For deep within many of these
mines stalks a silent killer: It is known as methane gas. As it
accumulates, it takes just one spark to set off a disaster that leaves
many families without a father, son, or daughter.
In many parts of the country, another potential silent killer lies
beneath the ground. It is the natural gas that flows through the 1.6
million miles of pipelines which run through rural and urban areas
alike. A natural gas pipeline, lying beneath the Earth, can explode,
and it can cause the same terror, the same trauma, and the same
consequences to life and property as occurs with mine disasters.
It is from this perspective that I approach the pending measure, and
it is from this perspective why I am pleased to rise in support of the
pending legislation, Mr. Speaker.
The basic purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the natural gas and
hazardous liquid pipeline safety programs through the year 2000. In
this regard, the pending legislation provides authorization levels that
are consistent with the administration's budget request for the Office
of Pipeline Safety.
The bottom line is that this legislation would not diminish pipeline
safety whatsoever.
At the same time, it provides the necessary authorization for the
Office of Pipeline Safety to continue with its very important work of
ensuring the safety of the American public as their safety relates to
potential hazards associated with gas and liquid pipeline.
I would note as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] noted,
that this bill passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion, and it is
generally supported by the Office of Pipeline Safety at the Department
of Transportation.
In this body, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
reported a reauthorization, as has already been stated bill on May 1,
1995. We did so in a bipartisan fashion.
Under a sequential referral, the Commerce Committee reported its
version on June 1, 1995. It did not do so in a bipartisan fashion, and
that is where we find ourselves today.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is bipartisan in its
support of the pending measure. In fact, from my perspective, the
Senate version is superior to what the Transportation Committee
Democrats agreed to last year.
This is because the risk assessment provisions of the Senate bill are
far more flexible than what was in the House bill, and basically
comports with what the Office of Pipeline Safety is already
undertaking. Further, the Senate bill has a higher authorization level
than what is in the House measures.
I see my very good friend from Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the
Committee on Commerce, on the floor at this moment, and I realize fully
that my distinguished friend from Michigan and his Committee on
Commerce views itself rather as being second to none. Indeed our
friendship is probably second to none in this body.
[[Page H11537]]
It is a powerful committee, and it deserves our respect with all due
respect to my friend. But in this case, in this particular piece of
legislation, it is the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
which has the primary jurisdiction in this body, and we are united in
our support thereof, Democrat and Republican alike.
So I would urge my Democratic colleagues to support the pending
measure and certainly realize that this came out of the bipartisan
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my affection and respect
for the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] and also the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I want to point out that
we on the Committee on Commerce have no concerns about the jurisdiction
or jurisdictional questions or the referrals of these matters. I want
to talk a little about the history of how this bill came to be and what
is in it and why, perhaps, it ought to be rejected.
First of all, the bill was only voted out of the Senate last night.
No legislative hearings were held upon this bill either in the House or
in the Senate. The bill, if my colleagues will read it, is poorly
drafted and it is ambiguous. The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure broke off discussions and negotiations with the other
committees last week, so there have been no real discussions during
that time.
The threat to communities from unsafe pipelines is real. In 1994, a
gas pipeline explosion destroyed an apartment complex in Edison, NJ. In
1993, a leak in the Colonial Oil Pipeline in Fairfax County, VA, caused
extensive property and environmental damage, and other events of this
kind are waiting to happen.
The bill allows, in a rather curious provision, the Department of
Transportation to substitute a voluntary demonstration project for real
regulation. That is hardly protecting the public safety or public
interest. It does not ensure public participation when the Department
of Transportation considers whether or not a pipeline should be exempt
from regulation. That is possible even for pipelines which go through
heavily settled metropolitan areas where some fine, fine explosions
could occur. The bill discontinues the existing requirement that
pipelines be inspected every 2 years, even in high density communities
or in environmentally sensitive areas.
Now, there are a lot of questions about this bill: Does the bill
undermine rulemaking protections under the Administrative Procedure
Act? The language of it indicates yes, that it does undermine the
Administrative Procedure Act's requirements.
The bill also raises questions of whether the APA applies or not. I
do not believe that any member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure can tell us whether in fact it applies or not.
The question arises are the safety standards referred to in section
60102 required to be set by rulemaking? Are they going to be done
publicly? Or will they be done in some curious, sneaky, dishonest,
underhanded fashion in the dark of night without public participation?
Another question: What is going to happen to existing and pending
pipeline safety standards? How will this requirement affect DOT's
pending rule for replacing pipelines to facilitate better safety
inspections? What kind of delay is this going to introduce in
finalizing that rule?
Now, there is a question of demonstration projects in public
participation. The bill permits DOT to set up demonstration projects
for pipelines in lieu of existing regulation.
What does that mean?
Question: Does DOT consider an application under this type of
exemption? If it does, can local citizens participate? Are exemptions
done through rulemaking where they can be challenged in court? Are
citizens' comments to be a part of the public record, or will we hear
only from pipeline executives? Will pipeline executives function in
some kind of a curious darkened place where there is no public
participation?
The bill significantly alters wetland protections. It sets up some
new category of critical wetlands. These are not defined in the bill.
Question: What are these curious types of wetlands? Are they better or
worse? Are they entitled to different protections than other wetlands?
And what does this all mean?
Now there is one other little item that is in this: peer review. The
question here is, does the secretary have to put a peer review panel
above the other rulemaking process? Does he bring into the peer review
process ordinary citizens? Who is to be on this peer review panel? Are
they going to be pipeline lobbyists or pipeline lawyers or pipeline
executives or will ordinary citizens be permitted to participate in
this? Is the mayor of a community that a major pipeline goes through
going to be involved in this, or will there be representatives of
cities and counties and local governments and safety authorities and
fire insurance people and specialists in public safety of all kinds?
The hard fact here is this bill drips questions, this bill raises
more questions than it answers. It puts in place loopholes which raise
questions about public safety. It was done in a very curious fashion.
There have been no hearings. Nobody of the Transportation Committee can
tell us what is in the bill. The Transportation Committee endorses it
with great enthusiasm, and perhaps that is because they do not really
know what is in the bill.
The bill raises the fine question then of whether we should perhaps
reject it because we are supposed to pass a bill on which there can be
no amendments, without adequate discussion, in a period of 40 minutes
which is going to raise fine questions later as to public safety.
I would remind my colleagues that in the 1940's there was a natural
gas explosion in the City of Cleveland which cost the citizens of
Cleveland better than $300 million. That was in 1940's dollars; that
was a huge sum. Enormous numbers of buildings were destroyed, citizens
were destituted, and the consequences were horrible to see.
The pipeline explosion which occurred in New Jersey was a spectacular
event. It was reminiscent of an atom bomb going off.
I would say that in the addressing of questions of pipeline safety we
should consider the need to be concerned about the well-being of the
pipelines. We also should be aware of the need to be concerned about
the safety of citizens and about the mechanisms that government has to
assure the safety of citizens from risks of leaking or exploding
pipelines or fires which are associated with leaks in these pipelines.
I urge the rejection of this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
(Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to follow the
unanimous lead of the Senate and of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure in adopting the measure before us. I would like to be
clear that the Senate bill we are currently considering is based on a
House bill that was favorably reported last year by both the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Committee on
Commerce. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved
the bill by a unanimous voice vote.
{time} 1645
The only significant differences between the Senate bill that is
before us and the bill approved by our committees are less prescriptive
risk assessment provisions and increased authorization levels. The risk
assessment provisions were developed with the United States Department
of Transportation and reflect the current practices of the Office of
Pipeline Safety, in accordance with President Clinton's executive order
regarding cost-benefit analysis.
This risk assessment approach is particularly suited to the pipeline
safety program, as facts clearly show that pipelines remain the safest
form of transportation. Fatalities from pipeline accidents represent
only three one-thousandths of 1 percent of the total number of annual
transportation fatalities.
[[Page H11538]]
The second major new initiative in the bill before us, which was also
included in the bill that our committees earlier adopted, is a pilot
project to demonstrate the safety and cost-effectiveness of risk
management.
This provision gives statutory authority to a program already under
development by the department. The goal of risk management is to focus
resources on the greatest risks and improve protection of the public,
rather than proposing a one-size-fits-all regulatory straitjacket and
wasting resources and endangering the public by not focusing on where
we can do the most good.
A participant may submit a risk management safety plan for approval
by the Secretary that would achieve a level of safety that is equal to
or greater than that which would be achieved by following existing
regulations. So we give them flexibility to improve safety, not to
lower safety. I think it is something we should be encouraging.
In return, the pipeline owner or operator would be allowed to operate
free of the regulations that may be proved unnecessary based on the
safety plan submitted.
Mr. Speaker, I would note, as I said before, that the Senate passed
this legislation by unanimous consent. We have worked for 18 months to
reach the point we are today. Because this bill will improve pipeline
safety by allowing the Department of Transportation and pipeline owners
and operators to focus and allocate resources on the greatest risks to
public safety and environment, I would urge the House to pass the bill
before us.
In conclusion, I would like to thank our colleagues, the gentleman
from West Virginia, Nick Rahall, the ranking minority member of the
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, as well as the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, and the gentleman from Minnesota, Jim
Oberstar, for their support in the past, and their hard work on this
important legislation.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Bob Franks, a member of the
Committee on Transportation, has worked diligently on this issue for a
number of years, and so has the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Schaefer,
and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, of the Committee on
Commerce, which shares jurisdiction over the pipeline safety program.
Finally, I would like to recognize the many hours that the Department
of Transportation has devoted to this legislation. I think it is a
good, worthwhile product, and we should adopt it today.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this bill be rejected. Let me just give the
Members the very simple five-step program to understanding this bill.
Step No. 1: The Department of Transportation finds a very serious
problem in pipelines across the United States. They might explode, for
some reason or another, because of some defect which they have found in
pipelines nationally, a very serious problem, a great public safety
problem in community after community across the United States.
Step No. 2: The Department of Transportation decides to promulgate a
rule in order to ensure that the public safety will be protected
against the defects which have been created in pipelines in
neighborhoods near where children play all across the United States.
Step No. 3: The bill, as constructed by the authors, then forces an
extremely complex risk assessment cost-benefit analysis of whether or
not these pipelines should in fact be repaired or the changes made in
the methodology that in the future will ensure that all of the
citizens, all of the children that live in these neighborhoods, will be
protected.
Step No. 4: An industry-dominated peer review panel reviews the rule
and then dissents from it. It says to the Department of Transportation,
as the peer review panel we really do not think that this rule is
necessary.
The interesting thing is that under the bill, the peer review panel
that has this right to dissent is packed with, guess what, pipeline
company officials, who will have to change the way in which they make
these pipes that are endangering the children in the neighborhoods.
Now, with this peer review panel packed with pipeline officials that
make their living off of these pipes, they say no, we dissent. We do
not think the rule should go into place.
Then, step No. 5: The lawyers for the pipeline companies then use the
dissent of the peer review panel at the Department of Transportation as
the basis for their lawsuit, which keeps the rule from going on the
books for years in this country. Meanwhile, the pipelines continue to
exist or continue to be built that endanger the children in the
neighborhoods of this country.
Mr. Speaker, how in the world can we in good conscience, with less
than 1 day left to go in the Congress, with so little understanding of
what this impact could be, cater to the special interests of pipeline
companies and give them this opportunity of railroading through here
this inoculation against the guarantee that the people of this country
will be protected?
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Hall].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Hall].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] is
recognized for 3 minutes.
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1505,
the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act. This legislation is not really
a stranger to this House. In fact, it is similar to the legislation
that passed the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure over a
year ago.
Mr. Speaker, the bill reaches some important compromises on several
issues that were contentious in the House. If I recollect, the
gentleman from New Jersey had some problems with some of those.
Frankly, I had thought the gentleman had done such a good job
representing the people of New Jersey that he had had his problems
solved over there. I am surprised to find out today that he has not. I
admire his spunk in standing up and taking the positions he has taken.
I think we have reached out the hands to try to take care of the
problems that were set forth. If not, had I known so 2 weeks ago, we
would have done our best to have addressed them.
Really and truly, Mr. Speaker, the bill reaches all types of
important compromises. I think first, the risk assessment cost-benefit
analysis in the Senate bill is significantly less prescriptive than
last year's regulatory reform legislation.
Senators John Glenn and Carl Levin, the senior Democrats on the
Senate Government Affairs Committee, agree. According to these two
Senators, I understand that their position is that the risk assessment
provision in S. 1505 is carefully tailored to the pipeline safety
program at the Department of Transportation, and represents a fair and
reasonable approach, so they said. This provision has the support of
the Department of Transportation.
Second, S. 1505 contains a risk management demonstration project
which is virtually identical to a provision in the House legislation.
Some have suggested that this program will exempt pipeline operators
from existing pipeline safety regulations. Of course that is not so.
Under the voluntary demonstration program, pipeline operators would be
given the opportunity to submit alternative safety plans to the
Department of Transportation which address the unique safety concerns
of that pipeline system.
The Department of Transportation would have to certify that the risk
management plan provided an equal or greater level of safety than
existing regulations before the plan could be approved. This is not a
plan for thwarting regulations, it is a way of providing an even higher
level of safety than simply sticking to minimum safety standards.
Last, this bill provides a more than adequate budget for DOT to carry
out its pipeline safety program. The authorization figures in S. 1505
are significantly higher than those contained in last year's bill, and
have the support of both DOT and the regulated industry.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoyed unanimous bipartisan support in
the other body just yesterday. It is not anything new. They passed it
unanimously over there, Republicans and
[[Page H11539]]
Democrats alike. I do not see any reason why, Mr. Speaker, it should
not be approved today and receive the same overwhelming support in this
Chamber today.
I am really a little surprised that there is even any opposition to
it. The bill is going to continue to provide the Department of
Transportation the necessary tools to continue to protect the public
safety and the environment. I urge Members' support.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention, because I know different
statements were made, that there is no administration position on this
legislation. To characterize it and say that the President has said
whether he will support this bill or not is simply not accurate. There
is no position at this time.
In addition, I would like to point out again that we are talking
about a bill that passed the Senate and that came over here today.
There was no conference on this bill. In fact, the House versions of
the bill, even though they passed the two committees, the Committee on
Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, never
were reconciled and never came to the floor of the House. So there was
no hearing on the Senate bill, and the Senate bill is very different in
many respects from the House versions in both of the two committees.
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned, because 2 years ago when the
explosion occurred in my district, in Edison, NJ, there were officials
who came in from the Office of Pipeline Safety. There was an
investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. They made a
series of recommendations as to what should be done in the future with
pipeline safety.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a lot of those recommendations have not
been met. Essentially what came out of the Edison explosion, I feel,
was a feeling nationally that was expressed by many organizations that
more needed to be done to protect residents, to protect the average
American from the dangers of pipelines that were not properly inspected
or that were subject to risks for various reasons.
We have had many incidents since that time, and in fact, I was given
a press article that was actually in the Associated Press just a couple
of weeks ago, September 26, 1996: ``U.S. orders Colonial to test entire
pipeline, from Dallas. The Nation's biggest petroleum pipeline is
hazardous, and its owners have been ordered to test the entire 1,500
mile line, from Texas through to the Carolinas to New Jersey,'' a
Federal official said. I mentioned the Iroquois pipeline before.
The bottom line is that there is every reason to believe that there
needs to be more protection because of problems with pipelines. Yes,
what do we get instead? We have a Congress now that, instead of
reacting to that in a progressive way, instead puts in place a
regressive, if you will, method of essentially downgrading and turning
the clock back, if you will, on the way we go about pipeline
inspections right now.
The germ of all this is that risk assessment procedure. What we have
essentially, and I listened to some of the comments made by my
colleague on the other side of this issue, what we have essentially
here is an effort to put into this bill the risk assessment ideology,
if you will, that existed in the Contract With America, that says that
industry knows best; that industry, through demonstration programs,
should be allowed to get out of existing rules or existing requirements
and basically do what they want: set up their own safety standards, do
their own testing, do their own investigation. That is not the way it
should be. There is too much of a conflict of interest here.
Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a prime example of how the Gingrich
Congress, the 104th Congress, basically lets industry write the laws.
Those industry laws, those laws are written in a way that hurt the
average American, do not provide protection, safety protections for the
average American.
Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this Congress had learned a lesson,
that that was not the way to go. But this legislation if it passes
today is going to be a prime example of exactly the type of legislation
that we passed under that risk assessment procedure, under that
procedure that says that we need to downgrade regulations, we do not
need to protect the average American, we need to let industry do its
own investigation, its own enforcement, as it sees fit.
{time} 1700
I see a basic conflict of interest there. I think if you look at the
explosions and you look at what has been happening with pipeline safety
over the last few years, you can tell that that is not the way to go,
and yet that is what we have in this instance.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. The fact of the matter
is this legislation has been hanging around, dragging along, whatever,
for a long, long time.
The natural gas industry, though, is an industry that is rapidly
developing. That is one bright spot as we try to become energy
dependent. Natural gas is the way that we achieve a lot of that, and so
it is very important that we have some rules of the road. That is why
this bill is so important.
It seems to have been worked out in a bipartisan compromise. That is
the way that we ought to be doing that, and we ought to give those in
the natural gas industry and those who also make their living from the
natural gas industry and those who live in the gas fields, we ought to
give them that predictability.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone]
that I never said the President supported this bill. I said the Office
of Pipeline Safety within DOT supports this legislation.
In regard to the risk assessment provisions, we did not and we have
not in this bill taken the risk assessment language of the Contract
With America word for word. We have made it more flexible. We have
actually improved the risk assessment language, and the Senate bill
went even further than our original House legislation.
We made it more flexible. We have increased the authorization levels
for the Office of Pipeline Safety. So we have dramatically improved
this bill over what it was originally, and it is not the prescriptive
language that the gentleman from New Jersey would ascribe to it. I
would say in addition to that, we have had hearings on this issue. It
has gone on for well over 18 months as we have heard now. We have not
had hearings on the Senate bill precisely but we have had hearings on
this issue and it has been dealt with quite a bit.
We asked the gentleman from New Jersey early on in the process,
throughout the process, what are his recommendations for improving the
bill, what are his amendments, please present them in the process and
we will talk further with you and negotiate further with you. We
received no such process. So yes, I guess in that sense the process did
break down.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of this measure today, a
measure that was supported by both U.S. Senators from my home State of
New Jersey. I do so because the impact of this bill will be to focus
additional resources on areas that present the greatest potential risk.
For a highly developed, densely populated State like New Jersey, with
hundreds of miles of pipeline and densely populated areas, this
approach will have a positive impact, leading to more frequent
inspections and greater use of safety enhancing technologies.
Instead of spreading out resources to provide for the same level of
safety for every mile of pipeline, whether it is located in the
wilderness or next to an apartment complex, the provisions of this bill
will allow pipeline companies greater flexibility in defining a program
to enhance safety, not less safety
[[Page H11540]]
but equal and enhanced safety measures.
Mr. Speaker, let me finally point out that the existing command and
control structure did not help the residents of Durham Woods. It is
under the old system of command and control that that explosion took
place. We need to invest greater resources in areas that present the
greatest risk.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, frankly, I was quite surprised to hear this legislation
attacked by my good friend from New Jersey when indeed both New Jersey
Senators not only support this legislation, but Senator Lautenberg, who
has dedicated his life to transportation safety, has been a vigorous
supporter of this legislation and, indeed, has put an extensive
statement in the Congressional Record in support of this legislation.
Further, I am surprised to hear attacks on risk assessment, because
the risk assessment in this legislation starts with the position the
administration has taken on risk assessment and in fact toughens it up.
We all know, nobody disputes, that pipeline is the safest form of
transportation we have. Indeed, I think at bottom, what this really
boils down to, this debate, is a debate between the old command and
control, ``Washington knows best'' point of view and the point of view
which says let's modernize, let's look to the future instead of the
past, let's put our focus in those areas where we need the most
emphasis and not try to micromanage an industry.
So for all of those reasons, I believe that this bipartisan
legislation should be vigorously supported, and I would urge its
passage.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1505, the
Accountable Pipeline Safety Act. This bill is a modified version of
H.R. 1323 which was passed out of the Commerce Committee last year. It
is a good bill and will protect the public and the environment from
hazards posed by natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. And it
will do so in a more cost-effective manner.
I have long been concerned with the safe operation of natural gas and
hazardous liquid pipelines. Since 1980, there have been at least seven
pipeline ruptures in the State of Virginia. The most recent occurred in
Fairfax County, VA, when approximately 9,000 gallons of diesel was
spilled due to third party damage to a pipeline. Another accident in
1989 forced the city of Fredericksburg to shut down its city water
intake when 5,000 gallons of kerosene were spilled.
I believe it is vitally important that our natural gas and oil
pipelines are operated in as safe a manner as possible. S. 1505, like
H.R. 1323, takes a new and better approach to pipeline safety. In the
past, the Congress approached pipeline safety by requiring the
Department of Transportation to implement Federal minimum standards
which all pipelines are required to meet. Both industry and DOT agree
that this is not an efficient use of resources.
The risk assessment and risk management approach taken in S. 1505
will result in improved safety at lower costs. The Commerce Committee
is committed to the concept of risk assessment and I believe it is
appropriate to apply it to pipeline safety regulations. In this case,
this modified risk approach will benefit those living or working near
pipelines by making them safer, as well as benefit consumers who pay
for the cost of the pipeline safety program by lowering user fees.
I commend the subcommittee chairman and the chairmen from the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their hard work on this
bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] that the House suspend the
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 1505.
The question was taken.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________